Debates of Dec. 1st, 2020

Opposition Motion—Support for Health Care Workers

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

The member will be able to continue during questions and answers.

The member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent and tremendously inspired speech.

I would like to know if, in the context of the economic update we were just given in the House yesterday, he remembers hearing of any measures that would address the issues he just raised.

Has the government spoken to the concerns he has just raised, in particular as regards the much-discussed health transfers to the provinces?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are experiencing the worst health crisis.

It is important for Quebec and the provinces, most of all Ontario. As I have heard recently, everyone should support the Bloc Québécois's motion. It is important that the people who have jurisdiction over health have a clear understanding of the structural, fundamental and long-term investments being made. The government must reinforce our health networks so that we can make it through the current crisis and face future crises.

I was hearing the Prime Minister this morning telling Mr. Arcand that it is a lot of money, that we are talking about structural investments. Indeed, that is what we need. We need more than a piecemeal approach to get us through the current situation. We should not repeat the mistakes of the past. We need to restore health transfers to 35% and heed the unanimous call of Quebec and the provinces.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. He is always very passionate and very thoughtful when speaking to health, an issue that is very dear to him.

My question is fairly simple. The Bloc's motion is very well crafted. I do not see anything in it that parliamentarians might want to oppose.

Does my hon. colleague know what elements of this motion other parliamentarians might want to oppose?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I see nothing in there unless, as the Prime Minister often says, someone wants to play politics with vulnerable patients and people suffering from COVID-19.

I see nothing in there, unless someone wants to play politics with a fragile system and sees this as an opportunity to boast, to point fingers as if we had said we could do better, when it is none of their business. I see nothing in there, except a political ambition to take advantage of Quebec and the provinces at a time when they are vulnerable, or to impose certain views and conditions that have nothing to do with obeying the constitutional law the government holds so dear.

[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]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide his personal thoughts or, better yet, the position of the Bloc on the issue of the Canada Health Act. It is something that I believe is widely supported, from coast to coast to coast, by all residents of all provinces.

Could the member share what his thoughts are on the importance of that piece of legislation?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad my colleague asked me that question.

This act lays out and guarantees the principle of universal care and access to care. It is clear that underfunding health care and cutting back on health transfers are undermining access to health care, especially on the front lines. The Liberals have carried on Stephen Harper's policy of transfers strictly indexed at 3% rather than 6%. It is blatantly obvious. Everybody says so.

When will the government send a clear message to Quebec and the united provinces so that we can plan for the long term?

We need to plan and get out of the slump this crisis has brought on.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on something our Prime Minister said that will surely go down in history.

He said, “I fully respect provincial jurisdictions, but people's dignity, their health and, above all, their lives are not a jurisdictional matter”.

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

The hon. member for Montcalm has 10 seconds to respond.

Madam Speaker, I would say what I said earlier.

This debate is about collaboration, respect for jurisdiction and areas where everyone can contribute. The Liberal government is disrespecting that by trying to overstep the rules and interfere. It thinks it can do better than Quebec and the provinces did during the pandemic, even though it could not even manage its own responsibilities competently—

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

The hon. member for Montcalm went well beyond his 10 seconds.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council.

[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]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in what is, in my opinion, a very important debate about health care.

Health care is something that Canadians from coast to coast to coast truly believe in. Whenever I talk to new Canadians, especially, about some of the things that make Canada so attractive, in fact, it is our health care system. It might not necessarily be the most perfect system in the world, but it is a system that is, generally speaking, accepted as one of the finest delivery of services that we provide as a society.

Canadians love our health care system, and they want to see governments working together to protect it into the future. It is one of the areas of responsibility in which I think the current government has done exceptionally well. Shortly after forming government back in 2015, we were able to reach agreements with the different provinces and territories in regard to a funding formula, among other things.

I used to be the health critic in the province of Manitoba. I am very familiar with jurisdictional responsibilities and who is responsible for what. For those who advocate that Ottawa has no responsibility other than to give cash, they are wrong. There is a responsibility that all of us have, even members of the Bloc have to the constituents they say they represent, to ensure the health care services that we have today continue to be there in the future. If there are ways that we can expand upon them, we should be open to doing so, and this government has clearly indicated its interest.

In terms of the motion that has been presented today, one of the things I do agree with is regarding the workers. I have had the opportunity, as many members have, to talk a great deal about the pandemic. I often talk about the high sense of co-operation and the focus of the government and the Prime Minister, which is, in fact, minimizing the damage of the coronavirus pandemic. We are working with all the stakeholders, and I often make reference to that. However, we have some real heroes who need to be recognized, which I have done in some of my previous comments, but I do think it is worth repeating time and time again.

Our health care workers have done an exceptional job during this pandemic, and when I think of health care workers, they are those in hospitals and personal care home facilities, home care service workers and those who visit homes to provide services to seniors. There is a wide spectrum of individuals who have been able to sustain our health care system during this pandemic, and they have really been challenged to provide the quality of service that Canadians expect there to be.

At times, it has been challenging, whether in the province of Quebec or, more recently, the province of Manitoba, where we have needed to bring in the Canadian Forces or the Red Cross. One of the nice things about the federation is recognizing that Ottawa can complement many of the things that are taking place within the health care services, and we have seen this vividly during the last eight months, and ultimately, I would argue, since 2015.

The government truly understands the importance of and values the work of health care professionals who meet the challenge day in and day out, seven days a week, 24 hours a day. It is one of the reasons we allocated significant money to provinces to provide additional financial support to those workers. Whether they work in operating rooms or the ICU, provide bedside care, replace bedpans or clean stations, these individuals provide the services that are so critical to allowing patients to be safe in our institutions.

There are also the services of home care providers who visit seniors and others in the community. The government has not only acknowledged their existence but has supported them financially in all regions of our country. I do not think there is a member of Parliament in this House of any political stripe who would challenge the idea that our health care professionals, workers and supporters have really stepped up to the plate during this pandemic. All members of the House would recognize that, because that is a reality.

I am very passionate about health care because I believe in it and I know the number one concern of the residents of Winnipeg North is health care. They value it and treasure it. Whether as an MLA or now as a member of Parliament, I will do whatever I can to ensure that health care continues for future generations. I am so encouraged that we have a Prime Minister who is committed to our health care system and the Canada Health Act. Previous prime ministers lacked that sense of commitment, which causes concern.

People should understand why the Bloc Québécois is here. It is not here, as the government House leader said, to contribute positively for the entire country. Members of the Bloc would be quite happy to see issues related to other provinces being left to the side. Yes, in this particular motion, they are advocating that we should look at other provinces too, but let us also remember that the biggest advocates for just giving them cash and forgetting about anything else are members of the Bloc.

The Conservatives might not be that far behind, but I can say that it would be fundamentally wrong for any government to give a bunch of cash to the provinces and say it does not want anything else to do with them and that they should just take the cash and run. If it were up to the Bloc, it would be for not only health care but every department. I understand that because it sees it having a very different role.

We recognize that whether people are residents of Quebec, my home province of Manitoba or anywhere in Canada, our first priority needs to be the pandemic. That should be the first priority for us, not how we might have confrontations over issues that are really not there. The Bloc focuses on bringing forward issues at a time when most Quebeckers, I would think, just as most Manitobans, want all of us to work collaboratively on trying to minimize the negative impacts of the coronavirus.

I asked the member about the positioning of the Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act has five basic principles: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility. Some members in the House would like to see more. A number of years back, in the 1990s, there was a push to have accountability also incorporated into the Canada Health Act.

The federal government made good decisions when it talked about the importance of home care services and medications. It would be nice to see expansion for these types of services. Some provinces are further ahead than other provinces. Quebec has done a phenomenal job on child care. That was referenced in yesterday's speech. Many years ago, the Province of Saskatchewan did a phenomenal job on health care, and look what we have today.

Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance referenced British Columbia and the fine work it was doing on environmental issues.

We are a big country and provinces play an absolutely critical role especially when it comes to health care delivery. As I said, I used to be the health care critic in my home province. I know the role that provinces play.

With respect to the pandemic and health care, the federal government has stepped up to the plate. We have resourced hundreds of millions, going into billions, of additional dollars to support health care. We have put special emphasis on issues like mental health. I suspect that if we were to canvass people across Canada, we would find that mental health needs require additional attention. My Liberal caucus colleagues often raise mental health as an issue.

Home care services are again emphasized and financially resourced, at least in part, by the national government. We need to focus even more attention on these types of issues.

Some would say that the Liberal Party has been talking about pharmacare for a number of years. The Prime Minister made it an issue, and it has been widely debated in Canada for the last four or five years now, at a significantly higher level of debate than it was when medicare was first brought in. I am comfortable believing that because I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years. It is only in the last five years that we have seen the issue of pharmacare at the stage where it is today.

If we listen to our constituents, no matter in what province they live, we will be sensitive to the issue of a national pharmacare program. To achieve that, we have to do what was said in the throne speech in September, which is that we need to work with provinces. It is just not possible to have an optimum national pharmacare program without co-operation and support from provinces and territories. Even though we are in a pandemic, these are the types of issues on which this government continues to move forward.

Once again, we got an indication of this from yesterday's announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister. We continue to move forward with that. Members will remember that only four or four and a half years ago, through a standing committee, we requested that the issue be looked into and brought forward.

I will provide some comments on financing of health. I could probably spend a lengthy period of time on this, so I will try to encapsulate my thoughts on it.

On health care funding, back in the early nineties, I can remember sitting in the Manitoba legislature when Ottawa was making some cuts. At the time, we were told that we would establish a base for ongoing support toward health care and then there would be incremental increases. I suspect, if members were to look at the Debates of the Manitoba legislature back in the early nineties, members would see that it was only a question of time before Ottawa would not contribute a dime toward health care. In a previous negotiation, premiers wanted to see tax point changes as opposed to direct cash going into health care. If we had continued along that line, we would not have had health care dollars coming from Ottawa. It would have been in the form of tax point changes.

I always find it interesting when members opposite say that there were cuts in health care in the early nineties. There was one budget where there was a cut, but there was also an establishment of a base and a fact that Ottawa would always contribute toward health care. I am pretty confident in that, because I was in the Manitoba legislature when that was debated. Because of that guarantee and the monies that continued to flow every year afterward, money in the treasury continued to grow in health care transfers. Today we give more money, historic amounts of money, toward health care. Even over and above those health care transfers, additional hundreds of millions of dollars are being tagged to go toward health care in our provinces and territories.

We understand the expectations, the role of the federal government and the importance of continuing to work with provinces and territories. When it comes to the pandemic and the testing, for example, provinces have the responsibility and the administration to ensure the testing is being done. However, during the restart program, the $19 billion that went to the different provinces enabled the Province of Manitoba to triple the number of tests that were being done. Whether it is examples such as that or looking at vaccines, we are in a fantastic position.

Contrary to the impression that the leader of the official opposition tries to leave, Canada is well positioned to be there in a very real and tangible way, because of the fine work that was done by science and civil servants and by working with other jurisdictions. We now have an opportunity, through a number of different companies, to provide the vaccines that Canadians will need. We will be going to our health care workers and others to ensure Canadians continue to be safe going through this pandemic. We will get out of it.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, he is initiating a debate that is unrelated to the motion.

He is saying that, when it comes to health transfers, the Bloc Québécois speaks only for Quebec's interests. Does the Premier of Ontario speak only for Quebeckers' interests? Does Ontario's Minister of Health speak only for Quebeckers' interest? Does his Premier of Alberta support his Liberal, centralist concept of federalism?

The parliamentary secretary is championing the government's vision. I do not know if his Quebec MPs agree with him. Quebec and the provinces are united on this, and together they are asking the government to increase health transfers.

What does he mean when he says the Bloc Québécois represents only Quebec on the subject of health transfers?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that all members of Parliament represent jurisdictions. I trust, hope, believe and have faith that we advocate the best interests of our constituents, no matter what province it might be. I have always done my very best at ensuring Winnipeg North is well served by me, but I have never lost perspective of the national interest. The national interest allows for a sense of co-operation on a wide spectrum of files, so citizens as a whole will better benefit in society.

My lineage goes back to the province of Quebec, both on my mother's side and my father's side, and it has so much to offer to us as a nation. I look forward to the ongoing debates we will have on any particular issue.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have heard the hon. member opposite speak at length in the House, but I do not know if I have ever seen him this fired up. The Bloc must have definitely struck a nerve.

Canadians are rightly proud of our health care system, but decades of austerity and privatization have challenged our ability to deal with a public health crisis like COVID-19. It was back in 1976 when then Prime Minister Trudeau first proposed replacing the 50/50 cost-sharing with a new regime of block grants that exposed provinces and territories to unilateral federal cuts over the subsequent decades. The federal share of overall health care spending in Canada has plummeted to 22% at present. The Liberals promised a new health accord during 2015, but once they got in power, they kept the Conservative Harper cuts.

Given that health care expenditures are projected to increase by an average annual pace of between 6.5% and 8.4%, does the member opposite believe that it is time to increase the health care transfers from the current 3%?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have infrastructures such as our Standing Committee on Health, which is in a very good position to review issues of this nature. We have once again established, through the Prime Minister, first ministers' meetings. Those had been lost. There are opportunities to have that dialogue, whether it is in the two examples I just listed or it is in the debate in the chamber.

The member makes reference to 22%. That percentage varies, depending on the province someone is in. Some provinces have a much higher per capita cost in health care than others. While I do not fully understand all the complexities of the funding formula for health care transfers, there are variations between provinces and Ottawa.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have an idea about what the federal government should do better, since it is lecturing us about long-term care facilities. In March, the mayor of Montreal had to personally go to Dorval airport to give updates on the pandemic because the federal government was missing in action. The government gets an F for that.

It gets an F on vaccines. It also gets an F for abandoning the legal vehicle to facilitate local vaccine production. Shutting down the Global Public Health Intelligence Network is worth another F. Millions of N95 masks destroyed and not replaced? Also an F.

As a former teacher, I would say that the Liberal government does not get a passing grade.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I believe that through Ottawa's work with the provinces, we have been able to bring forward PPE and other necessary safety measures. One of the reasons the second wave is not as severe as it could have been is the great sense of collaboration and teamwork during the first wave. The lessons learned through that process have assisted us get through the second wave.

When it comes to vaccinations, for the first time in a while we can see some light at the end of the tunnel. Canada is in a good position because we have done our homework in ensuring that we have the ability to get the necessary vaccines delivered in a very safe fashion to Canadians. This bodes well for all partners and individuals who worked with the government to put these types of things in place.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest as the member for Winnipeg North talked about almost everything except health care transfers, which are at the heart of the Bloc Québécois motion.

I was shocked and horrified Canadian troops and the Red Cross had to bail out long-term care homes. Does the member agree with me that we should move toward national standards for long-term care and perhaps bring long-term care under the national health care act with those national standards?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am from a province that has recognized the important role the Canadian military played, along with the Red Cross, during the pandemic in the province of Manitoba and in other jurisdictions. It is good to have, and this was demonstrated at a time of crisis. I see that as a positive thing.

I believe it is very important for Ottawa to work with the provinces in relation to health care to ensure that we maximize the services we know Canadians would like to have. We recognize the important responsibilities that provinces have in the administration of health, but this does not mean we have no role.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was going to get up on a point of order, because I believe the member for Winnipeg North claimed he was the health critic when he was in the Liberal opposition in the Manitoba legislature. I believe he was one of only two Liberal MLAs, so he held the portfolio of many different files, including health.

I want to recognize all our health care workers out there. My wife is a nurse who works in long-term care and my daughter is a nurse who works in geriatrics, and I know they and their colleagues in Manitoba and right across this country are really working hard to keep our loved ones safe.

I also want to thank our Canadian Armed Forces and the Red Cross, which have stepped in most recently in Manitoba. They have served this country well in working in long-term care facilities in Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere. Without their support, we would not have gotten through that as well as we did. I know their commitment and dedication make all of us proud as Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member demonstrates exactly the point I was making at the beginning of my speech. I suspect we would not find any member of the House who would not recognize the valuable and critical role our health care professionals and support workers have played during this pandemic. They have been absolutely outstanding heroes in the true sense, and we value their ongoing commitment to the quality of service they continue to provide for Canadians day in and day out, seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I first want to mention that I will be splitting my time with the ebullient member for La Prairie. He is a tough act to follow, so I am glad to go first.

It is with a feeling of great urgency that I rise on this Bloc Québécois opposition day. We chose to debate health transfers. As the critic for seniors, I have decided to tackle the issue from a health perspective, to make sure that we take good care of our seniors and their caregivers, who do amazing work, often unseen and unpaid.

I will represent the views of an important seniors advocacy group, the FADOQ network. It is the largest seniors' organization in Quebec and all of Canada, with 550,000 members, 705 clubs, 16 regional groups and some 17,000 volunteers. It has a long and fruitful 50-year history and it has obviously kept up with the times. More than ever, it is a critical piece of Quebec's social fabric, especially considering the province's aging population.

In a brief submitted in June 2019 ahead of the pre-budget consultations of the Standing Committee on Finance, the FADOQ network asked for an increase in health transfers. The brief notes that in 2018-19, federal health transfers were $38.5 billion, but total spending by Canada's provinces and territories and Quebec was $174.5 billion, according to the Conference Board of Canada.

Health care funding accounts for 30% of provincial and territorial budgets, but the Government of Canada funds only 22% of those expenses. Again according to the Conference Board of Canada, the current fixed growth rate will make the federal share of health care funding fall below 20% by 2026.

In order to make up for years of underfunding, the FADOQ network is asking the federal government to index the Canada health transfer by 6% annually. What is more, it notes that the impact of the aging population on public health care spending is significant. The Conference Board estimates that cost of health care for the average senior is about $12,000 a year, compared to $2,700 a year for the rest of the population. It estimates that over the next decade, this will add $93 billion to health care costs for Quebec, the provinces and the territories, a sum equivalent to 1.8% of all their total spending.

The Conference Board of Canada notes that 5.1 million people in Canada and Quebec will reach age 65 over the next 10 years. However, in its current form, the Canada health transfer does not take the aging of the population into account. The formula is based on an equal amount per capita. That is why the FADOQ network believes that the Canadian government needs to change the formula and add a variable to account for the aging population in the provinces and territories. This would allow for increases in the areas that have the greatest needs. The FADOQ network used the Conference Board report to justify its demand that the government provide assistance so the network can better care for its members. Those numbers speak for themselves.

Canada's population is aging, and the proportion of seniors in Canada and Quebec will rise from 16.9% to 21% over the next 10 years. Federal health transfers in 2017-18 covered $37 billion of the total $167 billion in public health care costs.

Today, the Canada health transfer represents approximately 22% of total public health expenditures. I will reiterate that, under the current funding formula, the provinces and territories receive federal funds on an equal per capita basis. Over the past decade the CHT increased by 6%, but, since 2017, its growth rate has been limited to 3% or the rate of economic growth, whichever is higher.

The federal government covers approximately 22% of health care costs and if those costs rise faster than the rate of economic growth, Quebec, the provinces and the territories must absorb the difference. We foresee that this scenario will materialize within the next few years. According to estimates, the CHT will increase by 3.7% per year over the next decade, while the cost of health care will increase by 5.1% per year. In other words, the federal contribution to the funding of health care will not keep pace with the growth in health care costs. If nothing is done to correct this situation, the federal portion of the health care envelope will fall below 20% by 2026.

In its press release issued yesterday after the federal economic statement, the FADOQ network strongly deplores the fact that the government again shirked its responsibilities and announced absolutely nothing for seniors in the economic update provided by the Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland.

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

Order. I would remind the member that we do not mention the names of other members.

The hon. member has the floor.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the FADOQ was expecting the Trudeau government to announce a minimum increase of 10% in old age security. The president, Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, stated, “It is absolutely unacceptable that the government is once again failing seniors, many of whom find themselves in a dismal financial situation that has been made worse by the pandemic.”

In last September's throne speech, the government reiterated its commitment to enhance old age security. The FADOQ network had reiterated its demand that this increased benefit be given to people between the ages of 65 and 74, not just those 75 and over. People whose only revenue is old age security and the guaranteed income supplement receive just barely over $18,000 a year, or about the equivalent of the cut-off established by the market basket measure.

Seniors in this situation therefore have to make do with the bare minimum, what Statistics Canada refers to as the market basket measure. That is barely enough to meet basic needs and does not include dental care, eye care or medication, as Ms. Tassé-Goodman points out. Like so many seniors who are among society's least well-off, the FADOQ network has still not digested the insulting indexation—that is the word used—of less than 1% of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, a measure that was announced on October 1, ironically, on the International Day of Older Persons.

How long will the government continue mocking seniors? How can these people, who built this country, be overlooked like this, not just during the pandemic, but all the time? Increasing their old age security by less than $110 takes away their purchasing power, because the cost of everything continues to rise, whether it is housing, food or the essential services they are entitled to. The insult has gone on long enough.

I added that part about purchasing power because those are exactly the two things that the president of the FADOQ asked for when she appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, when we were talking about finding ways to help senior women during this pandemic. They must be given the financial means to stay at home and receive help, of course, but the health care system must also be given the means to care for seniors as well as their caregivers.

Seniors are extremely grateful to the medical personnel who take care of them day after day. They do not need national standards. It is not national standards that are going to take care of them. We need to give our health care workers the means to look after these people, through better working conditions, proper personal protective equipment and adequate supplies. In short, we can only really help seniors if the government stops cutting funding for the workers in our hospitals and throughout our health care system. The government needs to mind its own business.

Giving money to certain organizations that help seniors is good, but it is not nearly enough. It would be better if our seniors were no longer held hostage. They need to be reassured. The government needs to give Quebec and the provinces the resources to help them get through this public health crisis. Let us recognize and commend the efforts of our front-line workers and the efforts the public is making to reduce the pressure on our health care system.

The governments of Quebec and Canada have worked together for decades to meet the public's health care needs. After years of Liberal and Conservative budget cuts, these governments need to continue to work together to meet the needs of the aging population.

We hope that the Liberals will avoid the two temptations that governments face in times of crisis: austerity, such as refusing to increase health transfers to 35%, and interference in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

We need to take action to ensure that seniors are seen as a grey-haired source of strength, rather than an economic burden.

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

Before we move on to questions and comments, I want to remind hon. members that they must not name other members who are currently members of Parliament.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.