44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 28, 2022 02:00PM
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 Provinces have not requested that these conditions be repealed.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 7:27:41 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate.
There being no further debate, the hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel has five minutes for his right of reply.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are winding up debate at second reading of Bill C-237.
This bill gives the provinces the right to withdraw when the federal government creates a program that should be the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. I found the term “exclusive” in the Constitution. When we speak of exclusive jurisdictions, we are referring to matters that fall under the authority of either the provinces or the federal government.
The term “exclusive” exempts Quebec from the standards and conditions that the federal government imposes before providing funding for health care. There has been a consensus in Quebec for 50 years on this position, which is the basis for the major constitutional crises that have occurred over the years.
This week's debate is taking place against the backdrop of the election campaign in Quebec. On Monday, Quebeckers will go to the polls and will have to make a decision about many things. I am thinking of the health care system, which the pandemic demonstrated was fragile and underfunded. One party says there should be more privatization, another wants to make seniors' homes the priority and yet another is counting on existing public services, home care and long-term care centres.
This has been top of mind during the campaign, and on Monday, Quebeckers will vote and decide. Usually, when the public makes a decision, that is the end of it. No matter what choice the Quebec nation makes, Canadians will have to agree because Ottawa is imposing all kinds of conditions. It is imposing its own standards on us and wants us to adopt its priorities.
I am talking about health, but this is true in all sorts of areas, such as housing, education, family policy and taxation. In fact, it is true in almost all areas. That is what it means to be a minority, even though this House recognized that we were a nation by a nearly unanimous vote a few years ago. The Bloc Québécois wants the right to opt out of federal programs in areas that should be the responsibility of Quebec instead of Ottawa because we want to be masters in our own house.
When I introduced Bill C‑237, I hoped to advance the autonomy of Quebec. We are currently being led by a minority government. The Bloc Québécois wants Quebec to be a country, but in the meantime, it wants us to be masters in our own house to the extent possible. That is only natural. The Conservative Party campaigned on respecting provincial jurisdictions. The NDP has its Sherbrooke declaration, which supports Quebec's right to opt out. Between the three parties, we can move Bill C‑237 forward.
However, I was bitterly disappointed when we were debating this bill. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie says that he supports the right to withdraw, but only if Quebeckers adhere to the NDP agenda. The Conservative member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington says that she respects provincial jurisdictions, but only if the Liberals agree and grant a royal recommendation. If not, she is against the bill.
I want to point out that the Constitution gives exclusive powers to Quebec and the provinces. This means that the federal government must not interfere. This is set out in the Constitution that English Canada adopted, the Constitution that Quebec never signed. Now a Bloc Québécois member, a separatist MP, is standing up in the House and demanding that the federal government respect the Constitution. The Canadian parties are the ones not respecting it. It is all backwards.
However, it is not too late. Election platforms are not just documents to be used during an election campaign and then thrown away. I am appealing to the NDP and the Conservative Party to keep the promises they made to Quebeckers during the election campaign. Let Bill C‑237 move on to the next stage. That will give us time to convince the government to grant a royal recommendation.
If Bill C‑237 is passed, Ottawa will be free to do as it pleases in areas under its jurisdiction, just as Quebec and the other provinces will be free to act in areas under their jurisdiction.
Everyone would respect everyone else's jurisdictions. The key word is “respect”.
737 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 7:33:22 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 7:34:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 7:35:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, after the Liberals finally caught up with our international allies and declared that it is safe for people to get onto planes and trains or return to work in the federal public service without a COVID vaccine, they are still saying that it is unsafe for a person to serve our country in the Canadian Armed Forces.
We know that the Liberals replaced COVID science with political science a long time ago, so it comes as no surprise that they would continue such an unscientific and contradictory mandate. Canada's soldiers, sailors and airmen are the best in the world. Let me say that again: They are the best in the world.
We have watched time and time again as they have answered our country's call and calls for aid from nations around the world. Just this week, we have witnessed them come to the aid of our friends in Atlantic Canada in the aftermath of a hurricane, where we heard grandmothers breathing sighs of relief at the sight of our soldiers rolling into tiny villages to lend a hand.
With Russia on the war path, Canada's armed forces must be prepared to defend our allies and our borders. It is high time for the Prime Minister to drop the last of his politically motivated and divisive COVID mandates and give our brave men and women in uniform their jobs back.
This week we heard that Friday will be the last day for COVID border restrictions, such as the proof of vaccination, quarantine, testing and isolation requirements for people entering Canada, as the government catches up to all of the provinces on following the science. We know that, at the same time, the mandatory use of the ArriveCAN app will cease.
This is important because Canadians have had an incredibly challenging time. We have seen people lose their jobs. We have seen people struggle with the isolation of lockdowns. We have seen people miss monumental events such as welcoming new life and saying goodbye to loved ones.
At a time when Canadians are facing unprecedented, in many of their lives, cost-of-living increases, the government has collected or issued fines worth over a million dollars to people trying to enter Canada. It is because of the failed ArriveCAN app that it has issued those fines. The government needs to do the right thing, and it needs to do the compassionate thing. It needs to rescind the fines, cancel the collections and refund the payments to Canadians. Frankly, it needs to apologize for the impacts of this failed app on Canadians.
I do not know what the difference is in the science today and the science Saturday that will see these mandates end, but it is high time that they end. We are glad that they are ending. We call on the government to do the right thing and refund those who have been wrongly fined with the ArriveCAN app.
494 words
- 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 7:42:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canadians can be counted on to do the right thing, and they are looking to be able to count on their government to do the right thing. The science is clear that it is time for these mandates to end. It is past time for them to end.
The parliamentary secretary has said that members of our Canadian Forces are equal to our federal public servants, so I am looking for treatment equal to that of our federal public servants so they do not receive any restriction based on their vaccination status to be able to continue to serve our country valiantly, having answered the call and put on that uniform for Canadians. Let them get back to work.
121 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 7:43:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, last November, I copied the ministers of health and foreign affairs on a letter that I wrote to the president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which falls under the purview of the Minister of Health, regarding the CIHR's blatant mislabelling of Taiwan as a province of China. I wrote this letter after a Taiwanese scholar doing research in Canada brought to my attention that the CIHR's research application process requires Taiwanese applicants to falsely indicate their nationality as “Taiwan—Province of China”, and accordingly requested the president of CIHR to correct this blatant mislabelling. After all, Taiwan is not a province of China. Taiwan consists of a distinct and substantial territory and population, and is governed by a democratic government. Moreover, the People's Republic of China has never controlled, not for one minute, one inch of Taiwanese territory.
Nearly a year after I wrote to the president of CIHR, I have heard nothing from anyone at CIHR, nor from the Minister of Health nor the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Six months after I wrote the letter, I attempted to follow up with the Minister of Health in question period. The minister, incredibly, seemed completely unaware of the issue and offered nothing in the way of substance with his answer, but nonetheless undertook to look into the issue and follow up with me. Months later, there has been no follow-up and the mislabelling continues.
The minister's inaction is completely unacceptable. This is not a new issue. This has been going on for years, and it has been repeatedly brought to the attention of the Liberal government, including by the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office.
Why the inaction? When will the Minister of Health finally get around to directing the CIHR to stop this blatant mislabelling of Taiwan?
308 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 7:49:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to hear that the CIHR is finally acting and finally working to address this mislabelling issue, but, quite frankly, it has been far too long. The parliamentary secretary cited the ISO. That was CIHR's excuse. Universities and other institutions corrected their mislabelling notwithstanding the ISO, and now evidently the CIHR is correcting the mislabelling notwithstanding the ISO. Therefore, it constituted nothing more than a bureaucratic excuse.
While I am glad this is finally being addressed, it has been really far too long. The minister's silence and the government's silence have been ongoing for far too long, so I am very disappointed in that—
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 7:50:44 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
4 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 am here to express once again the frustrations of people with disabilities as they continue to wait for a Canada disability benefit. We know they face too many challenges that are only increasing with the rising cost of food and the skyrocketing prices of homes and rent. The situation is dire.
The government must act now to get the Canada disability benefit into people's bank accounts. When will the Liberal government make that happen? New Democrats are ready to do the work to make the Canada disability benefit the best it can be for people. To make sure it truly protects persons with disabilities from a life of poverty, we have proposed an amendment to Bill C-22 that would enshrine adequacy and provide protection.
Right now, people in the disability community are hopeful that they will finally be prioritized by the Liberal government. Will the government prioritize their well-being and accept the NDP's ask for adequacy to be enshrined in this legislation? Persons with disabilities are legally entitled to adequacy, and this new benefit must be accountable to a measurement tool that provides it. That accountability is currently missing from Bill C-22.
The government has an obligation to uphold the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to ensure dignity and full equality for all. This includes necessary income supports. Dire financial circumstances are the reality for too many people with disabilities, and the longer they have to wait for the promised disability benefit, the more they are being abandoned.
Since 2015, the Liberals have spoken about the importance of lifting people with disabilities out of poverty, yet their actions do not match those words. It is beyond time for the government to do better and to use the measuring tools available to ensure that any legislation that is meant to end poverty actually reaches that goal.
I am committed to working with the government to make this happen. Bill C-22 has the potential to be the first and only bill in Canada that actually legislates people out of poverty. Let us imagine that: one bill that can almost cut poverty in half with one or two simple sentences.
Will the Liberal government work with the NDP to turn its aspiration statement into a reality and amend the bill in committee to include an amendment for adequacy that would actually make sure persons with disabilities are lifted out of poverty, and will it do so now?
417 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, tonight I have heard a lot of the same goals: quick, efficient and wanting to bring it in as soon as possible.
I see that there is space next week on the legislative agenda. I think there is an opportunity to have Bill C-22 come back to the House so that we could get it to committee. Will this bill come back for debate next week?
69 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
- Sep/28/22 7:59:16 p.m.
- Watch
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 7:59 p.m.)
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
