Debates of Oct. 30th, 2025

Canada Health Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right that we do, but so did Stephen Harper.

Every government I am aware of, over the years I have been a parliamentarian, has talked about the benefits of Canada's health care system. I would challenge the member opposite to tell me of any prime minister who has not been boastful about health care to people who want to come to Canada.

Conservatives try to give the impression that immigration is causing the problems in our health care system. My understanding of immigration and our health care system is that a good percentage of the people who are providing care, whether it is home care services, long-term care, assisted living or in our hospital facilities, are first-generation and second-generation Canadians and permanent residents who have been living in and calling Canada home.

To come to Canada, people need to pass a health exam. There are medical requirements. If someone has cancer, they cannot come to Canada as a permanent resident. Let us not give a false impression that immigrants are the cause of problems in Canada's health care system.

In my home province, the Minister of Labour and Immigration, the Minister of Health Care and the Premier, all three of those individuals, say they want more immigration to Manitoba. This is not because it is crippling the health care system. If anything, it is complementing the health care system, so we need to be very careful. It is not me saying this; these are the provincial politicians responsible for the administration of health saying it.

We should all be considering what the member for Surrey Newton is saying to members of the House, which is that it is about financial accountability and whether there is a role for Parliament to assess that. I think he has done all of us a favour by bringing forward the legislation. I look forward to the debate and comments regarding the legislation.

What I do not support is when members of Parliament say that Ottawa has no role to play in health care. If they are saying that, then they truly do not understand the Canadian identity and what Canadians truly value. When we ask constituents what they love about our country, they will often mention our health care system. It is one of the distinguishing factors we have over countries like the United States and other G7 countries. Our health care is something we should be proud of.

All members of the Liberal caucus are very much proud of that fact, and we respect provincial jurisdiction to the nth degree. This is the reason we have ministers of health who have worked on health care accords and, through those accords, have worked to ensure more accountability.

I will now go back to the Trudeau era, when the Trudeau government made a $200-billion commitment to health care. I was with the former prime minister and the Premier of Manitoba at the Grace Hospital, where we talked about how Ottawa was going to have a profound and positive impact on health care delivery in the province of Manitoba because we were coming to the province with a considerable amount of money.

We recognize the role that the government plays in health care, whether we are talking about the former prime minister or the current Prime Minister, and we will continue to do that. Our new Prime Minister, who was just elected seven months ago, talks about the dental program for Canadians and how we are going to continue to support it. He is committed to advocating for the strengths of mental health. Many of my colleagues talk about the importance of long-term care. Liberals care about our health care system and will continue to care about it into the future.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of the people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay on the issue of health care, specifically Bill C-239, an act to amend the Canada Health Act with respect to accountability. I would like to thank the member for Surrey Newton for bringing forward the legislation. It is a privilege for any member to bring forward their own legislation to be debated in the chamber.

The legislation before us seeks to establish an accountability framework for the Canada health transfer. Conservatives on this side of the chamber appreciate the member's efforts to bring in greater accountability. Indeed, all Canadians want health care dollars to be spent well.

However, members of the chamber are not elected to applaud good efforts; we are elected to study legislation in the context of the laws and measures we already have in place, to determine whether new legislation would add positively to these measures or only duplicate them. Unfortunately, the legislation before us would only add more bureaucracy to a health care system that needs more transparent accountability, and it would also fail to grapple with the government's own record on health care.

I do not doubt that the member's intentions with the legislation are to spur greater health care outcomes in our shared province of British Columbia. We all know it needs help. However, there is nothing in the legislation that would impose any requirement on provincial governments to improve health care outcomes. It would only require administrative work, duplicating work already being done. Ottawa already has a legacy of duplicating provincial regulations, adding red tape to systems and slowing down results. All we need is another layer of bureaucracy.

For example, the legislation seeks to amend the Canada Health Act. I would point out that paragraph 13(a) of the Canada Health Act already requires provinces to provide the federal Minister of Health with health care information to qualify for health transfers. Additionally, provincial and territorial governments submit health care data to the Canadian Institute for Health Information as well. There is nothing in the member's bill that indicates whether these are the data points he wants provincial governments to table with the federal government to qualify for health transfers.

If so, then the purpose of the legislation seems to be already covered by the Canada Health Act. If not, if it is different information that would be required, then that would only cause provincial health bureaucrats to spend more time collecting data for federal bureaucrats. That would be less time, not more, focusing on delivery of health care. Red tape does not buy more doctors or more health care workers.

Too many residents in my community would like any health care at all delivered, because too often they see “Sorry, we're closed” instead. At South Okanagan General Hospital, there have been more than 35 random closures in just one year. Imagine someone driving to a hospital because their baby is sick, and it is suddenly closed because there are not enough doctors or nurses. Thousands of constituents do not have access to a family doctor. We hear the same stories from Princeton to Penticton, Osoyoos, Grand Forks and Castlegar.

What is the Liberal government doing for health care recruitment to fill these gaps in communities like mine? It has brought in international medical school graduates but then does not allow them to work in our health care system. According to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, at least 13,000 internationally trained doctors are currently in Canada but not working as doctors. Every year, hundreds of Canadians graduate from medical schools abroad but cannot access a residency training spot back home in Canada.

At the Standing Committee on Health, we recently heard of two cases. First, we heard from Dr. Therese Bichay, who immigrated from Egypt where she practised as a family doctor. She was approved as a priority candidate for immigration to Canada due to her medical training, yet when she arrived, she found the doors closed instead of open. She passed all required medical exams, had her credentials verified and completed the English-language proficiency exam. She is currently working as a physician navigator in the emergency department, yet she cannot work as a doctor. She even told me she would come to my region to be a family doctor, which is in desperate need of doctors.

We are in desperate need of family doctors in so many rural communities, including ours. The Liberal government has failed to support her and the thousands of internationally educated physicians across the country, who are qualified and ready to serve, yet are sidelined and ignored.

Second, we heard from Dr. Scott Alexander, who is Canadian and a doctor, but cannot be a doctor in Canada. He trained at the University of Queensland and even had a job offer from the Australian health care system. He could not get a residency in Canada, even though he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on his education. He made the sacrifice to return to Canada anyway to work in the health sciences. We thank him for this, but he should be a doctor in this country. In his medical class in Australia, he had 60 Canadian colleagues, and 58 of those colleagues are now working as doctors in Australia rather than in Canada because of the barriers in this country that limit their ability to return home to practise.

This is a broken system that the Liberals have overseen for a decade now without reform. If the member sincerely wants to see better health care, and if he wants to see better health care delivery, he should perhaps seek better support from his own caucus rather than establishing a new bureaucracy. If this Liberal member's bill is made into law, what would be the result? It demands that, if a new type of provincial health care data, which is not clearly defined, is not filed with federal bureaucrats, a province may not qualify for a full cash contribution under the Canada health transfer. For me, this raises concerns about whether the federal government is seeking ways to reduce health transfers from provinces via the back door.

We know the Prime Minister himself recently told Canadians that they need to be prepared for sacrifices ahead of the federal budget. Health care should not be one of those sacrifices. The Liberals could, indeed, find plenty of their own wasteful spending and punishing taxes to cut instead. Conservatives will work to improve health care by implementing a national blue seal standard and working with the provinces to create a nationally recognized licence for health care professionals, enabling trained and tested doctors and nurses to work in our health care system, many of whom already live right here in Canada right now.

Conservatives have always, and will always, support a public health care system that Canadians cherish.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing: To me, this bill is deeply offensive and disrespectful. I am a social worker and a member of my professional order. I was a manager in the public health care system for years. One thing I know for sure is that, if my colleagues who work in hospitals, local community services centres and long-term care facilities heard what I heard today, they would be very angry about this disrespect and they would be loud about it. All health care workers are doing their best. They give it their all. Quebec has been through six health care reforms because we are trying to do more with less.

Here in the House, I am being told that this bill will impose standards and demand accountability. Who would create those standards? In Quebec, we are doing our best with the money we have. What I am hearing today is ludicrous. All health care professionals in the public and community networks are worn out because transfers are not keeping up. Municipalities and provinces have made their needs known. They are the ones responsible for providing the services.

Do our colleagues think that we are not troubled by the fact that not everyone has a family doctor? At the same time, Ottawa is not where things will get fixed. Ottawa will not tell the provinces what to do. It must provide the necessary financial resources to help the provinces. Each province has its own needs. The situation in Quebec is different from the situation in New Brunswick. We do not have the same resources or the same history, and our health and social services are organized differently.

I sincerely hope that I will not see a single member from Quebec supporting this bill. That would be the last straw. I want to speak my truth, so I will say one last thing: I have never wanted to leave the House for the country of Quebec so badly.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

Fisheries and Oceans

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour tonight to rise to highlight the urgent need for the federal government to take action when it comes to ship recycling in Canada and especially on the west coast of British Columbia.

In British Columbia, over 900 vessels have been identified that are set to be recycled and retired, and 90 of those vessels are over 500 tonnes. There are no facilities designed to recycle those vessels. In fact, 14 of the 90 vessels are owned by BC Ferries. Those vessels pose an immediate threat to coastal British Columbia's pristine waters, which are critical to our food security, our economy and our way of life.

I am here tonight to highlight the urgent need for federal investment in dry dock and port infrastructure to support ship repair, maintenance and recycling in British Columbia and across Canada.

In my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, Port Alberni is uniquely positioned to serve as a potential hub for this critical work. With the active leadership of Tseshaht and Hupačasath first nations, and I know Huu-ay-aht First Nations is also interested, and the engagement of the provincial government, local government, industry, labour and education partners, a broad coalition has come together to chart a path toward an indigenous-led centre of excellence in sustainable ship recycling. This initiative is guided, of course, by free, prior and informed consent and anchored in the principle of “nothing about us without us”.

The Alberni Valley ship recycling leadership group has agreed on shared principles to ensure that this development meets the highest standards: world-class environmental safeguards designed to meet or exceed the EU ship recycling regulation and align with the Hong Kong convention; transparent community engagement to ensure robust social licence; a pragmatic, phased build-out, beginning with scalable, compliant capacity while developing a long-term centre of excellence; and a credible business case, built on demand signals such as a master service agreement potentially with BC Ferries, Seaspan and others, supported by federal and provincial coinvestment, which we are asking for tonight.

Investing in this infrastructure will strengthen Canada's marine and port capacity and create high-skilled, lasting employment, including indigenous hiring pathways through North Island College and local partners. It will reduce environmental risks from aging and derelict vessels, position Canada to meet growing international demand for sustainable shipyard services and ensure Canada meets NATO readiness obligations by securing modern domestic repair and recycling capabilities.

With the Port Alberni Port Authority offering federal water lot and terminal assets, the Province of British Columbia identifying the rural economic diversification and infrastructure program funding as an immediate tool, and partners like the Island Coastal Economic Trust, which is helping steer the working group, the Association of B.C. Marine Industries and the B.C. Environment Industry Association already advancing regulatory and business casework, the groundwork is in place.

What is needed now is a federal commitment to make sure this is a strategic nation-building investment. I urge the federal government to prioritize funding for ship repair, maintenance and recycling infrastructure in the upcoming federal budget.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs and Families]

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the vital importance that marine transportation has to our economy. Our government is focused on building Canada strong and supporting Canadian jobs here at home. That is why we have announced the national shipbuilding strategy, through which we are investing in new ships. While we focus on building new ships, we must take into consideration at the same time that older vessels are reaching the end of their service lives.

We recognize that wrecked and abandoned vessels can pose a danger to the environment, public health, public safety and local economies, including the fishing and tourism industries. Transport Canada is aware of the growing demand for ship recycling services in Canada, especially on the west coast, and the importance of access to responsible recycling options abroad. This includes aging government vessels, abandoned vessels and industry-owned vessels.

This is the most environmentally sound method to dispose of a ship that reaches the end of its service life. Because ships are so large, skilled operators must use special procedures and equipment to dismantle them safely and in an environmentally sound way. This requires careful planning, safe handling of hazardous materials and strong protections for workers and the environment.

Safe and environmentally responsible ship recycling is a shared responsibility that requires coordinated leadership across federal jurisdictions and departments.

The federal government has jurisdiction over shipping and navigation. It also manages the import and export of hazardous materials and enforces laws that protect Canadian waters.

Provinces manage property and civil rights, as well as activities above the low tide line, including making and enforcing health and safety rules for local businesses. Municipalities control local zoning and land use and collect waste.

Transport Canada is actively reviewing international developments, including the June 2025 entry into force of the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships and stricter European regulations. We are also considering the need for more ship-recycling capacity in consultation with owners of facilities and fleets.

The government is committed to working with provinces, territories, indigenous communities and industry stakeholders to take into account the views of all Canadians on this important issue, and it will seek further opportunities to do so. We know that it is in Canada's interest to have sufficient, responsible ship recycling that protects our environment, supports economic development and reflects the values of communities across this country and Canada's international commitments.

I thank the hon. member for raising this important issue in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I identified earlier, 900 vessels are set to retire on B.C.'s coast, and 90 of them are over 500 tonnes. BC Ferries has 14 of those vessels. One of those vessels, the Queen of Burnaby, is projected to cost over $10 million to recycle. Half that money is to tow it to a yard in Halifax through the Panama Canal. Nobody thinks that is okay.

If the government prioritizes funding for ship repair, maintenance and recycling infrastructure in the upcoming federal budget, Canada can help solve an economic leakage. It can help deliver on its trade, defence and environmental objectives while building an indigenous-led, world-class marine capacity on the west coast when it comes to ship recycling.

We have seen what it looks like in Union Bay when it is done wrong. We are trying to bring a solution that plugs an economic leakage, protects our environment and creates well-paying jobs.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for many reasons, we need to access more ship recycling, which must protect workers and the environment. Canada remains engaged in discussions with other countries on the global regulatory framework for ship recycling and any implications for ship recycling here in Canada.

Canada has not yet decided to join the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships or adopt the European approach. Any new approach, of course, will require consultation with our provincial partners, who are responsible for the protection of workers and the management of hazardous waste.

We will continue to work with provinces, territories, indigenous communities and industry stakeholders and to consider the views of all Canadians on this important issue.

Employment

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's forestry and softwood lumber sectors are pillars of our economy. They should sustain thousands of jobs, fuel communities and generate billions in exports, yet under the Liberal government, these industries have been left behind.

Canada's softwood lumber production generates 20 billion board feet per year that is ready for sale. Roughly 90% of that goes directly to the United States, which remains the primary market for Canadian producers. American export access is critical to this industry's survival. The industry contributes over $21 billion annually to GDP, $87 billion in total revenues and $37 billion in exports.

The forestry sector supports over 200,000 direct jobs in 300 forest-dependent communities, more than Canada's steel, aluminum and automotive sectors combined. Despite this, the industry is shrinking. Canadian production has declined 28% since 2017.

In my riding, I recently visited the Interfor mill in Grand Forks, a vital employer for that community, yet just a month later, it indefinitely closed its doors. Do the Liberals understand what this does to a small community? The impact is devastating. Sadly, this mill is yet another example of the damage caused by the Liberals' decade-long inaction on softwood lumber.

The Liberals like to boast that their Build Canada Homes initiative will save the softwood lumber industry, but the reality is very different. Domestic homebuilding cannot replace access to our largest export market. The industry does not struggle with displaced domestic demand, but with barriers to U.S. markets, and new housing projects are years away from breaking ground because of long permitting and financing delays. The government promised to double homebuilding in 10 years, which sounds ambitious, but it represents just 1.9 billion board feet of new demand, only 3% of the North American market.

Recently, my colleague, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, brought attention to my request for an emergency take-note debate on softwood lumber after the Prime Minister once again failed to reach an agreement during his recent visit with the U.S. President. The Liberal minister responded that he did not think it was much of an emergency, but he should tell that to the families in forestry towns like Grand Forks who have lost their jobs.

Now contrast that with the previous Conservative record. The 2006 softwood lumber agreement, signed under a Conservative government, ended the 2001 to 2006 dispute and returned $5 billion in unfairly collected duties to Canadian producers.

In 2017, Canadian lumber supplied 30% of U.S. consumption. Today, it is just 22%. Over the same period, Europe's share has more than doubled, rising from 3% to 7%. Every year without a deal means more mill closures, more layoffs and more broken communities.

After a decade of failure, how can Canadians have any faith left in the Liberal government's ability to act?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs and Families]

Mr. Speaker, the government is on a mission to build Canada's economic strength. We are building big, building bold and building right now.

The cornerstone of our plan is to build 500,000 homes and other major projects using Canadian steel and Canadian lumber. We will upgrade our grid, expand transmission lines and modernize energy infrastructure to power AI. To move our critical minerals and energy resources, we will build bigger ports and create more liquefied natural gas capacity, faster rail and modern pipelines.

To make this happen, we need new skilled workers. We will not be able to double the pace of housing construction without an influx of an additional half a million workers, including tile setters, painters, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, construction craft workers and bricklayers. We also need automotive service technicians, power line technicians, millwrights, truck and transport mechanics and so much more.

Skilled workers are essential to Canada's future prosperity. That is why we are actively encouraging young people to consider a career in the skilled trades. That is also why our government is investing nearly $1 billion every year in a range of apprenticeship supports.

First, we have the union training and innovation program under the Canadian apprenticeship strategy. This program is focused on improving the quality of training in the Red Seal trades. This helps to ensure that apprentices, pre-apprentices and journeypersons have the best possible learning opportunities through union-based apprenticeship training, through innovation and through enhanced partnerships.

For the apprenticeship service, we have earmarked $90 million to help small and medium-sized employers bring apprentices on board and create new placements. Further, through the sectoral workforce solutions program, we will fund strategic projects in residential construction and other key economic sectors, including those impacted by U.S. tariffs, with initiatives aimed at addressing acute and systemic workforce development needs, so that we have the workforce we will need.

Finally, we have introduced tax measures aimed at reducing costs for tradespeople. The tradesperson's tools deduction and the deduction for tools for an eligible apprentice mechanic allow workers to deduct the costs necessary for their work.

The tuition tax credit allows apprentices to claim expenses related to classroom-based technical training, as well as the cost of writing the Red Seal exam.

In addition, the labour mobility deduction helps workers cover travel expenses.

Together these programs strengthen our skilled trades workforce and make it easier for Canadians to get trained, get hired and build our country. The just-passed One Canadian Economy Act legislation has removed federal barriers to labour mobility, which means that once they are trained, a worker licensed or certified by a province or territory can work in a comparable occupation in federal jurisdiction without additional requirements. Being able to work across Canada expands opportunities for workers, gives employers a bigger hiring pool and strengthens our economy.

The new law also enables the government to cut the approval times for major projects from five years down to two so we can get shovels in the ground faster and so people can work sooner.

I want to thank the Canadian building trades for helping us pass the One Canadian Economy Act. They asked for it, and we listened. Meeting Canada's economic and climate challenges starts with listening to workers. Together we made it happen. They are standing with us to make this Canada's moment.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate my colleague across the floor's responding, I think she might have mentioned the word “forestry” two or three times. I am not sure she understood that I was talking about the forestry industry.

The Liberals have no idea what a mill closure does to a small community, or they would try harder to get a deal. We are talking about the forestry industry. I do not know whether she would want to repeat what she has to say, and whether that is even allowed.

The government insists that forestry workers, and other people in the towns where mills that are closing are located, have access to support, yet no funds have been accessible to the industry at all. A $1.5-billion support package or a Build Canada Homes initiative will not offset the damage caused by the government's failure to act.

Can the member tell us when the government will stop hiding behind excuses and get Canadians back to their jobs?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay for giving me the opportunity to talk about the Government of Canada's steadfast commitment to building Canada's economic strength. It is a commitment we take very seriously. We are focused on preparing Canadians for the future.

We have great programs in place to make sure that Canadians feel secure about their place in the workforce. We are ensuring that young people have the skills and experience they need to enter the workforce, while enabling older workers to upgrade their skills.

We are developing projects that will create good, long-term construction careers and help build the Canadian economy for the long term, and that includes the forestry industry. We know that all our communities will be the beneficiaries.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.)