44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 28, 2022 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity to hear this question of privilege and would like to get back to you with some comments. If you would be so kind as to give us a couple of days to do that, it would be greatly appreciated.
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her intervention today, and I appreciate her encouraging all people to read those 94 calls to action.
I wonder if the member could provide a comment on how many of those 94 recommendations the government has acted on, how many are actually the responsibility of the federal government, how many are ongoing and how many are outstanding.
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and I particularly took note of the fact that he took credit for the previous government's truth and reconciliation report. I would remind him that there were protests in the street demanding that the government do that, which finally forced the government to do that.
Nonetheless, I think what is more important is that, of those 94 recommendations, to date, it has only been the Liberal Party that has gone on record to say it would move to implement all of them.
Does the Conservative Party support moving forward and accomplishing all 94 and working with the different jurisdictions to do that? If it does not, which of the 94 does it not support?
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member is attributing comments to me that I simply did not make. He might be confusing me with another member. I never said that.
32 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on private member's bill, Bill C-237, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act.
As proposed, this bill would do two things. First, it would allow any province to withdraw from federal programs in provincial jurisdiction if comparable programs exist. Second, it would exempt Quebec from the criteria and conditions that must be met in order to receive a full cash contribution through the Canada health transfer.
Before I get into the concerns that the government has with these amendments, let me very quickly provide a little history surrounding the Canada Health Act. The act was passed unanimously in the House of Commons in 1984. It represents a broad consensus among Canadians and their federal, provincial and territorial governments that access to insured health services should be based on medical need and not one's ability to pay. Since then the act has been considered the gold standard of federal spending power being used to set national objectives in the area of provincial jurisdiction. The act, in conjunction with the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, does so by establishing broad criteria and conditions that provinces and territories must fulfill to receive full cash contributions under the Canada health transfer. Provincial health insurance legislation and regulations, including those of Quebec, mirror and in some cases go beyond the requirements of the Canada Health Act.
That leads me to my first concern regarding the proposed legislation. By accepting this legislation and exempting Quebec from the Canada Health Act's conditions, we would weaken the foundation of Canada's universal health care system. The act establishes the objectives and values underlying universal, single-payer health care. For provinces to receive full health care transfer payments, provincial health insurance programs must be in compliance with five broad principles: universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility and public administration. Provinces have not requested that these conditions be repealed.
Moreover, I would like to remind the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois that since the creation of the Canada Health Act, Quebec has broadly complied with the act's principles. Indeed, the discretionary penalty provisions of the act, which give the government discretion to withhold the Canada health transfer contributions to provinces in contravention with these five principles, have actually never been used. There have been some instances of non-compliance in Quebec and other provinces with respect to extra billing and user charges, where mandatory deductions under the Canada Health Act have been applied.
It is also important to note that the principle of asymmetric federalism renders the proposed amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act unnecessary for Quebec. As part of the 2004 health accord, the federal government and the Government of Quebec signed a bilateral agreement on asymmetrical federalism. Under this agreement, Quebec supported the overall objectives and general principles set out by first ministers, while respecting Quebec's desire to exercise its own responsibility in planning, organizing and managing health services. This agreement has continued to shape the federal approach to bilateral agreements with Quebec, notably the 2017 agreement on home and community care and mental health and addictions services and funding.
Importantly, the asymmetric agreements with Quebec in the area of health care have been applied within the parameters of the Canada Health Act principles. For example, the communiqué from the 2004 health accord on asymmetric federalism that respects Quebec's jurisdiction states as one of its preambles, “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....” Stated differently, the government entered into asymmetrical health agreements with Quebec because the province already adhered to the Canada Health Act principles.
Historically, provinces other than Quebec have recognized the benefits of federal spending power. In 1999, all provinces except Quebec agreed to the social union framework agreement, which recognizes a set of social policy principles and ways to allow the exercise of the federal spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, provided that a majority of provinces agree.
That agreement recognizes, “The use of the federal spending power...has been essential to the development of Canada's social union.” Its continued use is important to ensure access to “essential social programs and services of reasonably comparable quality” for all Canadians, wherever they live or move in Canada, to promote their full and active participation in Canada's social and economic life.
It should also be acknowledged that the federal spending powers during the pandemic have delivered results for Quebeckers while continuing to recognize Quebec's unique place within the federation.
The government remains committed to working with the provinces and territories and key stakeholders to advance shared priorities for the health care system and to improve health outcomes for Canadians. One of those commitments, for example, is to ensure that Canadians who require long-term care get the services they deserve. To address this, our government has committed to providing up to $3 billion to support the provinces and territories in ensuring that standards for care are applied. The Canadian Standards Association and the Health Standards Organization are currently working to finalize national standards for long-term care by late 2022.
To summarize, we believe that Bill C-237 would undermine the government's ability to deliver health care results for Canadians if provinces are allowed to be exempt from the conditions laid out in the Canada Health Act. We also believe there is no need to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to allow provinces to withdraw from federal programs in provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has a strong record of establishing agreements that cater to Quebec's specific needs, such as the 2004 agreement on asymmetrical federalism that continues to respect Quebec's jurisdiction and falls within the parameters of the Canada Health Act.
For these reasons, and the others that have been mentioned, I would strongly encourage all members of the House to vote against this bill.
1031 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 7:38:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly respect the comments from my colleague, whose riding neighbours my own. I disagree with his assessment of the situation when he characterizes the government as playing politics on this issue. This government has always operated from the position of science and listening to experts, not from the position of listening to politicians rail on for political gain, which unfortunately is what we have seen from this member and, particularly throughout the pandemic, members of the Conservative Party.
The reality of the situation is that at every turn, when decisions have been made, whether it has been to remove requirements for mandates or for the ArriveCAN app, it has always been done with the understanding that it was in the best interest of Canadians.
It is also important to point out that Canadians, and indeed the federal public service, which includes the members of our Canadian Armed Forces, showed up in large numbers to be vaccinated, and by and large, the vast majority of Canadians were on board with the requirements that were set out by the federal government in conjunction with the expert advice that was given to the government to make those decisions. I agree with the member that members of the armed forces are the best in the world. They come into action and respond to requests at times of need. As somebody who represents a riding that has a base at CFB Kingston, I am witness to that on a daily basis when I am in my riding.
It is extremely unfortunate, in my opinion, that this is being characterized by the Conservatives, as it has been doing almost since day one, as an attack on Canadians and as political motivation, when the only objective from the beginning has been to take care of Canadians and protect Canadians so we could get through this pandemic in the best form possible.
If one reflects on where Canada is, at every step of this pandemic, we have always been in a better position, especially when we compare ourselves to our neighbours to the south. Per capita, we had fewer fatalities. We had more people become vaccinated. We had more people respect the requirements imposed upon them by the various levels of government. Now we are finally starting to see us get to the end of this pandemic and come out on the other side, and we are a better country because we were able to do that together.
413 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 7:43:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this government has always used the best advice from experts in the process of making every decision. It has never made decisions based on the political wind, as it sees it. As a matter of fact, quite often it has had to go against the political wind and what perhaps may have been popular opinion, especially as it has been encouraged by the other side of the House.
I am very confident the government will do that. When the time is right, based on that information, the government, I am certain, will make the required decisions in order to ensure things are dealt with in a way that keeps all Canadians safe.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 7:46:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize to the member if he feels as though his question has not been addressed. Hopefully the comments that I provide tonight will suffice.
Our government recognizes the strengths of Taiwan in matters of science, technology and innovation. The government is also aware of the issue of concern regarding the classification of Taiwan in the Canadian Common CV system used by Canada's federal research funding agencies and administered by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR.
Currently, the Canadian Common CV system and CIHR's grant management platform adhere to the International Organization for Standardization country list. This list is recognized by the Government of Canada through Canada's national accreditation body, the Standards Council of Canada. However, the CIHR has had discussions on the matter of concern with key partners, including Global Affairs Canada and other federal stakeholders. As a result, CIHR is now actively implementing the change to Taiwan in its system to ensure ongoing alignment with Canada's foreign policy and government-wide data standards.
We certainly recognize that this is an important concern not only for Taiwanese students and researchers in Canada, but also for many of their colleagues and partners throughout the broader research community and beyond.
As members may know, there are very strong connections between the people of Canada and Taiwan, including in the scientific domain. Indeed, I am very pleased to note that our government engages directly with Taiwan on matters of scientific research collaboration through several mechanisms. For instance, the CIHR collaborates with Taiwan's ministry of science and technology, including through participation in multilateral research consortia. In addition, the CIHR recently worked with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Ottawa to promote one of these initiatives, the Transcan-3 funding program, to support cancer researchers in Canada and Taiwan.
These collaborative efforts speak to the many invaluable linkages between Canada and Taiwan. Through our government's ongoing engagement with Taiwan in areas that include health research partnership, we look forward to strengthening even further these ties of collaboration.
Let me also emphasize that in the promotion of funding programs and its other engagements, CIHR has referred to and will continue to refer to our partner by the name of “Taiwan” simply. It is my hope that our ongoing partnership with Taiwanese counterparts, driven by our common values and shared priorities, will continue to yield impactful results for our collective health, well-being and prosperity.
412 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 7:50:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the CIHR has had a constructive discussion with partners on important matters regarding the classification of Taiwan in grant management platforms. As we explore and pursue solutions, we will also continue to strengthen the federal government's co-operation with Taiwan in matters of scientific research and collaboration, based on our shared values and common principles.
Again, I thank the member for bringing forward his concerns and ensuring that they have been brought to the minister's attention. I hope that he finds the answer satisfactory.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want nothing more, as does the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, than to see Canadians with disabilities receive the new Canada disability benefit as quickly as possible.
We understand that people have concerns about the timing of the benefit. In the spirit of “nothing without us”, we have been working tirelessly alongside the disability community, as well as the provinces and territories, to ensure that every person who receives the Canada disability benefit would be better off because of it.
Let us be clear. We need the disability community's input at every step of the design of the benefit, as I am sure the member would agree. We also need to work with provinces and territories to ensure that there are no clawbacks to other benefits that already exist, as has come up in debate in this House regarding Bill C-22.
Bill C-22 is, as the member indicated, groundbreaking framework legislation. If it becomes law, we would establish regulations that define the benefit amounts, eligibility criteria and other details. Parliament would have the opportunity to review it three years after it comes into effect. I would note that this time frame is actually shorter than the usual parliamentary review. That is because we are committed to ensuring that the Canada disability benefit meets the needs of working-age persons with disabilities.
Just last summer, with funding provided through budget 2021, we launched extensive consultations with the disability community and with national indigenous organizations, as well as with provincial and territorial governments, to seek their input on their experiences and needs.
It is important to understand the Canada disability benefit is part of a continuum of bold, historic actions that our government has taken to advance accessibility and the rights of persons with disabilities. These actions include the Accessible Canada Act, the Canada poverty reduction strategy and the development of the first-ever disability inclusion action plan. Of course the key component to our action plan is the Canada disability benefit, which would help reduce poverty for hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities.
If passed, Bill C-22 would establish guiding principles and objectives for the new benefit. It would also allow the Governor in Council to implement the benefit's design components through regulation. The sooner Bill C-22 passes, the sooner the Canada disability benefit could be implemented. That means we would be able to help the people who need it the most. We know persons with disabilities have been waiting a long time for this. That is why we are working as quickly and efficiently as possible to deliver this historic benefit.
I would also indicate to the member that I know she asked a question specifically about an amendment. She is asking if the government would work with the NDP, or if the Liberal members would work with the NDP, in committee to make these amendments. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to pre-empt the work that those members would do. I look forward to seeing the report that this member and all members of the committee will bring to the House. I am sure that if what she is recommending makes sense and is a good proposal, it would be taken very seriously by the members of the Liberal Party who sit on that committee.
566 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not have that in front of me right now.
What I can tell this member is that the House leader's office on this side of the House certainly works with the House leaders' offices on all sides of the House. We have a very good understanding and relationship with the NDP. I would encourage the member to encourage her House leadership to push this forward.
She knows just as well as I do that games unfortunately sometimes happen in this House that prevent legislation from going through. Let us work together to get this to committee so that we can have a meaningful impact.
I know my words might ring hollow because she has heard them many times before. I can assure the member that this side of the House is passionate about moving as quickly as possible to get Bill C-22 passed so that we can get those who need it the most the resources they require.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
