Debates of Feb. 16th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Public Health Care Funding and Delivery

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government needs to work with the provinces and the territories to collaborate on our health care system and improve it.

It is important that we work with the provinces to make sure we have a health care system that all Canadians have access to and that is properly funded. The $200-billion investment going into the health care system, in all provinces and territories over the next 10 years, including the additional $50 billion we put in, will go a long way in assisting and meeting those goals.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing that has been really eye-opening for me through the deterioration of our health care system is talking to parents and hearing about how they are adjusting activities for their children to ensure there is minimal risk, because they do not trust that the health care system is going to be there if something goes wrong. It is a horrific reality that parents are facing in raising children now. The health care system is not meeting their needs. We know our health care system is overburdened and privatization will continue to make things worse.

Can the member explain why the Prime Minister failed to raise a single concern with Conservative premiers' privatization plans at last week's first ministers' meeting?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, as many of us have young children at home, we know what it means to take our kids to the doctor or the pediatrician. We want to minimize the risk to our children. I empathize with any parent having to think about that. Our government believes in the pillars of the Canada Health Act. We will always continue to make sure they are heeded by all provinces and territories. We will continue to work with them to ensure that is the case.

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

Madam Speaker, this is my first chance to speak in today's debate. I want to make it very clear that I will be voting in favour of the opposition day motion today.

I am deeply concerned about the eroding state of our health care system, particularly the critical need to defend single-payer, universal, public, non-profit health care for all, as put forward in the Canada Health Act. The first speech in today's debate was a terrific speech by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway. He referenced that for-profit health care is being offered online by Loblaws. I want to put it on the record that we are seeing it in British Columbia from Telus and Shoppers Drug Mart. These are privatized systems.

When will the federal government stand up and shut down for-profit health care in Canada?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government will continue to work with the provinces and territories so that all Canadians have access for their medical needs, access to a family doctor and they never have to pay with their credit card. We will ensure that we have a publicly funded, single-payer system that all Canadians will have confidence in, that all Canadians believe in and that represents the values we have as Canadians.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a huge honour and privilege to rise today on the NDP motion that was brought forward by my good colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, our NDP health critic.

This is a critical debate because we are facing a pivotal moment in Canadian history. We have a universal health care system, but provinces are trying to circumnavigate the rules of the Canada Health Act by using loopholes to grow a two-tiered health care system in Canada. Today, we are asking every MP in the House to decide whether health care funding should be used to rebuild the understaffed public health care system or to set up for-profit corporations that will poach nurses and doctors from the universal health care system. I think Canadians know which side New Democrats stand on.

We know that everybody in this country, despite what income bracket they fall into and what circumstances they have, deserves a health care system that is ready when they need it, no matter the size of their wallet. No one should have to wait in pain or suffer because there are not enough health care workers and not enough access. No one should have to wait longer because one's family doctor or surgeon is busy treating patients who can afford to pay cash.

Under the Liberals, people are waiting for hours right now, in pain, in the ERs. Folks are losing their quality of life while they wait for surgery. The same health care workers that we lauded through COVID-19 and who had our backs are run off their feet, burnt out and exhausted.

A surgical company owned by an investment firm is charging $30,000 for a surgery. Galen Weston and Loblaws, which own Maple, are charging $70 for a doctor's appointment and making a profit. These cash-for-care corporations are already draining doctors and nurses from our hospitals and family practices.

The Prime Minister can make things better for patients by hiring for and rebuilding the public health care system. Otherwise, he can make the crisis even worse by allowing this circumnavigation of the Canada Health Act. He is allowing funding of for-profit schemes that are poaching staff.

We are not surprised to hear that the leader of the official opposition, the Conservative leader, loves for-profit care. It is pretty clear: It will make billions for corporations and enrich CEOs, his friends. It is right out of the Conservatives' playbook to starve a public service; we saw that when they cut a third of Veterans Affairs and then used outsourcing companies, such as the big six that we are going to go after at the OGGO committee because of the NDP motion to do that.

We also saw what they did with the Phoenix pay system. They got rid of the payroll staff, and then it turned into a boondoggle. Therefore, Canadians should know what is coming if the Conservatives come into power. They will use this as an excuse to hand it off to the private sector. The Conservative leader says that everything is broken because he wants to tear it down. That is exactly what he wants to do.

The Prime Minister campaigned on stopping for-profit care, but then he did the opposite. He flip-flopped. He calls Conservative premiers out, but he actually refers to their for-profit corporate care as innovation. He does not actually call them out, and neither does the leader of the official opposition.

We know that medical officials have been raising the alarm for months about our health care system, saying that it is on the brink of collapse. One in five Canadians cannot access a family doctor. We rank near the very bottom of the OECD in wait times for essential care and the number of physicians per 1,000 people. This has declined drastically over the last 25 years, as members know. A prepandemic analysis predicted a shortage of over 117,000 nurses in Canada by 2030.

People are waiting for hours, in pain, in the ER; folks are losing their quality of life. Health care workers are run off their feet, burnt out and exhausted. We need to ensure that the recently announced health care transfer to the provinces is not used to expand for-profit health care. We have to have that assurance. Right now, Canadians do not have that. That funding has to be used within the public system to hire more staff and reduce wait times. Private, for-profit health care further increases wait times and reduces the quality of care as private corporations seek to cut corners. It is a fact. We can look to Australia, and I will get to that if I have time.

However, we already have a two-tiered system in one area of the health care system, which is in mental health. Members know that I have spoken about that many times. I have kept members here very late at night every week for months on late shows to talk about that.

We can see what the outcomes are for Canadians who need health care treatment and supports. Every member in this House knows a story about a constituent, family member or friend who is struggling, who has not gotten help or who did not get help, and the fatal outcomes that come with that in the worst circumstances. Right now, most mental health and substance use services are only covered by our universal health care system, if people can get access through that. Otherwise, they have to go to community-based mental health services, which are often chronically underfunded, and substance use organizations, which do not have the resources to deliver just-in-time treatment.

Counselling, peer support, substance use prevention and treatment services are provided by these non-profits or by charitable donations and grants, and they just do not have the resources to keep up with the demand for services. The Mental Health Commission of Canada and the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction recently found that a third of respondents reported moderate to severe mental health concerns. However, fewer than a third of the people experiencing them accessed treatment. Among Canadians with problematic substance use concerns, under one in four access services. The report identified that the key barrier to accessing services was financial constraints.

We know this is happening in mental health. The barrier is there. It is financial. We need to ensure that the people who are struggling can access mental health care regardless of their ability to pay. Canadians simply cannot be forced to rely on non-profits and private insurance, especially the many people who do not have private insurance. It is just not working. The average wait time for adult residential treatment for people who have substance use concerns is 100 days. That is far too long.

In Ontario, 28,000 children alone are on wait-lists for community-based mental health services that range from 67 days to more than two and a half years. That is what a private-public model looks like: Children who are waiting up to two and a half years for help.

A friend of mine just had a family member in treatment. He talked about how he could afford it, but he knows so many who cannot. Right now we also need a system that has built-in relapse, just-in-time relapse, so that the system is there to respond so someone can get into treatment should they need extra help. In this way, they can come back into the health care system if they are relapsing, which is part of recovery.

We know that for people who are waiting too long for treatment, again because they cannot afford it, the privatization and lack of mental health and substance use supports are resulting in more overburdening of the health care system.

I was at my own doctor, and I asked him if it was at adding pressure at his office. He said that 50% of the people coming through his office are needing either mental health supports or supports regarding substance use, and it is actually impacting his ability to help those with physical ailments.

The government has not delivered its $5.3-billion promise on mental health. I was just talking to Judith Sayers of the Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council about the crisis that is happening in indigenous communities in my riding and about the need for rapid access, addiction resources and detox. It is not there. The cost to the system of not having these services in play is enormous.

Members have heard me talk about the toxic drug crisis, the need for treatment on demand or just-in-time treatment, and the need for prevention, education, recovery and a safer supply of substances. These points are all critical. However, they need to be delivered through a universal system. Again, Australia introduced a parallel private system. One alarming statistic is that those in the lowest socio-economic group were 37% more likely to die of cancer than those in the highest socio-economic group.

We have seen Ontario and Saskatchewan circumnavigating the system to bring in services. We have seen Veterans Affairs using a company owned by Loblaws to deliver services to veterans, and veterans are waiting while this is being outsourced. We are seeing the privatization.

Right now, this is a critical vote. We are calling on each member of Parliament to decide: staff up to rebuild the public system and cut wait times or use public health care funding to set up for-profit corporations that would poach nurses and doctors.

We know which side we stand on. It is the side of patients, Canadians and health care workers. We will continue to stand up and defend them against the threats that are coming right now because we see that the Liberals and Conservatives are not willing to defend public health.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member's last comment regarding the Liberals not defending health care. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was the Liberal Party that brought in health care, whether the member wants to recognize it or not. The Liberal Party achieved the historic amount of funding that we see today. The Liberal government, working with the provinces and stakeholders, has now signed off on $198-billion-plus for the next 10 years to ensure that we have a national health care system, not only for today but for future generations.

Specifically outside of the Canada Health Act and the financial resources that we are giving to provinces, what more does the member believe a national government could do, not in the NDP dream world but realistically, in order to ensure that we have a true national health care program?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

First, Liberals need to stop the loopholes, Madam Speaker. They need to stop provinces from circumnavigating the Canada Health Act and offering privatization. This is creating a two-tiered system that we know is going to harm our ability to attract doctors and nurses to the universal public system and is not going to be affordable for others. They promised a mental health transfer of $5.3 billion, and that has not happened. There are no assurances in their agreements with the provinces that it is going to be delivered.

All the member has to do is talk to the national organizations that are delivering mental health services in the two-tiered mental health care system, because that is what is going on. He also needs to maybe talk to some of the parents who have lost loved ones, who were in treatment or in the hospital and were punted because there were not enough beds for them. Maybe they took their own lives. Maybe he should talk to Moms Stop the Harm. The government needs to talk to them before it pats itself on the back. It needs to listen to them because that is who is calling for this action right now.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I feel so sorry for my friend, who was trotted out like a slaughtered lamb for this speech. To give a speech about health care and being a New Democrat is ludicrous in my province.

New Democrats actually ushered in the two-tiered health care system under Roy Romanow when they closed 52 hospitals in my province, and every hospital they closed was in an opposition member's riding. They fired 1,000 nurses and 500 doctors in the 1990s. Therefore, when they talk about two-tiered health care in Canada, they are the ones who brought it in. People could never get the same service in rural and remote Saskatchewan as they could in urban Saskatchewan. They closed the Plains hospital, which was one of the first hospitals built in the province in 100 years. They did not like the people who were going to it because those people did not vote NDP.

The NDP has nothing to stand on when it comes to two-tiered health care in my province. They eviscerated Saskatchewan's health care system. That is why they will never be in government in Saskatchewan and why they will never be trusted to be the government of Canada.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing we know is that Conservatives certainly cannot be trusted to stand up against Doug Ford, Scott Moe and Danielle Smith. They want to destroy Canada's universal health care system, which by the way, was brought in by Tommy Douglas, who is from Saskatchewan.

It was the New Democrats that brought forward this motion today instead of a motion to remove the carbon tax for the seventh time. That is what Conservatives use their opposition days for as opposed to trying to protect health care for Canadians. They use their opposition days for motions that they could not enforce even if they were passed in this House. I am from British Columbia, which has a provincial carbon tax.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will just reiterate some of what I said before. I agree with my colleague. Wait lists for surgeries, children, seniors and people seeking addiction treatment are atrocious.

This is true in Quebec too. Every day, we see images of wait lists in ERs. People cannot get adequate care in Canada, and that is an absolute disgrace.

However, here we are spending yet another day wasting our breath because we cannot change anything about the things in my NDP friends' motion. That is all down to the provinces.

However, there are changes we can make. I wonder why the NDP did not use its motion to tell the Liberals that the provinces asked for $6 billion and got $1 billion. Why not move a motion asking the feds to increase health transfers from $1 billion to $6 billion? That would shorten wait lists—

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

I have to give the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni enough time to answer.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, clearly we are not satisfied with the amount of money that the government put on the table. It is far from what is needed. It has also not delivered on the Canada mental health transfer, which is absolutely critical. If we want to talk about solutions, we need to deal with the issues right in front of us. There is a mental health and substance use crisis in this country. It is an epidemic, and the government needs to respond like it is an epidemic.

We have a motion today that is—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to defend the Canadian health care system and, more importantly, the Canadian public health care system.

It is already common knowledge that public health care was created here, in the House, by Tommy Douglas, former NDP leader, and by the NPD caucus in the 1960s. That was when our universal public health care system was created. The NDP was not only an inspiration, it also fought for the health care system we have today.

In all the polls of Canadians that have been commissioned over the years asking them which Canadian institution makes them the most proud, all Canadians, including Quebeckers, respond that universal public health care is the institution that they care about the most.

This is worth mentioning, because the NDP inspired its creation and fought for this Canadian public health care system that people across Canada value, be they in Chicoutimi or Calgary. Indeed, 80% of Canadians value our universal public health care system.

However, it must be said that this system is currently at risk because of underfunding. It was underfunded by the Conservatives and then by the Liberals. This lack of funding is undermining our public health care system. Now, we are also facing a government that is refusing to strengthen the Canada Health Act. This act reflects all of the principles of universal public health care in Canada. However, we have a Liberal government that refuses to respect these principles and ensure they are upheld. When I watch Quebec television, I am now seeing ads for private surgeries and for a whole range of services offered in the private sector. This type of thing should not be happening under the Canada Health Act. Proper funding is, of course, extremely important.

In light of all that, what the NDP is proposing today should be a given. The House should unanimously adopt this motion, which says that we cannot promote a for-profit health care system as some kind of innovation, that we must ensure that health care funding is used for the universal public system, and that we must ensure that we have more nurses, more staff and more doctors. All of these things are possible.

We are also saying that we need to strengthen the Canada Health Act so as not to expand the use of for-profit health care, because that is detrimental. We know that, because of its for-profit health care system, per capita health care costs in the United States are twice as high as they are in Canada. We also know that tens of millions of Americans do not even have access to their health care system. To illustrate, my cousin had a car accident in California, and that cost him $100,000 and put him in an extremely difficult situation. That is something that we see all the time in the U.S.

A profit-driven health care system is a system full of holes that leaves people without health care coverage. They then have to use their credit cards. Plus, the costs are double what they would be in a normal system.

This is the question that is before each parliamentarian. There is no doubt that, if we ask our constituents, and I hope Conservatives and Liberals will ask their constituents before they vote on this after we have a two-week break in our constituencies, our constituents would say, at a level of 80%, that they believe in universal public health care in Canada.

Tommy Douglas started universal public health care. The NDP caucus fought for it in the 1960s, and we fought for it because we know that people should not have to rely on their credit cards when they have health challenges that force them to get medical support. There is no doubt that ensuring our universal public health care system continues, and gets better and even expanded, is why the member for Burnaby South has fought for dental care. That is why we are fighting for pharmacare.

Members will recall that, just two years ago, Conservatives and Liberals voted against pharmacare, even though 30,000 Canadians in each of their ridings need access to universal public pharmacare. They voted against the interests of their constituents and for the interests of big pharmaceutical companies.

We believe we actually need to expand health care and ensure dental care. We must ensure health care, as the member for Burnaby South has said so often, from the tops of our heads to the soles of our feet. That is health care that Tommy Douglas imagined, and that is universal public health care that Canadians support.

We have the Conservatives, as always, trying to undermine and throw out our health care system. We see this with Doug Ford in Ontario. They are obviously not doing it with the support of their constituents, and I would level a warning to Conservatives who believe that somehow they can trick their constituents by voting against public health care and undermining public health care. Canadians support public health care, and Conservatives should get on board. They should be supporting public health care in this country, because that is what Canadians support and that is what their constituents want them to do.

I am anticipating that Conservatives are going to vote “yes” on this motion. I am anticipating that Liberals will too, even though they voted against pharmacare and dental care. The NDP brought them kicking and screaming to the reality that we need to expand our public health care system.

The member for Vancouver Kingsway is absolutely right. We have now forced dental care. We are going to have a vote this year on pharmacare. These are important innovations and expansions. This is the fundamental strength of our public health care system.

We need to ensure adequate funding. We need to ensure, as well, that the Canada Health Act is actually upheld, that a law in this country is actually respected. What a concept that is. We see private clinics and we see provincial governments moving to the huge cost that comes from for-profit health care. We see them trying to chip away at universal public health care rather than funding it adequately, and the federal government needs to start stepping up on funding of public health care in this country.

We throw away, in a system created by the Conservatives and maintained by the Liberals, $30 billion every year to the ultrarich in notorious overseas tax havens. There are treaties the Harper government signed to allow the ultrarich to take their money offshore, and the Liberals have maintained that system, to the chagrin of most Canadians.

We have the financial ability to adequately fund our health care, and that means ensuring people also have access to their medication, dental care and mental health care. These are all fundamental tenets of universal public health care.

In this corner of the House, the NDP stands resolutely for adequate funding for enforcement of the Canada Health Act and for ensuring we push back on private, for-profit health care, because we know it costs Canadians twice as much. We know it means Canadians get a substandard level of care as it is creamed off into for-profit health care.

When we see big corporations like Loblaws trying to step up to take their piece, New Democrats, members of the NDP caucus, our leader from Burnaby South and our health critic from Vancouver Kingsway all say “no” to for-profit health care. We say “yes” to adequately funded universal public health care in Canada.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I actually do not disagree with a lot of what is in this motion. The problem is that the NDP does the same thing it has done so many other times when it brings forward an opposition motion. It put something in here that makes it very difficult for Liberals to support it, namely, saying that the Prime Minister has dramatically changed his position, which we all know is not true.

This is just an opportunity that the NDP has seized from a little bit of misinformation and a little bit of information taken out of context.

I think that, outside of those two comments in there, this is a pretty decent motion and I would be inclined to support it.

I am wondering if the NDP would be open to removing those two sentences that directly attack the Prime Minister. The first is (ii) and the second is (a). If the NDP removed those, it would be so much easier for me to support.

Would the members remove those two sentences from there?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is overly sensitive. Let us read out the motion so that all Canadians can hear it.

First is that the House “(a) express disappointment that the prime minister has promoted Ontario’s for-profit health plans as ‘innovation’”. That is a fact that nobody can dispute.

Next is “(b) ensure that recently announced health care funding is not used for the expansion of for-profit health care, but instead used to rebuild and innovate within the public system by hiring more staff and reducing wait times". Who can disagree with that?

The last is to “(c) enforce the Canada Health Act and immediately move to close loopholes that allow for the growth of two-tier health care in Canada.”

This is a very simple, straightforward motion that everyone should vote—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I never got an answer to my last question from the member before this.

This member seems to have selective amnesia. I feel so bad for him. He talks about Tommy Douglas but not about Roy Romanow's revenge on rural Saskatchewan, where, in the 1990s, he closed 52 hospitals and 13 long-term care homes. They are the kings of two-tiered health care systems, with one service in rural Saskatchewan and one service in urban Saskatchewan.

I would love an answer, since they ushered in the actual two-tiered system, and they closed hospitals where people did not vote for them.

I wonder how they feel about that, because they will never be trusted to run health care in Saskatchewan. Canada should not trust these NDP members either, because they are members of the same party.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is quite simple. The member is asking absolutely ridiculous questions. To impugn Tommy Douglas, the founder of universal public health care, is the incredible disinformation that has become the wacky part of this Conservative Party. Its members no longer base anything on facts. They just get up and throw out anything.

I would simply ask them to talk to their constituents. I would ask the member to go back to Regina and talk to his constituents. What he will find is that 80% of his constituents want him to vote for this motion.

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

Madam Speaker, this is entertaining. It is like when people in Quebec bicker about who is the king of poutine or who created it.

What is not so funny is that everyone here is going to argue that the best health care system is public, universal and free. Everyone is going to say we do not want a two-tiered health care system, like the American system.

However, the problem here is that after describing the situation with health care they then urge Canada to save it. Quebec has health legislation. The problem for the Bloc is that the NDP puts Canada first.

We feel a sense of belonging to Quebec. To guarantee a public health care system, we must ensure that the federal government commits to funding it as part of its spending power.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member, but she is wrong. For the NDP, people come first. Nurses come first. Doctors come first. Health care systems come first, whether in Quebec, in British Columbia or elsewhere. We fought to have those systems properly funded and to create our universal health care system.

We have always pushed for a Canada Health Act that protects our universal public health care system.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for London West.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak about health care. This has been a really important issue for my constituents and all Canadians, especially after the pandemic and the strain we saw in our health care system. All Canadians are focused on health care right now and are thinking about health care. The strain on our health care workers has been enormous. I am therefore pleased to rise in this House to talk about the plan that our Prime Minister announced.

My minister, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the health minister have been travelling across the country meeting with premiers and their ministerial counterparts to discuss health care needs in each and every province and territory. We know that the needs in each province and territory differ, and that is precisely why these conversations about the priorities in each place are so crucial. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution, but what we can do as a federal government is lead and support.

We can talk about the areas of health care that we all know are under pressure, including emergency rooms. I have mentioned the strain on health care workers in the sector, who are overworked and whom we all regarded as our heroes. They are still our heroes but are not getting the attention and care they need during this difficult time. That is what the funding announced on February 7 is about. The Prime Minister announced almost $200 billion over the next 10 years to help support the critical areas that are under pressure. It includes better wages for health care workers, which is incredibly important.

In my riding, issues regarding mental health are raised all the time. Countless constituents have come to me talking about the mental health needs of a family member, for example. In my region, there seem to be some challenges in getting support for people with eating disorders, a specialized mental health area. It is also really hard to get supports for young people, and that is crucial for their recovery.

There are other areas I have met with constituents on. One is the area of stroke survivors getting the adequate rehab they need post-stroke. Another area we have heard about in my constituency is the need for family doctors and access to family doctors, especially for newcomers in my community who need family doctors or specialist appointments. It is becoming increasingly difficult.

I would be remiss if I did not speak about the need for long-term care and the supports there. Our government previously announced $4 billion to support long-term care. Sadly, during the pandemic, one of the long-term care homes in my riding lost many residents. I think we had among the most fatalities of anywhere in the country, which was devastating and only served to prove the breaking point that some of these facilities were already under. The measures and the supports needed during COVID highlighted that. We have committed to doing better. We owe these families and our seniors the dignity they deserve later in life.

I have spoken about emergency room wait times. I have heard from constituents who, if they do not have a family doctor, are putting more strain on emergency rooms because they have nowhere to turn, even if there might not be an emergency situation. That is also adding to the strain and pressures on our system.

These are all things that Canadians are extremely focused on. That is why, with this announcement, I was so pleased that the proposed funding addresses so many of the key points that my constituents have raised directly. One of those things is an immediate $2-billion top-up to deal with the pressures on pediatric hospitals and emergency rooms and with long wait times for surgeries. Those specialty appointments are becoming harder for constituents to receive, and many times it is a quality of life issue.

We have also committed to additional bilateral agreements because, as I said earlier, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. The priorities of each province and territory might be different. The needs of the residents there might be different. It is important that we are listening to those needs and where those priorities should be.

I spoke about support for our hospital workers, which includes $1.7 billion over five years to increase the wages of personal support workers. This is additional funding to help keep seniors, or those who need a bit of help, in their homes longer. I have personal friends and constituents who are in desperate need of that additional care. We will help them by injecting some of the funding into that system. In addition, there is $2 billion over 10 years to support indigenous priorities.

There is a lot of work to be done, but I think what is crucial is that we have identified what Canadians have been telling us about where the injection of funding is needed.

One of the most important things I can say, which constituents in my riding in Ontario have said time and time again, is that there has to be accountability. We cannot just send cash to the provinces without knowing where it is going or if it is actually hitting the services needed. My constituents and residents who have been asking for this influx of funding want to be able to hold their provincial governments accountable if the funding is not going there.

What I do not want to see after an injection of federal funding, which I have also heard from my constituents, is the provinces taking out their share while we end up in no better a place than we were before. Therefore, for accountability and transparency, the requirement to have data is important. The Prime Minister has talked about this. I find it difficult to talk to Canadians about the fact that if they require an ambulance and provide their health care, the ambulance staff do not know if they are allergic to anything.

I think I am running out of time since question period is about to start, but I would like to continue after that because this is a crucial moment for our health care system in Canada.

Kenneth Monteith

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if someone looks up the term “exemplary service” in Elgin County, they will find the name and face of Ken Monteith.

Ken lived nearly all of his life on the family farm in Middlemarch. He served as a councillor, deputy reeve, reeve, warden and member of Parliament for Elgin—Norfolk. He was the chairman of the Progressive Conservative Party's national agricultural caucus and sat on the agricultural standing committee on Parliament Hill.

Ken dedicated his life to his community. He was chairman of the board for the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital, director of Ridgetown College, chair of the 1985 International Plowing Match and co-chair of the Elgin-St. Thomas United Way campaign. He was the recipient of the Queen's Medal, the Westag Alumnus of Honour Award and the Outstanding Service Award from the Ontario Agricultural College. He was also inducted into the Elgin County Agricultural Hall of Fame in 2015.

Kenneth Ernest Monteith passed away on February 3. To his wife Luella and his children Ken, Paul and Janet and their families, from the people of Elgin—Middlesex—London, I say thanks for sharing Ken with all of us.

Freedom of Religion

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pain and anguish that I state Ram Mandir, a Hindu temple in Mississauga, has become the latest target of a hate crime.

In recent times, other Hindu temples across Canada have been targets of hate crimes by anti-Hindu and anti-India groups. These groups first joined hands on social media to target Hindu-Canadians and started the trend of Hinduphobia. They have now moved on to physical attacks on Hindu temples. There are reports of individual Hindu Canadians also being targeted.

As I have said before, Canada needs to take this issue seriously and address the growing Hinduphobia. As Canadians, we need to practise, celebrate and share our many different religious faiths and heritages peacefully. Let us pledge to continue to do so.