Debates of Dec. 1st, 2020

Health

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to the motion adopted on Friday, November 27, regarding the instructions to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.

Indigenous Affairs

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present petition 10865888. The petitioners ask the House of Commons to look at the situation, particularly on Wet'suwet'en territory and lands, in relation to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They point out that the Coastal GasLink project being built across Wet'suwet'en lands does not have the approval of the Wet'suwet'en nation, and specifically that the Coastal GasLink project will involve the release of vast quantities of the greenhouse gas methane.

The petitioners call on the House to move quickly to bring Canada into compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Environment

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from young people in my riding and the neighbouring riding of Kootenay—Columbia. These young people are concerned about climate change and an uncertain future. They point out that Canada has endorsed the Paris Agreement to keep our world climate warming below 2°C.

The petitioners ask the government to take meaningful steps to ensure a good future for young Canadians by making a detailed climate action strategy that includes legislated science-based targets, implementing a steadily rising national carbon price, eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and redirecting those investments into renewable energy systems, energy efficiency, low-carbon transportation and job training.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Support for Health Care Workers

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

moved:

That the House: (a) acknowledge the extraordinary work of health care workers (including doctors, nurses and orderlies) during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly with seniors but also with the general public; (b) recognize the courage and sacrifices required from them and their families in order to be on the front lines; (c) highlight the work of Quebec and the provinces in responding to the health crisis and note the direct impact on their respective budgets; and (d) call on the government to significantly and sustainably increase Canada health transfers before the end of 2020 in order to support the efforts of the governments of Quebec and the provinces, health care workers and the public.

Mr. Speaker, there are not many coincidences in life. It is no coincidence that our motion focuses primarily on the compassion that we should have not only for those who have contracted COVID-19, but also for front-line workers who, day after day, including during the holiday season, continue to give their all and expose themselves to the virus without regard for the risk to their own health.

Yesterday, the Liberal government presented its economic statement. It is also no coincidence that the Liberal government presented an economic update while telling us that the big spoonful of cod liver oil has to be taken right now. We need to open wide while the Liberals stuff $380 billion in deficit down our throats. They are telling us not to worry about it because we will never have to pay it back.

Usually, when someone makes that kind of promise and says right off the bat that nobody will ever have to pay, it is because they think something will absolve them from that debt. In this government's case, that is because it will no longer be in power. This government is creating the debt, and that might be justified in some ways but less justified in others considering how it went about doing things. The government expects others to do the hard work. Imagine shovelling snow just by pushing it forward. The snow will pile up and get heavier and harder to move. It will take forever, but other people will be wielding the shovel.

The government is laying this deficit on us now. In the spring, once vaccine distribution has begun, people will forget that they are getting it six or 12 weeks after everyone else. They will be a little less afraid. The government is laying the deficit on people while they are afraid so they will think it is justified.

In the spring, when budget time rolls around, there will be gifts galore, my friends. It will be nuts. Christmas will not come on December 25. It will come at the end of March. They will be throwing money around all over the place.

Obviously this is a prelude to an election. Everyone is saying so. I have to say, the whole thing makes me laugh. If the government thinks that trampling on provincial responsibilities, showing contempt for Quebec's values and language, and not giving Quebeckers and seniors in Quebec the means they need to protect their health, is the way to develop an election platform, then I have news for them. They are developing our platform. We are going to denounce all of this. We will offer another solution and will always preserve Quebec's powers in health.

Earlier I was telling a journalist that if he and I urgently needed $10 and we each had $5, I would give him my $5 if the issue was his responsibility. That would protect our combined investment since it would be his expertise.

A federal government that does not administer hospitals, does not manage nurses or doctors or is not the one that hires the orderlies does not have expertise managing the health care system. It is not only keeping its $5, but also the other party's $5. We are supposed to think that is normal. It is using people's fears for political gain.

It can never be said enough in this economic statement. There is something purely human in this.

We have been in a pandemic since March. The people who are the most vulnerable and most at risk in terms of health, the ones who are most likely to die if exposed to the coronavirus, are seniors. The people whose purchasing power has not increased—apart from those who have written telling us that they had a 61¢ increase in taxable income; how insulting—those whose purchasing power has been reduced the most because food costs more, getting around is more complicated and they have to rely on delivery, are once again seniors. The people who suffer the most from isolation are seniors. Adolescents are not the only ones experiencing distress and mental health problems that emerge in adulthood. Seniors also have mental health problems.

Where is the additional financial support for seniors in the economic statement?

There was no money for seniors. That is not nothing. Actually, it is nothing.

The government says it is prepared to spend $1 billion out of about $380 billion on top of the upcoming recovery costs. We expect that will happen during the election campaign. The government is offering up $1 billion out of the $380 billion, provided that the provinces, the doomed Gaulish chieftains of health care, surrender their power to Prime Minister Caesar, acknowledging that he is now in command of health care. Astérix might not like that, but here is the gist: The provinces are being asked to surrender their powers over health care in exchange for a cheque. It makes no sense, but that is the plan.

I have heard people say that this economic statement was about heart, not about numbers. I do not believe that. If the government were doing this out of the goodness of its heart, it would be looking after the most vulnerable and most fragile. The government would not be doing this petty political wheeling and dealing by withholding resources that are vital to our health care system and to the basic quality of life of our seniors, who will be spending Christmas alone in their rocking chairs watching TV. Have they no shame? This is very serious.

Let's briefly talk about health. We heard that, on December 5, there would be a meeting between the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of Quebec and the provincial and territorial premiers to talk about health transfers. We thought that the Deputy Prime Minister would help the Prime Minister come up with better ideas. We are seeing almost the opposite. The Prime Minister announced that he was arriving empty-handed and would be talking about all kinds of other things. To ensure that he would not be hounded after the meeting, he postponed it until the end of the session in Ottawa. That is really convenient. The opposition parties will therefore not have the opportunity to question the government about the fact that he went empty-handed to a meeting with the premiers, in an attempt to keep part of the money they are owed. He is using a serious crisis and people's misfortune to centralize political power and to set the stage for an election where Canada will be pitted against Quebec. They will be put in their place. This has worked before and it could work again. We are here and it may also not work.

The government should have been talking about the economic recovery. Yesterday's economic update puts that topic off until later because the government was announcing the bad news about the deficit, even though we all basically knew what was coming in that regard. The government is telling people not to worry because interest rates are low and now is the time to put everything on credit. The federal government is taking the credit cards of Quebec and the provinces, heading to Costco and filling its cart. The Liberals are building an election platform with money belonging to Quebec and the provinces.

When it gets closer to election time, the government will table a budget announcing all sorts of measures—so many measures, in fact, it will defy reason. Unfortunately, things do not work like that.

The economic recovery could involve many things. I will talk about three of them. Members will not be surprised to hear me talk about help for seniors again because, in the regions of Quebec, and I assume it is the same in the regions of Canada, seniors spend their money on a daily basis, so much so that many of them do not have enough money right now. All of that money would be quickly injected into the regions' economies, thus contributing to the rapid recovery of the economy when this pandemic is over. If the Liberals are unable to help seniors out of the goodness of their hearts, then they should do it because it makes financial sense. That is money that will be invested in the recovery.

Even the money that we are calling for for the health care systems in Quebec and the provinces is money invested in the economic recovery because those services need to be provided. If Quebec does not get the $200 million that the federal government should be giving the provinces, then it will have to find that money somewhere else.

The $200 million that Quebec will have to take from somewhere else to put into the health care system will not be used by Premier Legault or Minister Fitzgibbon to stimulate the Quebec economy, to support Quebec businesses or to help Quebec businesses get through this catastrophic crisis.

Health transfers therefore represent money that needs to flow so that Quebec can contribute to its own economic recovery.

Of course, there is the recovery in the traditional sense of the word. We will inject large amounts of money to stimulate economic activity. The basic principle remains unchanged: Every employed person represents one less expense and additional tax revenue for the government. In hockey that would be a four-point gain.

We need to get people back to work in hospitality, arts, tourism, the industrial sector, all public services and food services. This will mean a lot of people all returning to work at the same time, and it will take planning to make that happen. It is simple: If people do not know the details of the government's economic stimulus package, they cannot prepare for it. However, the government appears to want to keep those details to itself so that sometime in March it can deliver a budget that illustrates how wonderful and generous the government is to businesses.

We will be just starting to come out of COVID-19, since the most vulnerable and the most at risk of dying will have been vaccinated, front-line workers will have been vaccinated, and a big chunk of the work will have been done—later than in the U.S., Germany, the U.K. and India, but it will be done by then. The government will then come along with a bunch of good news that will open an electoral window but, in the meantime, businesses do not know what to plan for.

The government says it contributed by committing $25 billion in funding, but of that $25 billion, $15 billion is for the wage subsidy, which will make the NDP and the Green Party happy. The remaining $10 billion is for other measures, some of which are very good, such as the support for the electric vehicle purchasing program or the energy efficient retrofits. All these measures are interesting, but this $10 billion out of a total of $400 billion makes us realize that the bulk of the economic update is not going to the recovery.

In addition to the sincere compassion we feel every day for our seniors and those who are sick, we fear that the government is laying the groundwork for an election on Quebec's dime. I repeat. If the federal government's plan is to trample on Quebec's jurisdictions, trample on seniors' interests and quality of life, and trample on Quebeckers' values and language, then it is quite likely that Quebeckers will not like its plan very much. It is quite likely that we will come back here with as many or possibly more MPs to address all this.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

My colleague opposite has spoken only about Quebec in relation to Canada, but we have an entire country to manage. My colleague opposite spoke about the fear apparently created by the government. He says that the government is fearmongering when, in fact, we are weighing the risks posed by the pandemic and informing Canadians of those risks.

He even mocked the Prime Minister by comparing him to Astérix in his speech, which he thought was very funny. That is what he said and I am just repeating it.

My colleague really likes to talk about seniors, but I have bad news for him: Negotiations with Quebec are going well. We invested $740 million in care for seniors, we put in place the HST, we gave $400 more to seniors to support them. Can my colleague say whether the federal government provided sufficient support for seniors during this pandemic?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I can. I can say no. I can say that the seniors who write to us are telling us that they got an extra 61¢, which is not even enough to buy a pack of gum these days.

My esteemed colleague would not be surprised to hear that I consider Quebec to be separate from Canada. The last time I checked, I had the privilege of being the leader of a separatist party.

As for Astérix, the little guy with the big nose and wings on his head, that is me. I would not flatter the Prime Minister by comparing him to Astérix, who is pugnacious, determined and quite likeable. I do not think Astérix would like that. I was comparing the Prime Minister to Julius Caesar, who is more of a centralizing force in Roman history, as we learned in our CEGEP classes. That is it for my comparisons.

The answer is no, seniors are not well served by this economic statement.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Beloeil—Chambly for his speech.

He will be pleased to hear that the NDP has always gone to bat for the restoration of health transfers ever since the Stephen Harper Conservatives made those cuts, which today's Liberals have maintained since 2015.

I fully agree with today's motion, especially the part about thanking health workers for all their sacrifices. They continue to work extremely hard.

I want to draw his attention to one issue in particular: the asylum seekers working in our health system. Back in August, they were promised a process to regularize their status, and were told there would be no deportations during the pandemic.

Yesterday, the Canada Border Services Agency said it would be resuming deportations and removals. The people who helped us were promised papers, but they could be deported very soon. His colleague from Saint-Jean is doing amazing work on this file, by the way.

I would like my colleague to tell us what he thinks about how asylum seekers who helped us in our health care system are being treated.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a little troubled. My colleague said too many nice things to me. I think someone must have put something in his coffee.

The Bloc Québécois, through the member for Saint-Jean, has expressed compassion for asylum seekers on many occasions. That is a very important issue.

I have the utmost respect for people who leave a difficult situation, who have the courage to go somewhere else and who, once they get there, spend their time showing their host society that they want to be involved. We have seen people expose themselves to often terrible conditions and situations where they are not always treated very well.

Now, while this government is claiming that we need to focus all of our attention on the pandemic—except in the small back room where the Liberals are preparing for the election—is not the time to allocate government resources of any kind to deporting people. We need to keep them here and, except for the rare exception, these people must be welcomed and encouraged to integrate. In addition, the day these people take the citizenship oath, if they do so in Quebec, then they must be required to show they have a minimum knowledge of French.

I want to quickly talk about two other issues.

First, health transfers are obviously important, but respect for Quebec's jurisdiction over child care, long-term care for seniors and pharmacare are just as important.

Second, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie still has some way to go, but all sins can be forgiven.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will pick up where I left off with the question I started asking earlier.

My colleague opposite is well aware of what we have done for seniors. We gave an extra $20 million to the new horizons program, and the Parti Québécois really benefited from that. We gave $350 million to charities, $9 million to United Way Canada, $100 million to food banks and local organizations.

My colleague talked about a 61¢ increase. Is he aware that that 61¢ is a monthly inflation adjustment? It is not an increase. He is misinforming organizations and putting erroneous ideas in their heads.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have a couple of fascinating homework assignments to do here.

First up, geometry. Let us talk about the difference between “opposite” and “diametrically opposed”. Ideologically, I would say that we are not just opposite but diametrically opposed.

Now for arithmetic. Even if this is a monthly thing, 61¢ times 12 is a pittance. It adds up to $7.50 according to my esteemed colleague, who has a head for figures.

My colleague will not have an opportunity to respond, but that is okay because the Prime Minister occasionally answers questions.

Why not legitimately increase their buying power? Why does the government not come up with bizarre and convoluted explanations when it says it is going to give families money for their kids? Giving families money for their kids is great. The government tells them to go spend the money on peanut butter. For seniors though, the government says it gave the money to this or that organization, which might then send letters to its members about how nice the Liberal Party is.

The thing is, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Organizations have nothing to do with seniors' buying power.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my leader for his excellent speech and for the motion currently before the House.

It is very important to thank nurses and all the staff working in hospitals and long-term care centres. They have been performing miracles for the past eight or nine months. The system is underfunded, and it really is a humanitarian cause. These people are making a difference. Hats off and congratulations to them.

Just last week, one evening when the House was in committee of the whole, the Minister of Health talked about the standards that will be established for long-term care facilities in her speech. However, when the military went into our long-term care facilities last spring, they said that the problem was not a lack of standards, but rather a lack of personnel and resources.

Yesterday's economic update promised $1 billion. As my leader reminded everyone, it will be $1 billion out of $381 billion, on condition that the government can impose its standards and interfere quite a bit.

What are his thoughts on that?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, when my esteemed colleague speaks, it is like I am listening to myself, so I will not need much time.

However, I want to reiterate something. Let's put ourselves in the shoes of the health care workers who are going to work every day and exposing themselves not only to the virus, but also to seeing people who are suffering and seniors in distress. That should be a consideration.

The quickest way to help these people is to stop insisting on imposing conditions and start transferring to Quebec and the provinces the money they are technically owed, so that they can hire the necessary personnel and ensure that seniors and sick patients have the best living conditions and the best treatment possible. Their fight will go on for several more months.

Can we take care of them and not abandon them?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

I have always said that Canadians' health and safety are too important to play partisan politics over. This is not the time. We must work together to help all Quebeckers and Canadians. The best way to do that is to take the time to listen to one another and engage in dialogue.

As I have said, and as we have all said, Canadians' health and safety have been our main concern in recent months. That was, is and will continue to be our main concern. That is our priority. I said it before, and I will say it again: We will always be there to protect the health and safety of all Canadians.

Before I go any further, I would like to underscore the work of our health care workers and the extraordinary sacrifice they have made during the pandemic. I am referring to doctors, nurses, health care aides and orderlies. These people are the cornerstone of our health care system. I would like to thank them from the bottom of my heart. Similarly, I would like to underscore the important work of the other people working alongside these health care workers, who do not get as much attention. They are also less visible, working more in the shadows. I am thinking of the security guards, janitors and all the support staff who keep our health care system running. They work in the shadows, but they must not be forgotten.

I would like us to keep them in mind in all of our discussions and debates. These people are on the front lines. These support workers are giving up time they could be spending with their families to take care of our loved ones, our parents and grandparents. They are putting their own lives at risk to protect all of us.

From the bottom of my heart, I thank all the health care professionals and all those working in the health care sector, day and night, from coast to coast to coast.

I would also like to underscore the work of our armed forces, our soldiers. I would like to underscore the contribution they made by helping seniors in long-term care facilities in Quebec and Ontario. I would also like to underscore the work of the Red Cross, whose workers are still on the ground right now, helping the men and women who work with our seniors. Every day, they are working incredibly hard to help provide care and support for our parents and grandparents.

As I have said many times before, helping the most vulnerable Canadians is not a matter of jurisdiction. Helping our seniors is not a matter of jurisdiction. Our seniors are not a paragraph or a line in the Constitution. They are our seniors. They are the people who gave birth to us. They are the people who built this society. We must all, collectively, be there for them.

I have to say that I find it deplorable that the members of the Bloc Québécois would rather pick a fight than work together for Canadians. I find that unfortunate. They are trying to stir up bogus quarrels with Quebec City, but there are none. We agree, we collaborate, we work together and we talk every day, and that goes for the various ministers' and members' offices and for political staff. We have been collaborating with all the provinces since the beginning of the pandemic. We are still collaborating with the provinces, including Quebec. My friends in the Bloc Québécois may not want to hear it, but it is true. It is working well.

Is it perfect? No. That is how a federation, our federation, works. We can work together because we have the people's interests at heart.

It is important to mention that we are there for the provinces and territories. We were there, we are still there, and we will continue to be there.

That is why we gave the provinces and territories $41.9 billion this year and will be giving them another $235 billion over the next five years. At least one positive thing has come out of this horrible and difficult pandemic: the will and the ability to work together.

That is how we succeeded in making a historic $19-billion investment under the safe restart agreement to help all of the provinces.

That includes $700 million to support the health care system, $500 million to help people experiencing challenges related to mental health, substance use or homelessness, and $740 million to control and prevent infections in long-term care, home care and palliative care settings.

These are extremely concrete actions. These amounts are in addition to other investments in health care we made during the pandemic, including $500 million for the most pressing health system needs and $240 million for virtual care and digital tools, which are playing an increasingly larger role in the health care system.

What does that mean for Quebec in practical terms? For Quebec, it means $675 million for testing, contact tracing and data management, which are absolutely crucial for stopping a pandemic. It means $270 million to help the health care system get through the crisis and $166 million for the most vulnerable populations. These are concrete amounts for Quebec. It also means $675 million for personal protective equipment, since we know how important PPE is for health care workers.

Then there is all the rest, such as child care, sick leave and public transit. All of these things have become essential services during the pandemic. That is why we put $1.5 billion on the table. In all, we have given Quebec more than $3 billion for the health and safety of Quebeckers, in addition to the usual health transfer payments.

Just yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister announced new investments that show our profound commitment to the health and safety of all Canadians.

Allow me to list them quickly. There is $ 1 billion to improve conditions in long-term care facilities. That means more money for ventilation, more staff and better infection control. All of this is absolutely essential in our fight against the pandemic.

It means more money for rapid testing, personal protective equipment and, of course, the purchase of vaccines. We have purchased or reserved 400 million doses of vaccine, the equivalent of 10 doses for every Canadian. That is more doses per capita than any other country in the world. We have been working for months with all of the provinces to prepare for the distribution of the vaccines.

When the Bloc Québécois talks about health care funding, I think we can agree that we have been there, we are still there and we will continue to be there for everyone.

I say to the Bloc Québécois that we have been there for everyone, including Quebec.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate and thank my colleague opposite for his speech.

I almost let myself be seduced by the sound of his voice. His voice is so soft when he talks about taking care of seniors. He also sounds so sweet when he says that his government is there for the provinces and territories.

I have a question for my colleague. If, at their meeting with the Prime Minister next week, the provinces and territories reiterate that they do not want the federal government to interfere in their jurisdictions and that they want the transfers to be increased, as the provinces and Quebec have unanimously called for, what will the government do? Will it say that it is and will remain committed to being there for the provinces and territories?

If someone tells me they do not want me to come to their party, I do not go. I go away. If someone asks me to send money for the party and says it is my duty, well then that is what I have to do.

I also have another question.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said that his government is there for seniors and that the Bloc Québécois is trying to pick a fight by saying that nothing is being done for them. Can he tell me exactly where the money for seniors is? Where in the economic update can we see actual money that will be given directly to seniors in Quebec and the provinces? I looked everywhere, but I did not see any. The seniors that we talked to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments about my tone of voice.

From the beginning, we have been working on this file with the Government of Quebec and all the provincial governments. There have been clear and straightforward transfers.

With regard to seniors, we provided direct support to those living in Quebec's long-term care facilities through the Canadian Armed Forces, the Red Cross and direct funding. We helped several times with PPE and testing. We have worked with the Government of Quebec in tangible ways.

It is not about jurisdictions or fights right now. We are all serving the same people. The people that I represent are also represented by the Quebec National Assembly at the provincial level in Quebec. We have the same objective and that is to get through this crisis as quickly as possible while saving as many lives as possible, keeping people as healthy as possible and keeping the economy as strong as possible.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons I am a proud New Democrat is that the New Democratic Party is the party that invented and pioneered public health care. We did it in the 1940s in Saskatchewan, and of course, the NDP played an instrumental role in the 1960s working with the Liberal government of Prime Minister Pearson to create the structure of today's health care system.

At the time, the original bargain for health care was a 50-50 split between the federal government and the provinces. Since then, however, successive federal underfunding has resulted in the situation we have today where the federal government pays only about 22% of the total health care bill.

Also, of course, the Harper government capped federal health care spending at 3% in 2017. The Liberals promised to address that, and instead, they adopted it. The result is that we have health care costs growing at 5.4% in this country and federal funding growing at 3%. Canadians can do the math. There is only one recipe and that is for long-term fiscal disaster and cuts.

Does my hon. colleague not agree that the federal government should reverse the long-term slide in federal funding and start reversing it so the federal government can start to honour its original commitment of paying half the cost of health care in this country, as originally promised?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do agree with my hon. colleague that we have to be there for the health of all Canadians, and we have to be there to collaborate with all the provinces. This is exactly what we have been doing. If he is asking me to defend the system put in place by the Conservatives, I will not do that. I will let the Conservatives defend their own system.

What I can say is that since the beginning of this pandemic we have been there for Canadians across the country with all kinds of measures and supports. Our intention is to keep working with provinces to help them go through this pandemic and work on the long term. Actually, the Prime Minister is meeting with his counterparts on December 10. They will be discussing this and other topics.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in this important discussion about the Canada health transfer, or CHT, and funding for health care.

Our government is committed to improving the health care system so that it can meet the needs of Canadians today and in the future. Our system must adapt if it wants to provide better health care and better results at an affordable cost given the aging population, the increase in rates of chronic disease and the financial pressure resulting from new drugs and new technologies.

From the beginning of the global coronavirus pandemic, our government has been proactive, shown leadership and worked with the provinces and territories to support their efforts to deal with this crisis. More specifically, our government invested more than $19 billion to help the provinces and territories safely restart their economies. This amount includes $500 million to guarantee that health care systems will be ready to face future waves of the virus; $740 million for vulnerable Canadians, including those in long-term care and palliative care facilities, and those who receive home care, and risk having more serious cases of COVID-19; and $500 million to support and protect people struggling with mental health, addiction or homelessness.

Our government also supports virtual care services and online screening to relieve emergency services and promote physical distancing. We have invested $240 million in creating virtual care and mental health care tools in order to support the provinces and territories in this work. This investment is in addition to the $500 million from the COVID-19 response fund, which was distributed earlier this year to the provinces and territories in order to help them respond to critical needs in the health care systems and to support mitigation efforts.

This funding was provided as an ad hoc complement to the Canada health transfer, which is the primary federal funding mechanism for supporting Canada's health care system. It allows for the provision of predictable, long-term funding to the provinces and territories. In 2020-21, our government will provide nearly $42 billion in cash assistance to the provinces and the territories through the CHT. This represents on average more than 23% of planned health spending by the provincial and territorial governments. In 2020-21, the Province of Quebec will receive $9.4 billion from the CHT.

The CHT will increase each year based on economic growth, with a minimum increase of 3% per year. Over the next five years, funding for the CHT to the provinces and territories should reach more than $200 billion. These funds are allocated to the provinces and territories on an equal per capita basis, which guarantees the comparable treatment of all Canadians, regardless of where they live.

The Canada Health Act sets out the criteria and conditions the provinces and territories must meet to receive their full contribution through the CHT. With the exception of its link to the Canada Health Act, the CHT is unconditional, and gives provinces and territories the leeway to decide how best to distribute the funds in order to meet their residents’ and communities’ health care needs.

I would like to take a little time to talk about the history and evolution of the CHT. The current flexible block funding approach to the CHT differs substantially from the cost-sharing program that existed when the public health insurance plan was introduced. Before 1977, the federal government matched eligible provincial and territorial spending on doctors and hospitals at a rate of 50%. However, expenses for these items constituted only about three-quarters of the provinces’ and territories’ total health care expenses.

In other words, the cost-sharing arrangement in place before 1977 did not cover other health care expenses such as pharmaceuticals, home care, mental health services and related health care services that were beginning to represent a growing share of the provinces’ and territories’ health care expenses. As we know, these health care expenditure components increased over the years. The share of spending for doctors and hospitals decreased, and now represents less than 60% of the provinces’ and territories’ health care expenses.

Even during the first period of the cost-sharing program for eligible expenses, federal transfers never really represented 50% of spending for doctors and hospitals. They represented less than 37% of the provinces’ and territories’ total health care expenses. As the health care system evolved, all of the parties involved agreed that a more flexible funding system was required to help the provinces and territories meet their own health care priorities and not only to help foot the bill for doctors and hospitals.

When the established programs financing, or EPF, was introduced in 1977, the federal, provincial and territorial governments agreed to replace the earlier equal cost-sharing program with a more flexible block- or cash-funding approach. This meant that, instead of the federal government equalizing the provinces’ and territories’ spending on doctors and hospitals, the provinces and territories received a cash transfer that they could spend on a broader range of health care priorities.

More importantly, in our context, the EPF program included a stipulation that the federal government was to permanently transfer tax room or tax points to the provinces and territories. This transfer of tax points meant that the federal government permanently reduced its tax rates, while the provinces and territories increased theirs by the same amount, which had no net impact on the taxpayer's tab. More specifically, 13.5 percentage points of the federal personal income tax and one percentage point of the federal corporate income tax were transferred to the provinces and territories. Instead of the federal government collecting taxes and transferring them to the provinces and territories, the provinces and territories could now collect these taxes themselves and spend them as they saw fit.

In 1977-78, the value of the transfer of tax points was equivalent to approximately 22% of the provinces' and territories' spending for doctors and hospitals, the public health insurance plan, while the health transfer represented 33%, for a total of 55%. The cash transfer represented almost 25% of the provinces' and territories' total health care spending. Until recently, this threshold, which is the reference point for the federal cash contribution, was long recognized by the provinces and territories themselves.

As I mentioned, the CHT now represents more than 23% of the provinces' and territories' health care spending. But the federal government's contribution to health care in provinces and territories is not limited to the CHT. Much of the funding related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the funds from the safe restart agreement, which are intended specifically for health care, will be transferred directly to the provinces and territories.

In addition to the extraordinary measures the government implemented to help the provinces, the territories and all Canadians deal with the coronavirus pandemic, the federal government has also provided significant and ongoing support for health care. These investments were made during the previous Parliament when, in August 2017, all the provinces and territories agreed on $11 billion in federal funding over 10 years to improve home care and mental health services. This new funding alone increased the federal contribution to provincial and territorial health spending by nearly 25%. The government also provides considerable direct health care funding as part of its health promotion and protection responsibility, which includes regulation. It supports public health, research and national health organizations, and delivers health care services to specific groups, such as indigenous populations. In addition to direct federal spending and provincial and territorial transfers, the government also helps individuals and companies via the tax system.

Let me close with the following.

In conclusion, our health system needs improvement in some areas. However, experience shows us that we cannot improve things just by injecting more cash. Canada spends more on health than most other countries, yet we are not getting the results Canadians need and deserve.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, the speech by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons almost had me in tears earlier, but this time I have to wonder how long it would take me to respond to this crash course on health transfers and all the numbers we were given.

Throughout my career, I have had the pleasure and privilege of sitting on all kinds of commissions on health funding, including one in Canada, the most recent being the Romanow commission, but I will not dwell too much on that.

Initially, there was a pact guaranteeing citizens free, universal access to health care across Canada. There was a pact to share the costs fifty-fifty. Another aspect of the pact provided that the organization of health care services was the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.

After all the numbers and the history lesson we were just given, I have a question. Do you think the sums of money being given in the current economic climate are sufficient, compared to transfers that respect provincial areas of jurisdiction and are sufficient to meet their needs?

I am talking about predictable transfer payments, which is what our motion is all about. Would such payments not guarantee a strong health care system?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I want to remind the hon. member to address her comments through the Chair.

The hon. minister.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

In my speech, I tried to show that costs were once shared fifty-fifty, but that this only represented part of the costs for the provinces and territories. In time, following a series of agreements between the federal government and the provinces and territories, this arrangement was changed, and the fifty-fifty formula that did not cover 50% of provincial costs was changed to a more flexible formula that took different factors into account when calculating the transfers.

The opposition is trying to make the House believe that we went from 50% to 23% and that the federal government disengaged from the health care system of the provinces and territories, but that is simply not true.

There is predictability built into these agreements, but COVID-19 called for targeted intervention. I believe that the Bloc Québécois would be the first to rise and oppose everything we are doing had there not been this targeted assistance to cope with COVID-19.