Debates of Feb. 16th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Public Health Care Funding and Delivery

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again I was having trouble with translation, but I caught the last part of the question. I appreciate the fact that the member said that I have been saying lovely things. However, I would say that it is more than that. The changes that are being made through this historic amount of money that is being transferred will in fact make a huge difference in our health care system, and there are quotes from many organizations to back that up. They have been said before, and I can quote them again if the member would like—

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

Unfortunately, the hon. member does not have any time left.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join today's discussion on the opposition motion that has been brought forward by the NDP.

I would like to start by reflecting on the exchange between the member for Barrie—Innisfil and the member for Burnaby South. When the leader of the NDP was replying to the member for Barrie—Innisfil, he made a really good point, that the NDP is the fourth party in terms of seats in this House, but it is still able to do something for Canadians, still able to have an impact in this minority Parliament, and he challenged the member for Barrie—Innisfil by asking what his party has done.

I completely agree with the NDP leader when he did that. NDP members have been effective at seeing some of the policies that are near and dear to the core of their values be brought into legislation and become law, such as dental care. However, as much as I respect and appreciate that, I cannot help but wonder why they would bring forward this motion. They clearly know how they can be effective, but they are completely not being effective with this motion.

They know what they are doing. When we had a majority, we would see this time after time, with the NDP in particular. The Conservatives did not do this quite as much in their motions, as they would just go all out for the throat, but the NDP would do this a lot more often. They would make a motion that is really good in its intentions but then throw one or two poison pills in there, knowing that those one or two poison pills are things that this side cannot support, so that afterwards they can say, “Look, everybody, we brought forward this motion saying we need to protect our universal health care system, and the governing party, the Liberals, would not even vote for it.” They know that is exactly what they do, because they do it every time.

In this case, how did they do it? They did it by inserting two sentences. One says, “the prime minister has now dramatically changed his position and has lauded as 'innovation' Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s proposed expansion of for-profit clinics”. So, if we were to vote in favour of this, we would effectively be saying that we agree that the Prime Minister said that. They know full well he did not, and I will get to that point in a second. The other sentence says that they “express disappointment that the prime minister has promoted Ontario’s for-profit health plans as 'innovation'”. Again, that never happened.

What I found really interesting about the exchange from the member for Burnaby South was that afterwards, in a response to one of my questions, he actually said that the Prime Minister met with Doug Ford but they never even talked about the privatization of health care. Well, go figure. It just goes to show that the only people who made this jump from the word “innovation” and the context in which it was said to “they support privatization of health care” were the NDP members. By his own admission, the member for Burnaby South said that the Premier of Ontario and the Prime Minister never talked about the privatization of health care.

I happen to think that, despite the fact that the Ontario government is flirting with the idea in Ontario, and I know it is doing that, it also knows that the federal government is the party that brought health care in, with all due respect to Tommy Douglas. Kudos to the NDP for not invoking Tommy Douglas's name every four sentences in this debate today—

[An hon. member]

Only 10 times today.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, was it only 10 times today? That is a very impressive feat by my definition.

The reality of the situation is that the Premier of Ontario knows that there is no way this side of the House, the federal Liberal government that brought health care into this country, would ever allow for the privatization of health care in Ontario. So, for the NDP members to take some words that were said out of context and try to jump to the position of saying that this party is now supportive of privatizing health care is ludicrous. It goes against everything they have done in this House since the last election. The member for Burnaby South is absolutely right. They have actually done some really good things that they can take credit for, but what they are doing here today is just back to those old games they used to play before.

The New Democrats introduce these motions that are really laudable, in terms of the objectives here. I do not think anybody really disagrees with anything else in here, but then they drop the one or two poison pills in there that they know we cannot support, so as soon as we do not, they are going to email-blast their friends and say that the federal Liberals will not even say they support universal health care, because the NDP put forward a motion and the Liberals did not support it.

The NDP is just back to the political games I was witness to for the first four or five years in here with the NDP in opposition. I find it really disheartening, because I thought they were here to make a genuine difference, which they have been able to do by using the power they have. Unfortunately, as I have said, they clearly have not done that this time.

What has been worked out with the provinces is $200 billion over the next 10 years. To the member from the Bloc who just asked my colleague a question before me, I will remind him that the provincial leaders have said that this is what they want and this is a good deal they want to be a part of. We are here to make investments in the made-in-Canada health care system we have.

The Canada Health Act, from the very first lines within it, is to ensure all reasonable access to insured health services on a prepaid basis without direct charges at point of service. That is what the health care system in Canada is about.

I have the luxury of never even having had to contemplate the idea of going to see a doctor or going to a hospital and having to pay for it. Can members imagine, and this happens throughout the world and in the States, a young couple having a child and being so excited, but then they get home and a couple of weeks later they get a bill from the hospital for $25,000 or $30,000 to deliver a child? It is a foreign concept to me, because I have had the luxury of the benefit of this system that the Liberal Party brought into place in a minority government, with the assistance of Tommy Douglas and the former NDP before that.

I have had the luxury of that, and I value that. I think it is a really big stretch to think that anybody on this side of the House would actually support the privatization of health care. We have heard NDP members get up and say this on a number of occasions. I heard the member for Burnaby South say it and I have heard other members say it. They have specifically said to members on this side that we have the opportunity to stand up and that now is our time to have our voices heard to protect people and make sure the privatization never occurs by voting for this, but at the same time they know what they did when they wrote this. They put a couple of poison pills in here that made it impossible for us to vote for it.

Earlier, I said to the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, the House leader for the NDP, that I am willing to support this motion and asked if he would be open to removing those two clauses, which really contribute nothing to the objective of the motion. They do not contribute anything to it. I asked if he would be willing to remove those so that I could vote in favour of it, and I am sure they would get a lot more people on this side voting in favour of it. He said no.

It just goes to show that unfortunately the New Democrats are using this as an opportunity to play politics. They did such a good job at standing up for Canadians and delivering for Canadians on a few key issues they believed in during this minority Parliament, and I am just becoming jaded by having to witness what is happening now with that relationship and with their commitment to Canadians.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be so happy to intone the name of the father of medicare and the system, Tommy Douglas. I just want to remind the member that it was passed by the Liberal government because that human being was sitting in this House and had demonstrated what it meant in Saskatchewan, and that is the only reason that we have this amazing system in this country today.

I appreciate the member's hurt feelings. I understand these are sensitive issues that make us all concerned, but right now we are seeing privatization creep into this system. We have shown that in private systems, often the cost to the patient is double what it would be in our medicare system. When we start down that path, what it means is that more and more people who have resources would be going to the private system, and all the staff would be following that. People in Canada, who have relied on it and who voted in this country that Tommy Douglas was the greatest Canadian ever for the system, will see it deplete.

The NDP is standing in this House today saying there should be a line. We are crossing that line, and we had better stop it. When will the Liberals take responsibility for that creep?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, then they should bring forward that motion. Why not bring forward a motion that is very direct and simple and says, “We stand for universal health care. We do not support the privatization of health care”, full stop? They did not do that.

Instead, they brought forward a motion that was intended to wedge Liberals and NDP. They brought forward a motion that they knew we would not support because they put two little poison pills into it. This is where we are.

I love the grandstanding that we just saw there, but the reality is that, if that member was as genuine as she claims, she would have brought forward something much more simple and direct.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. What does he think about the assault on Quebec's jurisdictions that the NDP motion is proposing today?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I know is that the Prime Minister went and met with the provinces and offered a deal. The provinces took their time to think about it and then came back and said they were supportive of it, including Quebec.

Another member of the Bloc asked a question earlier. He said that this was not the amount that Quebec was asking for originally and asked how we felt about that. I would remind that member that the premier of Quebec said he was happy with this deal and that he endorsed this deal. Nothing is ever good enough for the Bloc. I think that is very clear to most members in the House.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if this has been read out yet today in the debate on this motion, so I thought I would share it. These are the words of the PM:

I recognize we’re in a moment of crisis right now, but we need to build a stronger system for the future.... And that’s where my focus is, I’m not going to comment on what Doug’s trying to do on this one. And we’re supposed to say a certain amount of innovation should be good as long as they’re abiding by the Canada Health Act.

This puts me in a difficult position reading the words of the motion as well, a motion I fully agree with. The words of the motion are that he “dramatically changed his position”. How would the member for Kingston and the Islands characterize this?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, if colleagues vote for this they are voting for misinformation. That is what I would say. I appreciate the member for Kitchener Centre reading out the quote. If any Canadian listened to what he just read, then read this motion, they would very quickly realize what the NDP has done here by trying to wedge an issue.

The reality is that no member in the House would be against innovation as it relates to our health care. The NDP has taken a leap from that comment to assuming that the Prime Minister of Canada, a member of the Liberal Party, supports privatization. That is a massive leap, and I do not think anybody will believe it.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he recognizes that the cuts to the health care system that were started by the Conservatives and continued by the Liberal government have created the conditions for privatization. Pretty words are nice and all, but the Liberals are responsible for continuing with the Conservative cuts to health care.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not support any form of privatization as it relates to our health care system. I explained in my speech why I value it so much.

If the member is correct in his assertions that various things that have led to it have occurred, then we need to do something about that, but grandstanding in the way the NDP has done in this motion is not the way to do it.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Housing; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Public Safety; the hon. member for Bow River, Taxation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this motion. I am sorry we have hurt the feelings of the Liberals here. Here they are back to blaming the NDP. We probably took his parking spot in the morning, let his dog out of the yard and everything else he can blame on the NDP. However, we cannot be blamed by the Prime Minister, who goes out at an election and says one thing and then later on says something else, when it is time to put the mettle to the test. It is not our fault that the Prime Minister misleads the public during the voting process and then later on says something else to the premier of Ontario. That is not my fault. I do not control what the Prime Minister says, whether it is during an election or in a private meeting with Premier Ford.

This is the reality. Let me read what they are upset about here. The motion says, “express disappointment that the prime minister has promoted Ontario’s for-profit health plans as 'innovation”. The phrase “express disappointment” is an outrage. That is ridiculous. We have health care. As we have noted, Tommy Douglas, Canada's greatest Canadian, fought tooth and nail, and actually reversed the move from the private sector to public health care.

Where I come from, two miles across the river, I see the difference in the American system, where there are people on the street who cannot get any help. I know people who have actually lost their homes because they had to choose between health care for their children versus a home for themselves. That is a normal process that takes place in the United States.

On top of that, we have lost lots of jobs in the past because we have not been the nation that has had an auto strategy or an aerospace strategy. At the same time, what has kept our footprint has been our health care system, against U.S. massive subsidies and tax reductions to some of these profiting corporations. What has taken place is that health care is not only a philosophical element that is important for our culture and the wellness of individuals and rights of a citizen here. It is actually a loss leader, in many respects, that builds innovation, protects our economy and brings in far more investment than it costs.

On top of that, we have a far more productive society. That is very important to calculate because people can get the help that they need not only at a time of crisis, but also when they are only partially hurt. It is critical, especially in a global market, when we are trying to attract different types of individuals to stay in this country, that one of the feature elements we have is health care. I can say this, after hearing from people at corporations over the years who have said that they have chosen to invest in Canada. As the industry critic for the NDP for 15 of my 20 years here, I can say how many conversations there have been, over and over, where they have said that, and that is one of the reasons.

Child care and dental care are also important. Instead of what the Conservatives and Liberals have been doing over the last number of generations, lowering corporate taxes and hoping for investment, those investments actually go to people, and they control it. Therefore, when we do corporate tax reductions, often those profits are taken out of the country where they are taxed by other nations. They are not invested here because we know we do not get that investment. Whereas, when our subsidies go to the people, our neighbours, our family and our coworkers, not only are we stronger as an economy, but we are also stronger in the international competition for jobs.

It is crucial for manufacturing. Let us look at the type of things we have done over the years. Even right now, a thousand Canadians die at the workplace per year. I come from a place where industrial diseases through working with chemicals and toxins, and where workers losing limbs in manufacturing, are part of the normal process. Having a public health care system is crucial for innovation, maintaining jobs and putting people back in the workplace.

I used to work as an employment specialist for persons with disabilities. I can say right now that it is atrocious that persons with disabilities, of those who are just looking for work, have an unemployment rate of over 50%. Having a public health care system and not a private one, for those who are destitute or who do not have the type of income needed from their job, is crucial for them to stay in the workplace and pay taxes. The creeping privatization we have disproportionately affects the working class, but on top of that, it will lose jobs for us.

I cannot help what the Prime Minister does. I cannot help that he cozies up to Ford when he wants certain things. That is not the NDP's fault, but we have to call him out for what it is. That has been done in this chamber over the years, time after time, when the Liberals have said one thing and have done another. I remember that corporate tax cut reductions by many of their leaders, such as Stéphane Dion, were not fast and hard enough.

There were corporate tax reductions over and over again. Paul Martin underinvested in health care, housing and all those structural features that were so important. They shift back and forth. They say one thing and are upset because they are getting called out on it. We would not be supportive if we did not make sure that the Prime Minister is accountable. This is clear in Ontario right now because, as we are fighting to restore and keep the auto industry, our primary attraction for that is health care.

There is massive subsidization going on in the United States, from the state level and even from the Biden administration, and it is doing special subsidies. What we have for investment is a workforce that is not only going to be strong, trained and educated, but also healthy. That health element will ensure that we are going to continue with innovation and pay more taxes.

That is why we have unions that have fought for safer workplaces. Unions are fighting for pensions for others. Unions are fighting for safer workplaces for others. I think of Local 200. I think of Local 444 with Stellantis in the Windsor assembly plant. I think of Local 195, which makes parts.

They fight for other workers because they do that for the benefit of all. They know that, when they sit down at the collective bargaining table, those employers, many of them international employers who are looking to screw the workers over in some respects, are going to have the health care system they need. They will have that as a backup for their negotiations.

The health care system is something crucial, not only to individuals collectively as a culture, but also our economy, because our economy contributes all the resources back just because we have our health care.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned the word “innovation”. I would caution him to be careful that the word not be used out of context, as they are doing with this motion. I am happy to discuss health care any time. It is actually one of the reasons I came to the House, but I am disappointed that it is not done in a constructive manner. I speak to health care workers on the ground and they offer solutions. Solutions do exist. They really speak to innovation.

Can the member speak to actual solutions that can help us deal with what we are facing in the health care crisis today? This could be things such as digitization, data collection and technology.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am actually a PSW by training. One of the things that we can do for innovation is one of the simplest things It would be to start to recognize the credentials of foreign-based professionals, who have been in our system and are underemployed right now. That is clear.

Innovation also comes about through our manufacturing. Again, that is why the unions and others support public medicare and benefit programs. They see the benefit of retaining the workforce and what it does, and they know that other parts of the economy do not have those structures. If they had it, they would do even better, be stronger and create more jobs.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep saying that health care is important to them and that the provinces and Quebec accepted the deal. The reality is that they were forced to accept one-seventh of what they were asking for. If I offered the member a choice between one-seventh of his income or nothing, and held a knife to his throat, he would likely take one-seventh of his income because he would have no choice.

Under a minority government, there is a way to make health care really matter. We know that the provinces need funding. The way to make health care matter is to tell the Liberals that we will vote against their budget if it does not allocate an acceptable amount of funding for health.

Since the NDP is taking a full opposition day today to talk about health care, can it commit to voting against the Liberal budget if the provinces' health care demands are not met?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have not even seen the budget. I would do like any other responsible member of Parliament, which is to see the budget in front of me and then make a decision accordingly.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his very powerful speech. One of the things I have heard the Liberals say today is that they announced another $200 billion for the health care system. That is absolute nonsense. The reality is that the majority of that money was already committed. It was already out there. The only addition was $46 billion, which is not enough to deal with the crisis we are in right now in this country. It is shameful for them to bring that up.

Does the member have any comments on that?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's work on this file and others.

This is an interesting thing. We can ask the people who are lined up and cannot get out of the ambulance and into the hospital I represent, Hôtel-Dieu Grace. There are ambulances lined up and people cannot get in there because it cannot get the proper staffing. That is the real test.

We can say all this money is out there. Members brag about how much money they gave and announce things over and over, but this is a famous Conservative Mike Harris trick. The Conservatives talked about having the $1-million dump truck that would go around and announce money all over Ontario, but no one could get the money because of the complications and the way it was laid out. We never actually saw the money, and it is the same thing with this.

What people really care about right now is getting access to proper medicare and not to be starved from it. Again, the numbers do not really lie in terms of what the reality is. We do not have enough money right now because we starved the system. When someone is sitting in an ambulance and cannot get into the hospital because it does not have the proper staffing, it is not acceptable.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am curious to hear the member for Windsor West's thoughts on mental health in particular. Of the new funds, we have seen $25 billion over 10 years committed. Mental health is now one of four items on that list, as opposed to a previous commitment of a dedicated $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer. Can he talk about how important this would be for folks in Windsor West?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that question, because I was talking more about the economics of things and did not actually put that into the equation, which is really important.

Mental health is also one of those things we must invest in, and having a dedicated strategy is important because people will be back to work a lot quicker and people with mental health issues will be able to go to work. We know that has a huge impact on the economy and productivity. Again, it is an investment to make sure people are productive, which is key. When we lose those supports, we also lose our friends and family and other people at work.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be here to talk about this bill. I appreciate that it is a difficult subject.

As a New Democrat, I am incredibly proud of the fact that in 2004, Canadians overwhelmingly voted for Tommy Douglas as the greatest Canadian because he was the father of medicare. When we think about medicare, it is right in our blood. We believe in it foundationally, and it is something we all want to see continue to grow and progress in this country. However, we know the reality is that it is in crisis. I know this very well. I know this because of the realities in my riding.

In my riding, there are currently two hospitals that have no emergency room at night. They shut down. One of those communities is on Corman Island. It is an island, so if something happens to someone at a time when the hospital is closed, they have to find a way off of the island to get help.

I think of Port Hardy, which was very much in the news. One time, someone who was going to the emergency room at the hospital with a very serious issue arrived to find it closed. He collapsed and an ambulance had to drive him over 30 minutes to the nearest hospital. He was lucky because he was not on an island. He was lucky because when he got there, the hospital was not closed that day.

The reality is that during a period of time, we had sudden emergency room closures. Often there were Facebook posts just to let people in the community know their hospital was not open for emergencies that evening. This is devastating. It is devastating to communities. I have had so many constituents contact me to let me know how afraid they are. The hospitals are having such a hard time attracting doctors, staff and nurses because they are burning out. It is huge.

We have to continue to talk about this. When it happens, especially for rural and remote communities that have a very unique experience in this country, people lose emergency access, and they often have to travel far to get any kind of specialist appointment. Now when hospitals are looking at strategies to attract and retain people, it is harder for them. Some are trying to rebuild their communities and economies, but they cannot tell people that if they come to the community to work and live, there is going to be an emergency room open if something happens to them.

Recently, the B.C. NDP government stepped up with $30 million to help. Part of that help meant that two hospitals had to close their emergency services at night. However, what was different is it was not happening all the time. Now they have some resources to start an attraction and retention strategy to get more of the health care providers they desperately need in that region.

The reality is that in Port Hardy, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. there are emergency services, but from 5 p.m. to 7 a.m. there are none. On Corman Island, between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. there are emergency services, but after 7 p.m. there are none. Let us remember that people have to take a ferry to get help or take a helicopter off the island.

I am here and will support this bill because my constituents are pleading for help, and I do not believe the government is standing up to support them. We need the resources flowing. We know something has fundamentally changed in this country, and medicare is worth fighting for.

We need to see that this crisis is happening and that privatization is growing in this country. Why should we be afraid of privatization? Why should we be concerned when the Prime Minister, during an election, made fun of the Conservative leader for saying that privatization is innovation? The Prime Minister said it was wrong, but a little while later he told Doug Ford that it was innovation and good for him. That is the discrepancy here. I really hope members in this House listen to that, because it is a clear discrepancy. All Canadians need to be aware of that.

One of my riding's biggest public health advocates is Lois Jarvis. She is relentless. This woman fights every day for public health care, and I appreciate and respect her so much.

When the communities of Campbell River and Comox Valley were getting hospitals built, she fought like hell to make sure they would have free parking. Do members know why she fought for free parking? It is because those two hospitals serve communities from all around, and people have to come a far distance to get health care. She did not want them to drive for hours, take ferries and then have to pay for parking on top of it, so she fought for it. She fought for public health care, and I will as well.

We know for a fact that private clinics across Canada are advertising that procedures can be done there so much faster and would cost $20,000 to $28,000. We also know that medicare in Canada does the same service for just over $12,000. Privatization is always about making profit; it is not about helping people. That is why the NDP will get up every single day and fight for this system.

Tommy Douglas built it. We all know what he went through to make it happen. It is shameful for the Liberals to take credit for somebody's hard work and inspiration in this country, as if finally the federal government listened and is making sure it happens for every Canadian.

I will stand up for this every day, and I will say that if it does not pass the Lois Jarvis smell test, then I will not have it. Right now, what is happening in this country does not pass her smell test. She knows that privatization is creeping and creeping. Do members know what that means? It means indigenous communities will have even worse health outcomes. It means people who are economically marginalized will be more and more ridden with disease. Our system will fail them. It is already failing too many Canadians.

I will stand up in this House to fight for health care. I certainly hope that everybody in this House has the bravery to do the same.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I also come from a province where we are seeing ERs close. People are dying while waiting to receive care. It is absolutely at crisis levels.

Do members know what is not helping them? It is the games being played in this House, which is exactly what this motion demonstrates.

I am going to allow the member to cut through a lot of the unhelpful pieces of it and maybe speak to the piece about “[enforcing] the Canada Health Act and immediately [moving] to close loopholes that allow for the growth of two-tier health care”. I would like to hear more about that specifically.