Debates of April 14th, 2016

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Indigenous Affairs

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am really thankful for the opportunity to talk about a question that I asked on March 8. I am going to read the question and the response, because it is critical for people to understand why I am so concerned with the response.

The question was as follows:

Mr. Speaker, a recent lawsuit by the SSN is looking to declare aboriginal title over private property. The Premier of British Columbia responded that government must defend with conviction the sanctity of private land and private land rights. Furthermore, she told the people of Kamloops she has their backs.

There was no such message from the federal government. Will the justice minister stand shoulder to shoulder with the premier of B.C. and defend private property ownership?

This is absolutely critical. I would ask members to listen very carefully to the response that I received from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. She thanked me for the question, and then stated:

Our government is committed to developing a substantive nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples in this country, sitting down and working jointly, based on recognition and moving forward in order to ensure that indigenous communities can have an improved quality of life, can settle, ultimately, the land question, and do it based on respect and based on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I think members can understand why this answer was very concerning. The minister talked about the government's mandate, which the Liberals have been very clear about. They have said that they have a goal of settling long-standing land claim issues. That is an important goal, and we recognize that it is an important goal, but what she did not acknowledge is that as they go about that process, there will be an impact on people. It is really important to talk about that. I know that a tepid response was given to this particular lawsuit and that they will be responding to it, but it is important to recognize that this is going to have very far-reaching ramifications.

As well, the ruling in the Daniels case today is going to add an additional complexity to the job the government has ahead of it, but it is also going to have an impact on private property and sometimes small businesses. I can give a couple of examples: after the Tsilhqot'in decision, I received a very powerful letter from a man who is 70-some years old. He had a trap line and had invested a lot of money in his small business. Ranchers in northern British Columbia will be very significantly impacted due to a settlement of one of the treaties.

The bottom line is the government is going to have to be proactive and absolutely deal with the long-standing issues, but it will also have to deal with private property rights and local community small business owners.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, our government is committed to renewing the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples on a nation-to-nation basis.

This relationship will be based on respect, co-operation, and partnership. A renewed nation-to-nation relationship is a political goal, but it reflects a history of crown-indigenous relations. Nation-to-nation relations are not a revolutionary break with our legal and constitutional order, but an evolution closer to the promise of section 35 of our Constitution as outlined in jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada.

Canada modernized its constitution in 1982 to reflect a confident, inclusive, and just country that respects diversity, with balance for individual and collective rights. In particular, section 35 recognizes indigenous peoples and provides protection for their rights. The inclusion of section 35 is a turning point in Canadian history.

It is to this end that the Supreme Court of Canada has encouraged a purposive view of section 35 and its promise of a balanced relationship between the crown and indigenous peoples. We can see this balanced approach presented in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision that was referred to by my colleague, the Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, from June 2014.

The court held that the Tsilhqot’in Nation has title to approximately 1,750 square kilometres of land in the interior of British Columbia. In the decision, the indigenous perspective and legal traditions were given equal weight to common law property concepts, for example, what goes into proving title, how title content is defined by indigenous views, and how justification has to take into account indigenous perspectives as well as the interest of the general public.

The Supreme Court of Canada did not address the issue of what happens when third party property interests intersect with title. However, an essential part of section 35 is to find an appropriate balance to reconcile the sometimes competing rights, claims, and ambitions of indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians.

Reconciliation will be a multi-generational journey, requiring hard work and compromise by both indigenous nations and Canada's institutions. All Canadians will benefit from a balanced and respectful dialogue.

I would like to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for bringing this question forward, and indeed for bringing the question forward in a manner that allows for a more complete response and opportunity to emphasize the balanced approach that will be necessary in this and in all land claim disputes involving indigenous peoples.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, we do acknowledge that much has to be done, and there is going to have to be hard work in settling these long-standing indigenous land claims.

I want to hear from the government that as it goes about this process that it will consider the farmers, trappers, and ranchers who have been active on the land and who have lived side by side since the early days of Confederation.

Furthermore, this is going to have a very significant effect. This question was put forward to the National Chief Perry Bellegarde. He used a quote and said that we must have “peace in the valley”. I thought that was a very nice statement.

As the government does the work, it has to have a recognition in terms of third party owners. I would urge it to adopt a policy of “avoid, mitigate, compensate” when these settlements intersect in a way that creates undue hazards.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, our government is committed to renewing the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples on a nation-to-nation basis.

This relationship will be based on respect, co-operation, and partnership. We support a vision of Canada that reflects a confident, inclusive, and just country that respects diversity, with balance for individual and collective rights. This includes recognition of indigenous peoples and their rights, as contained in section 35 of our Constitution.

Balancing and recognizing all of our interests is a nation-building challenge. Reconciliation will be a multi-generational journey requiring hard work by all of us.

Health

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, on January 27, I asked the hon. Minister of Health about a central principle of the Canada Health Act: equal access for all Canadians to health care.

In many places across this country, including my home province of Saskatchewan, wealthy Canadians are getting preferred access to health care services; most notably, MRIs.

Because the Canada Health Act outlaws user fees, and the unequal access to health services is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the law, I asked the health minister when she would act to enforce the Canada Health Act and crack down on private payments.

The minister's answer was that she had met with provincial and territorial health ministers and that she is “determined to make sure that Canadians will always be able to access the appropriate care they require based on need, and not ability to pay”.

While I was encouraged to hear of the minister's strong commitment to the Canada Health Act, I regret that, to date, the minister has yet to announce what she will do to uphold this commitment.

I am gravely concerned that Saskatchewan is not only allowing but actually encouraging the privatization of health care; namely, private MRI services.

Where is the universality of access if special access to MRIs is given to those who can afford to pay?

The Saskatchewan Medical Association, which represents the province's doctors, is opposed to the two-tiered MRI system. The SMA has said that the policy has been implemented hastily and that there is no clear evidence that offering private scans will lead to shorter wait times for the public.

Dr. Ryan Meili, of Canadian Doctors for Medicare, notes that although Alberta has the second-highest number of diagnostic imaging scanners per person in Canada, it also suffers from the longest wait times.

The real impact of private-pay imaging clinics is to give those with money an advantage in obtaining necessary surgery.

Private MRIs can cost anywhere from $700 to over $2,000 each. While this cost may be acceptable for some Canadians, it is virtually unaffordable for many more. Canada's health care system was designed as part of our social safety net to ensure everyone is able to access necessary exams.

Canadians are proud of our universal health care system, but we must work to strengthen and expand it, not carve off pieces to be sold to the highest bidder. One of the driving forces behind the creation of our health care system is the principle that health care should be available to Canadians based on need and not the ability to pay.

For-profit clinics are only beholden to their owners' or shareholders' bottom line and not the well-being of patients. There is an inherent conflict of interest in allowing for-profit operators into a publicly funded health care system that seeks to provide medical services for patients, regardless of their income level.

Just today, we heard about allegations that a private health clinic in Calgary is trying to pressure its doctors into giving preferential treatment to fee-paying patients.

A two-tiered health care system only exacerbates unequal access for Canadians. More than 6,000 people are waiting for an MRI in the province, making it the longest wait list of any special imaging service.

Today, there are two for-profit MRI clinics in the Regina area, but one in Saskatoon and not one in the north. It is not difficult to see that for-profit providers will locate where it is good for them, not necessarily where patients need the services to be.

Indeed, the SMA has said that creating dual access to MRI scans does not reduce surgical wait times. It also suggests it could lead to queue-jumping for surgery because those with a completed scan could see a specialist sooner.

The minister and the government have to protect public health care across the country by disallowing for-profit clinics and private service providers.

When will the minister act?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the the opportunity to speak today. I am pleased to take part in this important debate and I wish to thank the member for raising this issue for debate at this time.

Our government is committed to protecting our publicly funded health care system. Like all Canadians, we share the strong belief that all individuals deserve access to timely, quality, universal health care, regardless of their background, physical needs, where they live or how much they make. This is one of the core values of our country.

Access to health care is an important matter for all Canadians. The Canada Health Act is more than Canada's federal legislation for publicly funded health care insurance; it is an integral part of our identity. The Canada Health Act preserves the values embedded in our health care system and in our country as a whole, values of equity, accessibility and solidarity. These are the values that make Canada one of the most desirable countries in the world in which to live.

Not only do we have a health care system that all Canadians can be proud of, but it forms the bedrock of middle-class economic security. Our publicly funded health care system offers a competitive advantage for Canada in an increasingly competitive world.

The Canada Health Act requires provincial and territorial health insurance plans to provide medically necessary hospital and physician services to their residents on a prepaid basis and on uniform terms and conditions. Permitting payment for faster access to insured health services, including medically necessary MRI services at private diagnostic clinics, which has often been called queue-jumping, contravenes the accessibility criteria of the Canada Health Act.

Further, when patients jump the queue by paying to gain quicker access to a diagnostic service such as an MRI, they are then able to jump the queue a second time for any follow-up care indicated by the MRI. That means they gain faster access to both the initial diagnostic test and they gain quicker access to any required follow up surgery or procedures in the public system.

This is not access based on medical need. This is access based on ability and/or willingness to pay, and it is a contradiction of the underlying principle of the Canadian health care system.

It is our belief that MRI services, when medically necessary, should be covered by provincial plans. I would like to assure the House that discussions are under way in relation to this issue.

The strong support that our government has for our publicly funded health care system is echoed by the support of many Canadians. Polls continue to show that Canadians consider health care to be a high priority and that there is strong support for the principle of access to care based on need. In a September 2015 EKOS research poll, when asked if individuals should be allowed to pay extra to get quicker access to health care services, 64% of respondents disagreed.

Canadians want a system based on need, and not their ability to pay. They consider equal and timely access to medically necessary health care services to be part of our national character, not a privilege of status or income.

The hon. member may be assured that this government is committed to preserving the fundamental principles of our health care system and we will continue to work with provinces and territories to ensure access to quality health care services, based on need, not ability to pay.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am heartfelt to hear those words around protecting one of the fundamentals of the Canada Health Act, and that is universality. Unfortunately, the government just seems to want talk about it and not do anything about it. We are asking her to do is to disallow the service immediately.

During this week's emergency debate on the suicide crisis in Attawapiskat, the minister said:

It is unacceptable to have multiple tiers of health access. We would agree that all Canadians...need to have access to the medical care they require based on that need, not based on where they live or whether they can pay for it.

It is time for the government to step up and defend the universality and accessibility. It is time to actually enforce the Canada Health Act.

Private, two-tier health care is a very slippery slope that will dismantle our social safety net, and Canadians need to hear their government commit to protecting health care for everyone and not just the wealthy.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government recognizes that universal, publicly funded health care is a core Canadian value and a foundation for economic prosperity. This is why our government is committed to upholding the Canada Health Act and its fundamental principle of providing access to medically necessary care based on need, not the ability to pay.

We recognize that sustaining a strong, universal health care system requires the collaboration and co-operation of federal and provincial governments. As such, we are committed to a renewed relationship with our provincial and territorial partners to support their efforts to strengthen our publicly funded, universal health care system.

The federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health met in January 2016 to discuss common challenges facing our health care system. I am pleased to note that at the meeting, ministers of health from across the country reaffirmed support for a publicly funded health care system and the values on which it is based.

Indigenous Affairs

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I stood in the House a couple of months ago and asked the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs what she and her government planned to do to help the community of Wollaston Lake, which at the time was facing a challenge. Due to climate change and warm weather, an ice road in northern Saskatchewan was deemed unsafe to transport provisions. A community of 1,800 people were running out of fuel and supplies due to the unsafe winter road.

First nation chiefs in Saskatchewan said that the unusual mild weather had softened a northern Saskatchewan ice road leaving two reserves facing safety and access challenges: Hatchet Lake First Nation and Fond du Lac Denesuline First Nation. It is clear and undisputable that reliability of this road has been impaired. The danger imposed by soft winter roads is increasingly isolating Northern communities. This is rendering their lives more difficult as supplies are harder to transport to remote communities. This is without question, an urgent matter.

What does it mean when an ice road is unsafe for Northern remote communities in Saskatchewan?

This ice road represents a life line for those communities. It is a significant factor in the local cost of living, on the economic development in the communities, and on housing and infrastructure. Sporadic availability of truck transport imposes significant extra costs on the communities.

An expensive and uncertain transportation situation is a major barrier to all forms of development in northern communities. It brings food prices considerably up. It brings fuel prices up, fuel that is used for transportation and for heating on reserves. Medical supplies do not make it on reserves for the sick and health care workers who struggle to provide the care needed. Unsafe ice roads make it harder if not impossible for the RCMP and paramedics to reach those who require urgent help instantly.

As members can see, this is becoming a safety issue. There have been reports of trucks transporting provisions that have fell through the ice. Chiefs have also warned their communities to avoid the winter road as they are unsafe for travel.

This is not an issue that is exclusive to northern Saskatchewan. Northerners across the country have seen the roads they count on for provisions and for movement becoming more and more unsafe and unreliable for their livelihood due to climate change.

The current government promised an open nation-to-nation relationship throughout its election campaign. The Prime Minister pledged to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations. Despite that promise, we are still waiting.

The government still fails to act on issues that are of great concern for northern remote communities that often feel abandoned and that often feel that their issues are just not important enough in the eyes of the federal government. Like all Canadians, northerners count on an equitable treatment of their concerns.

This government had a chance to demonstrate goodwill in tackling this concern with its first budget. However, nowhere in the budget do we see allocation of specific funds for winter roads, and this, despite the continuous outcry and warnings from first nations chiefs and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations on this issue that is crippling communities.

Action is needed even more urgently than even before, and the problem will not disappear on its own. It will only increase. Specific funding and a comprehensive strategy for ice roads is required now. In the long run it is going to enhance and better the lives of the people in the north.

This is about lives. This is about safety. This is about economic development in northern remote communities.

What steps has the Prime Minister taken to work with isolated first nations to meet their needs for safer and reliable roads that will bring more prosperity to their communities?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to respond to the question from my hon. colleague, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this important issue to Parliament. I know it is a concern that is shared by her constituents.

I live in a northern region of Canada, and I know the significant challenges that we face in winter when it comes to transportation, whether it be by air, ice roads, or snowmobile, which is the other preferred route that we have to use.

I want to first of all point out to the member that in the budget there was $255 million for roads and bridges that was allocated directly and specifically for first nation communities. No community in the north, or anywhere in this country, should have to face a shortage of essential supplies during the winter. However, we all know that it happens.

In my riding, as the member can appreciate, there are times of the year when we have to ship by vessel during a small window. It is not always easy to do that because of ice conditions, just like the challenges faced with reliable winter roads as well.

The network is essential and vital to remote communities like the one the member represents, and we know how much they rely upon these ice roads for essential services like fuel, food, medical supplies.

We also know, and have acknowledged as a government, that the reliability of those transportation modes are being tested. In part, it is due to climate change, a discussion that we all continue to have. Environment Canada has told us that the average annual temperature in Canada has warmed by 1.6°, so that is significant. It also means a shorter winter road season for many of our communities.

Typically, winter roads are open from mid-January to mid-March. Some can go longer, as we know. However, when the season is shortened due to weather, as we have seen in some years and in some communities like Wollaston Lake and Hatchet Lake First Nation, the communities that the member has referenced may have reduced access to the essential items they would normally receive by land.

There are systems in place, and I think the member recognizes that, to help these remote communities when these situations occur. For example, depending on a specific situation, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada makes additional funding available to first nations to subsidize the delivery of essential items by air. We have done that in the past. We also monitor the number of days that we are expected to provide that service, and we look at what we can do early on to mitigate any impact that could be placed upon the communities.

Our minister met with Chief Tsannie and the delegation from his first nation community regarding the winter roads issue. We have met with Hatchet Lake First Nation and its leadership to follow up as well. It is an issue that we have been dealing with, have dealt with, and will continue to deal with based on the urgency that the situation requires.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the answer, but I will do further follow-up, as I have continued contact with Chief Tsannie and the Hatchet Lake First Nation, as well as Fond du Lac Denesuline First Nation, the Prince Albert Grand Council, and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.

This is a concern and continues to be a concern. I appreciate the dialogue that we are having today and moving forward.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I also want to point out that Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada has funded studies mitigating these challenges, which have been undertaken by first nations and the provincial governments.

We are looking forward to the department engaging with the provinces and first nations about longer-term transportation plans. In the cases that have been referenced here, they are more of a provincial responsibility and jurisdiction, but we want to assist and to help. It is a concern for us, and we understand the nature and the importance of this to the region.

The member should never hesitate to bring forward important issues on behalf of constituents to us as a government. We would be happy to respond and work with the member to ensure that we get the best results.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:58 p.m.)