Debates of Oct. 30th, 2025

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the frustration victims feel when the same offenders are released again and again, as well as the terrible tragedies that are happening from it. Could she share more on how the revolving door justice system erodes public confidence, overwhelms our police forces and puts victims at greater risk?

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been an exhausting 10 years for communities across Canada. People of all ages cannot even go into a grocery store without wondering whether they are going to be approached by a criminal or be a witness to shoplifting. What are they supposed to do? They do not feel safe in their own neighbourhood. RCMP officers are being overworked and are becoming exhausted. They are doing everything they can to keep us safe, but they are not given the tools to do that.

We need to make sure the people in our communities across Canada feel safe. I look forward to strengthening the bill so it is not just talk. By the way, we are also going to need to put the genie back in the bottle, because it has been 10 years of Liberal bail not jail, so I am sure it is going to take a while.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-14, which was introduced by the Minister of Justice last week. When he introduced the bill, he said it was important to get rid of the “get out of jail free” card. That is really what I want to focus on, even though there are a lot of other things in this rather dense bill with 80 clauses. Among other things, the bill proposes to amend the provisions on interim release.

According to the Minister of Justice, under the current system, an accused person just has to pull out a “get out of jail free” card, like in Monopoly, and they will be released. For the people listening to us, let me start by defining interim release. What is interim release? It is when a person is charged with a crime that is serious enough for the police to take them into custody. That person will have to appear before a judge within 24 hours. Even if the accused has not yet been found guilty, there is a possibility that that individual may remain in prison until their trial. The cardinal principle behind all this is the presumption of innocence.

Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Any person charged with an offence has the right

...

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

That is a key principle of our criminal law. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This principle implies that, if a person is arrested, they are presumed innocent until a court of law finds them guilty. What follows from the presumption of innocence is the principle of restraint. According to this principle, the decision-maker “shall give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances”. That is because the person has not yet been found guilty.

Does that mean that our system permits someone who is arrested to simply pull our their card to get released? No, that is not the case at all. Very specific Criminal Code provisions allow for pre-trial detention in certain cases. Sometimes, it can take months before a trial is held. In some cases, a person may be held in custody while still presumed innocent, because the necessity to protect the safety of the public takes precedence over the presumption of innocence, as set out in subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

Here is how it works. Generally, if the Crown prosecutor does not want an accused person to be released, there will be a bail hearing. The accused, their lawyer and the Crown prosecutor will appear before the judge. Normally, the burden is on the Crown if it wants the accused to remain in custody.

What tools do Crown prosecutors have, as outlined in the Criminal Code? There are actually quite a few. The Crown prosecutor may request that an accused remain in custody on the following grounds:

(a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law;

If the person has failed to appear in court in the past, or if the person already had a plan to escape, these arguments can be made and the person can be detained. Here is another argument that Crown prosecutors can make right now:

(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public

It is already written in black and white. The Crown prosecutor may refer to the protection of victims, witnesses to the offence, or children under the age of 18. He or she may explain the circumstances that make it necessary to detain the person, even if they are presumed innocent, even if it will take months, because the public must be protected. The Criminal Code provides the following clarification:

including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice;

That alone is already a very useful tool for Crown prosecutors. Here is another argument that can be made:

(c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice

This makes it possible to argue the seriousness of the offence.

That is the current system. That is how things are done in courts across the country right now. My question for the government is, what is wrong with this system? Where is the problem? What is not working? What is missing? We ask these questions and we are not really getting any answers. We have asked government representatives these questions to find out whether they had any facts to prove that the system is not working and the answer is no.

What we do know is that people do not feel safe, and this feeling is legitimate. It must be addressed. People need reassurance. Is there any evidence that our system gives people a “get out of jail free” card? There is no data on this.

When I ask my colleagues questions, they base their answers on cases in their riding or some other riding. Every one of these cases is heartbreaking. Nevertheless, if an individual is charged and released, it is because the judge was of the opinion that there was no likelihood of another crime being committed, no worries about that individual being released. If the individual is released and commits another crime, and members of Parliament point to such an incident here and another there to prove that something must be done, what that basically means is that, logically, as soon as someone is charged, they should be kept in prison. We would have to keep everyone in prison.

There will always be one, two or even fourteen people who will be released and commit new crimes. If we want that number to be zero, it would mean keeping people in prison as soon as they are charged. Where does that leave the presumption of innocence? Basically, they are proposing that we undermine that principle, even without evidence. I find that quite worrying.

I was curious about how things work in practice. I worked for 10 years as a legal aid lawyer. I practised criminal law off and on, but not often. I wrote to one of my colleagues, Hugo Caissy, who has been practising criminal law for about 20 years and is an excellent lawyer. I asked him what he thinks about this bill. He wrote me this:

In reality, the claim that violent criminals are easily released is false. The opposite is true. Release for these defendants is far from guaranteed. Judges consider the accused's history, particularly when it involves crimes against the person and breaches of conditions (probation, undertakings and promises). Moreover, in the case of a breach of promise or undertaking, the burden of proof is already reversed.

...While not perfect, the current system has the necessary flexibility to detain those who need to be detained and release those who can be released with minimal risk.

...

The system could be improved, but not at the expense of individual liberties.

I thought his last point was well said.

Perhaps someone will point out that Mr. Caissy is a criminal defence lawyer. However, the criminal law section of the Canadian Bar Association, which is made up not only of defence lawyers, but also Crown prosecutors, has written an open letter about Bill C‑14. The letter states:

...reverse onus provisions and modifications to the ladder principle may not achieve their intended deterrent effect, and we question whether such provisions would be Charter compliant...[especially given the] disproportionate effect on Indigenous accused and [other racialized accused]....

We have testimony from lawyers who work in the courts. We looked at the Criminal Code. Tools do exist. We have no data from the government, apart from a few impressions. However, there are some statistics. What the statistics show is that, first of all, it is harder now to obtain interim release than in the past, and it is harder here than it is in Great Britain. In 1980, 75% of accused persons were released. In 2025, only 25% of accused persons manage to be released. In Canada, 70% of people in provincial and territorial jails are awaiting trial, compared to only 20% in Great Britain. Statistics show that it is harder to be released on bail than in the past, and it is harder here than some other places.

The Bloc Québécois therefore supports the principle of studying this bill. That is why we agree that it should be studied in committee. We believe that we must be vigilant because there is the risk of putting innocent people in prison. What we are proposing is a rational approach. The problem must be documented. It is a sensitive issue, because every single case is one case too many. I have met victims of crime and I am aware of how devastating it can be. However, when we legislate, we must still take a comprehensive and rational approach, so let us document the problem properly and then find appropriate solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question to pose is, why? I can assure the member that after talking to constituents and listening to the mayor of Winnipeg, the premier and individuals who are directly involved with the justice system, I believe that not only is the demand for bail reform very real and tangible, but it is necessary. In the last federal election, there were commitments to make changes. That in itself justifies us having Bill C-14 before us today.

I must say that I look forward to the Bloc's ongoing contribution—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary to give the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj a chance to respond.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that the demand is real. I know that people are worried, including in his home province of Manitoba. Yes, they do not feel safe, but we have to look beyond feelings.

We have to look at the Criminal Code as it stands and the values that underpin it, including the presumption of innocence. We will study all that. There is a risk that, in responding to a perception of being unsafe based on specific cases that have an impact on people, we may move toward a criminal justice system that puts innocent people in prison if we fail to look at the big picture.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine—Listuguj for his interesting and informative intervention. I think this is the first time I am interacting with him in the House, so I congratulate him on being elected just six months ago. I think he is the only one in the House to have beat a Liberal incumbent. I wanted to point that out. It was the only instance of that.

On this file, obviously he has relevant expertise that he is putting to use. I would like his thoughts on the reverse onus. He mentioned it, he talked a lot about the precedents that are being set. As far as a I know, and I am not a lawyer, but a journalist and I covered cases, reverse onus happens in very rare cases. Normally, it is exactly the opposite.

What, in his opinion, explains the government's approach? Does he believe in it?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, under the Criminal Code, a person charged with murder is held in custody before their trial. Certain reverse onus provisions already apply.

For example, if a person has been previously convicted or discharged of a charge of intimate partner violence, if it happened before and the person is charged again, the onus is reversed. This makes it much easier for the Crown prosecutor to keep the person in custody.

Reverse onus is a significant legislative change and no trivial matter. Above all, before pursuing this course, the problem must be carefully documented.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague really hammered on the notion of feeling safe, and I get the impression that by using random examples and saying that people released on bail commit other crimes, it may be we politicians, myself excluded, who are somehow exacerbating this feeling people have of being unsafe.

New media may also be making it easier to access this very specific type of case.

I would like to ask my colleague this: How can we truly achieve justice? Are tougher measures and more severe bail restrictions the answer?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It really is so important, because what people want is reassurance.

Perhaps the first thing to do is explain to people how the system works now, which is why I humbly took some time to explain the current rules. I think one way to provide that reassurance is to help them better understand how criminal law works.

Canada Health Act

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

moved that Bill C-239, An Act to amend the Canada Health Act (accountability), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for seconding this bill and the many others who jointly seconded it.

It is an honour to rise today to speak in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-239, an act to amend the Canada Health Act to strengthen accountability. This bill is about ensuring that Canadians in every province and territory can see that the federal health dollars invested in their care are being used effectively and are improving access to timely health care services.

I want to begin by acknowledging the voices that inspired this bill. I have heard directly from my constituents in Surrey Newton and from Canadians across the country who are deeply concerned about wait times for primary care, elective procedures and emergency services. Families often tell me about the anxiety of not knowing when they can see a family doctor or how long they will have to wait for critical procedures. These are real concerns, and Canadians deserve a health care system that is accountable to them.

I am also grateful for the support of the Association of Regulated Nurses of Manitoba, ARNM, which has endorsed this bill. As it stated, “By supporting Bill C-239, ARNM is reaffirming our commitment to a health-care system that is transparent, accountable, and centred on the needs of patients—a system that works for nurses and for all Manitobans.” The ARNM's endorsement underscores the importance of this legislation in improving our health care system.

This bill seeks to strengthen accountability under the Canada Health Act while fully respecting provincial jurisdiction over health care delivery. It is focused, practical and collaborative.

Bill C-239 would require provinces and territories that receive full federal health transfers to develop and implement their own accountability frameworks. These frameworks would set benchmarks for timely access to primary care, elective procedures and emergency care. They would establish transparent reporting requirements so that Quebeckers and Canadians can see how these benchmarks are being met and would ensure the public availability of frameworks and annual performance reports on a government website. The bill would also ensure that benchmarks are regularly reviewed and updated so that health systems can evolve based on evidence, best practices and the changing needs of Canadians.

Canadians often hear from politicians that health care is a priority, yet despite billions of dollars transferred annually to the provinces through the Canada health transfer, too many families still face long wait times and uncertainty. These federal investments are intended to support timely, high-quality care, but without clear standards and reporting, Canadians cannot know whether these dollars are producing the results they expect.

This is not just about numbers or statistics; this is about real people in real communities waiting for real care. In my riding of Surrey Newton, constituents frequently share stories of seniors waiting months for elective procedures, parents struggling to find a family doctor for their children and patients experiencing extended delays in emergency departments. These are not isolated incidents; they reflect a system in which accountability and transparency must be strengthened.

Just last week, the Canadian Institute for Health Information published findings that included that in 2024, over one in three adults was not satisfied with how long they waited for non-urgent primary care, and over two in five adults with a diagnosed mental health disorder reported that their needs were only partially or completely unmet. By requiring provinces to set clear benchmarks and report publicly on progress, this bill would empower Canadians to hold their health systems accountable, while giving provinces and territories the flexibility to modify solutions to their unique populations.

Some may ask whether this is federal overreach. Let me be very clear: This bill respects provincial jurisdiction. Provinces still design their own frameworks, determine their own benchmarks and decide how to deliver care within their health systems. The federal government's role is limited to ensuring that when federal dollars are invested, Canadians can see results.

Bill C-239 includes a permissive consultation clause. Provincial ministers may consult with the federal Minister of Health or with ministers in other provinces and territories while developing their frameworks. This encourages knowledge sharing and collaboration, but does not impose federal mandates.

I also want to address our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and the members from Quebec. This bill fully respects Quebec's jurisdiction over health care. It would not impose federal standards or dictate how care must be delivered. Instead, it would empower provinces, including Quebec, to design their own accountability frameworks and determine their own benchmarks that reflect their populations' needs and priorities.

Bill C-239 would ensure that when federal dollars are transferred, Quebeckers and all Canadians can see transparent results. It would offer flexibility, autonomy and fairness, which are values that align closely with Quebec's long-standing commitment to managing its own health system.

Transparency is at the heart of this bill. Each province and territory would have to publish its accountability framework and an annual report showing whether benchmarks have been met and how effectively health care dollars were spent. Transparency builds trust, and when people can see the results of public investments, they feel confident that their health system is functioning effectively. It also provides provinces with the incentive to focus on outcomes, reduce wait times and improve efficiency.

Accountability requires consequences. Bill C-239 would amend sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Canada Health Act to make clear that provinces that fail to implement their frameworks or fail to report transparently may face reductions in or withholdings of federal health dollars. This ensures that accountability and transparency are treated as essential conditions for federal funding.

At the same time, the bill would ensure fairness. Any continued reductions must be reviewed annually in consultation with the provincial minister responsible for health. This provides a structured and collaborative approach to enforcement, rather than a punitive one.

Let me be clear about what this bill would accomplish for Canadians. First, it would reduce uncertainty so people can see where their health system is succeeding and where improvement is needed. Second, it would encourage timely care by setting benchmarks, which would allow provinces and territories to focus on reducing wait times for primary care, elective procedures and emergency services. Third, it would promote the efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Provinces and territories would report on how federal health dollars are spent, driving better value for Canadians. Fourth, it would increase trust, as transparency fosters confidence that investments in health care are making a real difference.

In short, the bill delivers accountability without compromising provincial autonomy, and it focuses on results Canadians care about. In my riding of Surrey Newton, in fact, across British Columbia and across Canada, constituents have expressed first-hand the challenges in accessing timely care. Seniors worry about delays for procedures. Young families struggle to find a family doctor. We hear these concerns nationwide. The bill responds directly to what Canadians have been telling their elected representatives for years: They want results, clarity and accountability.

I want to emphasize that the bill is not about partisan politics. Health care is a shared responsibility. By strengthening transparency, the legislation gives all members of the House the tools to work together in support of Canadians’ health, while respecting provincial jurisdiction. I would encourage all members to consider the practical, collaborative and results-focused approach the bill represents. It would not dictate how provinces deliver care, but it ensures that Canadians know whether care is being delivered in a timely, efficient and accountable manner.

Canadians deserve to know that every dollar invested in health care makes a difference. They deserve timely access, transparency and accountability. Bill C-239 would ensure that federal health dollars are tied to measurable outcomes while allowing provinces to maintain control over their health systems. I urge all members of the House, including the members from the Bloc Québécois, to support the bill, which would strengthen accountability, build public trust and demonstrate our shared commitment to improving health care for all Quebeckers and for all Canadians.

Let us work together to ensure that Canadians can see the results of their investments and that our health care system continues to deliver the care people need, when they need it.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as a Conservative, I have genuine concerns, and I want to make sure all Canadians know about them. Is the bill not going to add more red tape? When red tape is added, delays are added. Provincial health care is already burdened with delays, as we all know.

Has the member consulted provinces on Bill C-239, and which provinces have they consulted?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was recently in Edmonton, in fact, in the hon. member's riding. People there were complaining about two major issues, or actually three. The first was health care, because they are not getting the health care they deserve. The second was extortion, and the third was immigration. I can tell everyone that if this hon. member is concerned about the accountability and transparency every Canadian deserves, he should be supporting the bill instead of asking which province we asked for help.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it blows my mind to hear my colleague talk about shared jurisdiction even as he says there is no need to consult the provinces on his bill. What a bunch of nonsense.

My colleague is concerned about accountability. In Quebec and the provinces, accountability happens every time there is a provincial election. Can my colleague recall even a single time, during a federal election, when health care was the key election issue and a federal government was thrown out because it was not doing what needed to be done on health care?

The answer is no. Why? It is because it is not a federal matter.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier to the hon. members from the Bloc Québécois, the bill would not impose federal jurisdiction over the provinces. However, when I go to my constituency, or anywhere in British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada, people come to me and say they cannot find a family doctor and cannot get their elective surgeries in time; the wait times are way too long.

People do not know where the billions of dollars the federal government is investing in health care is, money that would make a difference in their lives. The bill would bring accountability and transparency for all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have gone through a number of elections since 1988, at both the provincial and federal levels. I have been a health care critic. I have had the opportunity to knock on literally tens thousands of doors, and I can honestly say that there has never been an election in which the issue of health care has not come up. Canadians take their health care services very seriously.

I appreciate the member's making reference to it not being about federal overreach, from what I understand from the member's comments. It is about the federal dollars that go towards health care. I think it is important for us to be very real with what our constituents tell us: Health care is a concern, as is making sure there is some sense of financial accountability.

The member could provide any further comments he would like.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been elected six times, and during every election I have been through, people have come to me and have not looked at whether a person is a provincial representative or a local one. All people care about is that the accountability for the care they need is open and transparent. As I said, the bill would not intervene in the jurisdiction of any province, including Alberta, but what we need is something about the billions of dollars we invest.

I can tell members that I was recently in Abbotsford, where people were dying in the hallways of the hospital. People do not have a family doctor in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, where I was travelling the other day. This is not just in Surrey Newton; everywhere I go, it is an issue.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's health care system is broken.

There are 6.5 million Canadians who do not have access to a family doctor. We are short at least 23,000 doctors and 60,000 registered nurses. Emergency rooms are closing across the country. Health care workers are burnt out from millions of hours of overtime. Canadians are literally dying while waiting for care.

Canada's health care system is broken, and instead of repairing the cracks, the Liberals took a hammer to the glass. I am going to warn Canadians that health care in Canada is only going to get worse under the government. Mark my words.

The Liberals are reducing the capacity of doctors and nurses, while at the same time increasing the demand for care. Let us start with capacity. According to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, there are at least 13,000 internationally trained physicians already in Canada who are not working as doctors. According to the health minister's own department, there are 80,000 internationally trained health care professionals in Canada right now who are not working in their field.

Let us think about that. Tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and specialists are here, trained, qualified and ready to serve, but they have been shut out by a wall of bureaucracy. The reason is simple. Government gatekeepers and licensing bodies are blocking these qualified professionals from getting their licences.

The immigration department fast-tracks international doctors and nurses into this country but then abandons them when they arrive. The Liberals have failed to establish a national competency standard to recognize their credentials, so they get stuck, trapped between provincial regulators and federal inaction. As a result, we have doctors driving taxis and working in factories, while hospitals close emergency rooms and patients die waiting for care.

The government sold these professionals a false bill of goods, and Canadians are paying the price. This bottleneck is only getting worse because the Liberals keep adding more people into a broken system without helping the people who are already here.

Another major barrier is that a doctor licensed in one province cannot automatically work in another province. Let us think about that. A doctor who is fully licensed in one province cannot simply move to another and start working without mountains of paperwork, costs and months of delay. If the federal government truly believed in one Canada economy, it would have introduced a national licence for doctors and nurses, allowing them to work anywhere in the country.

Earlier this month, Canadians were briefly optimistic when the health minister told The Globe and Mail that she planned to introduced legislation to remove interprovincial barriers for health professionals, but that hope was short-lived. Within hours, her office reversed course, claiming the minister misunderstood the question. The minister seems to misunderstand a lot of questions when it comes to the health care system.

Another issue is the shortage of residency training spots in Canada. Every year, hundreds of Canadians graduate medical schools abroad, but they cannot get a residency placement in their own country. Why? It is because the federal immigration minister keeps issuing work permits to foreign-sponsored medical trainees, people who come here from foreign countries to train in our hospitals, only to return home afterward.

Countries around the world send their citizens to Canadian hospitals for training. In fact, according to data from the Canadian Post-M.D. Education Registry, Saudi Arabia alone sent over 1,000 trainees to Canada last year. Almost all of them will never work a single day in Canada after their training is complete.

Meanwhile, Canadian citizens who studied medicine overseas, often because there were not enough medical school seats in Canada, are told there is no capacity for them. Why is the federal immigration minister issuing work permits for Saudi students to train in our hospitals, when there are not enough training spots for Canadians?

The Liberals like to claim that record immigration levels will somehow fix our health care system, but that is not what is happening. Thousands of qualified, foreign-trained doctors are already here and cannot work. Thousands of Canadian citizens who trained abroad cannot get trained. We cannot fix a traffic jam by adding more cars to the road, and that is exactly what the Liberals are doing.

Let us now look at the other side of the equation, which is demand. This year alone, the Liberals plan to allow 395,000 new permanent residents and 673,000 non-permanent residents into Canada. That is over a million people added to a health care system that already cannot keep up. It does not take an economist to understand that adding a record number of people to our country will have an impact on health care.

Here is the real scandal. According to Health Canada, the Liberals have done no analysis, none whatsoever, on the impact that record immigration levels will have on our health care system. Even the health minister admitted this insanity when she said, “Right now, there's no alignment on immigration and the need for doctors”.

To make matters worse, Canadians were outraged to learn that the immigration department has been advertising Canada's free health care around the world as a selling point to attract more newcomers. Canada is not a walk-in clinic for the rest of the world. Compassion must consider capacity.

That brings me to the legislation before us, Bill C-239. The Liberals claim that the bill would improve accountability in health care, but if we read it, there is no accountability for results. There is nothing in Bill C-239 that would require provinces to increase access to family doctors, reduce emergency wait times or improve diagnostic services. What it does do is create another bureaucratic framework that provinces must follow or risk losing their federal health transfers. In other words, it is more red tape.

The bill would require provinces to produce reports, frameworks and performance summaries, but nothing that would actually help a single patient see a doctor faster. If provinces do not comply with Ottawa's new paperwork, they could lose health care funding.

Here is the confusing part. Paragraph 13(a) of the Canada Health Act already requires provinces to provide health data to the federal Minister of Health to qualify for transfers. Provincial and territorial governments also submit health care data to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, also known as CIHI.

What does Bill C-239 really accomplish? The answer is nothing. I was not surprised to learn that the provinces were not consulted on the legislation, because if they were, I am confident that they would have opposed it. Conservatives believe that the way to fix health care is not by creating more bureaucracy but by removing the barriers that prevent qualified medical professionals from working. We believe that the government should establish a blue seal national licensing standard. This would be a competency-based standard to recognize qualified doctors, nurses and other health care professionals all across Canada.

Conservatives also believe that immigration policy must be linked to health care system capacity. It is unfair to the Canadians who are waiting in hospital hallways for care, and it is unfair to the newcomers who were sold a false bill of goods. The Liberals should be focused on getting more doctors and nurses licensed, opening more residency positions for Canadians who studied abroad and reducing red tape, not expanding it. This is how we fix Canada's broken health care system.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing from my colleague reflects my own opinion. This bill is utterly pointless.

Of course all the provinces want to be able to provide appropriate care to their residents. I am not aware of any premier of Quebec or of any province who is happy with the current situation. However, accountability and transparency would also require the Liberal government to admit that it is paying 21% of the bill. When the government starts paying 79% of the bill, perhaps then it can demand accountability. At present, the declining level of service is the result of the chronic underfunding of health care.

Does my colleague agree with me on that?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I would just like to remind all members that during consideration of Private Members' Business, there is no period for questions and comments.

If the member wants to continue his speech, he can. The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for calling me to order. I did actually think I could ask a question.

I will continue with my speech.

I doubt the member for Surrey Newton consulted the 44 members from Quebec. If he did not consult the provinces, he did not consult members from Quebec either. I would be curious to hear what those 44 members think of Bill C-239, because it does not seem to change anything in the existing legislation. The current legislation does have criteria, two conditions, and that means that we have everything we need in the law to be able to provide appropriate care.

What do the 44 members from Quebec think of the motion unanimously adopted by the Quebec National Assembly? Will they go against the elected members of the Quebec National Assembly, who unanimously adopted this motion across party lines?

Those folks brag every day about representing Quebeckers. I would like to know what they think of the motion unanimously adopted by the Quebec National Assembly in March 2023, which stated the following:

THAT the National Assembly recall that the Canadian government's contribution to health services funding has decreased considerably over the years, as it once represented 50% but is now called on to fund only 24% of costs;

Now it is 21%, to be precise.

THAT it affirm that the Canadian government's most recent offer is clearly insufficient to ensure the sustainability of health services for the population and that Quebecers will therefore have to assume the cost of this shortfall; otherwise, they will have to endure a decrease in health services;

THAT it denounce the inadequacy of Canada's offer and its definitive nature and the Canadian government's gradual withdrawal from the health of Quebecers;

THAT, lastly, it reiterate that the current Canadian framework and its fiscal imbalance places Quebec in a difficult situation from a financial standpoint.

I get the impression that not a single Liberal member from Quebec is going to vote in favour of Bill C-239. If they do, they will be going against a motion adopted unanimously by the representatives of the people of Quebec.

I said earlier that this bill was pointless because the Canada Health Act already sets out five criteria, these being public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility. This bill also creates two conditions that are already included in the act. The first condition is to provide the necessary information, which is already covered in subsection 13(a) of the act. There is also a condition about recognizing the amounts transferred, not allowing extra billing and not charging user fees. These conditions are already required and met.

This bill negates what already exists. Perhaps that is due to a lack of knowledge about the Canada Health Act's history and the negotiations and agreements that have taken place over the years.

I will quote from one such agreement. On September 15, 2004, Paul Martin's federal government, in conjunction with Quebec, made the following statement:

...the Government of Quebec's desire to exercise its own responsibilities with respect to planning, organizing and managing health services within its territory, and noting that its commitment with regard to the underlying principles of its public health system - universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility and public administration - coincides with that of all governments in Canada, and resting on asymetrical federalism [this is what my colleague has not understood], that is, flexible federalism that notably allows for the existence of specific agreements and arrangements adapted to Quebec's specificity....

It is not complicated. Those are the facts. The problem stems from the federal government's disengagement.

Currently, working conditions for doctors, nurses and health care workers are appalling. The initial agreement was that the federal government would fund 50% of health care costs. At the rate things are going, that figure will dwindle to 18%. In fact, this has happened once before. In 1995, when Quebec was reforming its health care system, Paul Martin made sure health care transfers were slashed overnight from 40% to 18%. When I talk about a chronic funding crisis, chronic disinvestment in health care, that is what I mean. How can we expect the provinces to provide quality care when the federal government dumps its deficit on them overnight?

Perhaps the government saw the light in 2004 and decided it would respect an agreement that made sense. However, during the pandemic, Quebec had to go into lockdown for a year because the health care system was too fragile. I thought that as we emerged from the pandemic, the federal government would take a step back and listen to the demands of the Council of the Federation, Quebec and the provinces, which were asking it to increase transfers from 21% to 35%. We are talking about 35 cents on the dollar, not even 50 cents. That translates into investments to buy equipment. There can be no medicine without diagnosis. Access to care depends on the ability to diagnose patients and to have more trained doctors, more trained nurses and fewer agencies. The number crunchers determined that it would require $28 billion per year, or $280 billion over 10 years. How much new money has the federal government given for the next 10 years while no longer covering system costs? A total of $46 billion. That is $4.6 billion a year for the entire country.

Over on that side of the House, a member stands up to say that people want better care, that there are problems. Everyone knows that. Now we are being told that asking the provinces to allocate the money to specific areas will improve the situation. First of all, that makes no sense, and second of all, it is arrogant. If the member wants to improve health care, he should run for a seat in a provincial legislature. That is what provincial legislatures do; it is their specialty. He can then ask the federal government to provide the necessary resources so that the people on the ground can do their jobs. That is the situation.

I challenge any Quebec MP to vote for Bill C‑239 so we can see if they stand up for Quebeckers or not.

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

Mr. Speaker, first off, let me thank the member for Surrey Newton for bringing forward this legislation. He has recognized a very important issue. I think all members should recognize it. When we think of our health care system, no one in this chamber should be denying at all the true value it has to each and every one of us through the constituents we represent.

I have now campaigned in a dozen-plus elections as a candidate, and I can tell members that in every election I have gone through, health care has been an issue. Anyone who denies that fact I do not think really understands the values that Canadians have and how important health care is to the system.

When I look at what the member for Surrey Newton is proposing, I appreciate that he said it is not about federal overreach. He is concentrating and focusing his attention on federal dollars and concerns with respect to them. I heard the Conservative critic stand up and say that we should not be concerned because we already have an organization doing what the member for Surrey Newton is proposing, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The only difference between what he said and what the bill implies is that there would be a responsibility for the federal government directly.

We heard the Bloc's concerns about federal dollars. I questioned the Bloc's reflection of history. I have been around for many years, and from what I understand when I was the critic for health care, the way we were going about funding health care during the nineties, because there was a debate on it in Manitoba, meant there would be no federal dollars going toward it. It was Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin who in essence guaranteed there would be ongoing federal cash going to the provinces. Back in the seventies or early eighties, although I am not sure exactly when, there was a tax point trade-off for cash.

I believe all members here, even members of the Bloc, recognize the importance of cash going to the provinces. We have all recognized this, given some of the actions and votes we have had in the past. How many times have we heard when talking about palliative care, long-term care or hospice care how important it is that there be federal dollars going toward them. We have also talked about national standards.

I say all that because at the end of the day, like Canadians, no matter what region we look at in the country, we recognize that all federal MPs have a role to play in contributing to our health care system. If members are prepared to say as members of Parliament that they do not have a role to play at all in health care, they should be transparent on that particular fact and share it in the next general election.

I do not question at all provincial jurisdiction on health care. I question the member who mentioned credentials. There are two issues that I question.

[An hon. member]

Why do some Canadians not have a doctor?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the member the answer. It is credentials. When the member said there are tens of thousands of people whose credentials are not recognized, he is right in that assessment. However, I respect provincial jurisdiction. Just as the member who introduced the bill made very clear, the level responsible for the recognition of credentials is not the federal government, nor should it be. It is the provinces that are responsible for that. That is the problem.

The member made reference to immigration, as if embassies around the world are promoting Canada's health care benefits.

[An hon. member]

We sure do.