Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I fully understand where my colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni is going with this motion. He, like me, is a health professional, and he knows the importance of innovating and changing our models and procedures if we want a more effective health care system.
Unfortunately, I have a few concerns about the motion. My first concern has to do with the importance of preserving a public health care system. This motion makes no mention of whether these innovations, this research and these new practices seek to preserve our public health care system and ensure that everyone continues to have access to health care. I had the opportunity to ask my colleague a question about that. He did not directly answer the question on the importance of preserving the public health care system. That is one of my concerns about the motion.
The other concern or question that I have regarding the motion has to do with the understanding of what is written between the lines. When we talk about innovation, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, those things are more about structuring health care, which comes under provincial jurisdiction. I would like to remind the House of the federal government's role in health care. This can be summarized into five responsibilities. First of all, there is access to health care for certain groups, including first nations, veterans, the RCMP, correctional services and the Canadians Forces. The second responsibility has to do with health protections. Third, there is the health promotion aspect, as well as disease prevention and awareness strategies. The fourth area is health research. When it comes to innovation in health research, the two aspects do fit in with the federal government's mandate on health. The fifth responsibility pertains to financial support for the provincial health care systems.
However, the way work is organized in hospitals does not fall under federal jurisdiction. It really falls under provincial jurisdiction. This would include a holistic approach, for example. As a professional, that is the type of approach that I promote. However, it is first up to the professional bodies, which fall under provincial jurisdiction, to determine the direction they want to take and how they want their members to redirect their efforts and change their way of doing things. It is really a provincial issue. It falls under provincial jurisdiction.
There are many other words that one needs to understand. “Cost-effectiveness” and “effectiveness” for example, pertain to determining whether it is cheaper and just as effective to have two practical nurses and two nurses on a health care team rather than two nurses, one practical nurse and one health care attendant. How the work is organized not only falls under provincial jurisdiction but it is also the domain of the hospitals.
Right now, hospitals are already sharing information when they conduct pilot projects or try different approaches, for example, and that is working very well. They will often publish scientific information on what they tried so that other hospitals or jurisdictions that may want to try the same thing can use that information. The information is already being shared. However, having the federal government directly interfere with the organization of work is going way too far.
The third part of the motion moved by my colleague from Nickel Belt with respect to the dementia strategy referred to health promotion and disease prevention. That fits in well with the federal government's mandate. However, the organization of work intrudes too much into the provinces' jurisdiction.
The motion also refers to being collaborative and interdisciplinary in character. Once again, excellent approaches have been tried across the country with good results. Nevertheless, this is a provincial jurisdiction.
I believe that the provinces continue to try to implement initiatives. Their efforts are based on what is done elsewhere, and they use models from other countries, for example, but this is still a provincial jurisdiction. To my mind, the motion goes too far in that regard.
When we talk about a health care model, we are talking about policies for professional practices and the various occupations. When we talk about teams, we are referring here to the provinces, which still have different professional bodies and designations. For example, when we talk about massage therapists, they do not currently have an association or recognized federation in Quebec. Thus, we have a problem. We do not even have the same starting point from one province to the next. There is still work to be done. A motion like this one makes things extremely complex from a federal perspective.
What I want to say is that most professions and provinces realize that they must innovate, and they are already sharing information. However, when we talk about really putting in place a national strategy, I believe that this intrudes too much into the provinces' jurisdiction.
The federal government has really neglected funding for the provinces. Let us not forget that the member for Nanaimo—Alberni was still a Conservative caucus member when the government decided to cut provincial health transfers by $36 billion. It decided to unilaterally end the provincial and territorial health accords and to shut down the Health Council of Canada, which was responsible for introducing innovation. I think there is a contradiction there. The government is not respecting the provinces' jurisdiction. In addition, it is not giving them the funding they need for implementation.
Canada has asymmetrical federalism. Quebec can have separate arrangements with Canada. When the government provides health funding, the Government of Quebec has to use that money to implement its own plan to ensure access to quality health care in a timely fashion and to reduce wait times.
It is therefore critical that the provinces retain their independence when it comes to how they organize how the work is done on the ground. They have to be able to decide how they want to improve effectiveness. I believe the provinces do that by considering the available scientific data and looking at what is being done elsewhere. I believe that they take all of that into account when determining their priorities and that they make changes to improve their health system on the basis of their priorities.
That is why, as an MP, I cannot accept a motion that intrudes too far into provincial jurisdiction. I want to make sure that the health system remains a public health system above all. Unfortunately, the member refused to give me a clear sense of whether he really believes that the system should remain public.