So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 162 - Feb/16/23

Feb/16/23 12:34:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I note that the Bloc Québécois voted against dental care and now it seems it will vote against the NDP motion to ensure we have a strong, publicly funded system. I do not think that is what Quebeckers want. However, my question is not really about the Canada Health Act today; it is about policy. It is about whether we are going to allow public dollars to be diverted to private-for-profit care when we know that it is more expensive and that it is going to drain workers from our public health care system. That conforms to the Canada Health Act. The question is whether the government is going to attach conditions to its health care transfers to the provinces to prevent it.

131 words

Context: House Hansard - 160 - Feb/14/23

Feb/16/23 11:07:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague and I sat through a study of the human resources crisis in health care. He knows, as well as I do, there is a screaming conclusion: Human resources are finite. The same pool of doctors, nurses and other health professionals currently working in the publicly funded system would be pulled from that system to work in the privately funded system. He knows that a parallel private system reduces the incentive to work in the public system, as health care workers may be paid more in the private system despite caring for less complex patients. That is the process known as cream skimming. The reduced capacity in the publicly funded system leads to worsening wait times for those who cannot access the private care. Could the member explain why he does not agree with New Democrats that additional federal funds should be conditioned on going to the public system? He knows that if that money is diverted to the private system it would simply extend wait times and deepen the crisis in the public system.

179 words

Context: House Hansard - 155 - Feb/7/23

Feb/14/23 4:59:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, one of the issues I have with this motion is that it does not place any emphasis at all on the role that corporate profits have in driving up the cost of living in this country. It is quite clear that this is the case. Another issue I have is with the Conservative orthodox economic thinking that deficits invariably cause inflation. If that were the case, we would have had rampant inflation in this place when the Conservative government of Stephen Harper ran seven consecutive deficits from 2008 to 2015, which did not happen. I have heard the Conservatives say it is inflationary to spend money on dental care, yet the leader of the Conservative Party has said he would adopt the recently announced health care accord for the next 10 years, which injects an additional $46 billion into the economy. Can my hon. colleague explain how that is not inflationary if other government spending is?

161 words

Context: House Hansard - 143 - Dec/7/22

Feb/7/23 2:28:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at today's health summit, Canadians need the Prime Minister to champion public health care and stand against private, for-profit delivery. Privatization is not innovation. It drains workers from our public system, costs more and allows queue jumping for the rich. It will make the crisis worse. Real innovation is better support for health professionals, shorter wait times in our hospitals and access to care based on need. Will the Prime Minister assure Canadians that additional public dollars will go to public health care?

87 words

Context: House Hansard - 137 - Nov/29/22

Dec/7/22 5:39:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, this legislation would increase the corporate income tax rates of banks and life insurance groups by 1.5% on taxable income above $100 million. It would eliminate interest on the federal portion of student loans and apprentice loans. Finally, it would enact the framework agreement on the First Nations Land Management Act. All of those are positive steps that are worthy of support in this legislation. While New Democrats are pleased to see advancement on these measures, we believe there is much more that the fall economic statement should have offered Canadians struggling with the rising cost of living. We know many Canadians are struggling to pay their bills. We also know many corporations are making record profits at the same time. We know inflation is crippling. The price of food, in particular, has skyrocketed across this country. The costs of utilities, insurance and fuels are all up, making it really tough for many Canadians in every corner of this country to make ends meet. That is why New Democrats would have welcomed a windfall tax, like the one this legislation already applies to banks and life insurers, being expanded to other corporations that are making even higher profits than those sectors are, like food companies, including Loblaws, and like the oil and gas sector. The revenue the government could recoup from applying this tax to big box stores and oil and gas companies alone would total over $4 billion. That is money New Democrats believe would and should be used to help Canadians mitigate the rising costs they are facing, including the cost of heating their homes. New Democrats have long called for the elimination of the GST on home heating in times of struggle like this, particularly as we enter the winter season. Eliminating the interest on the federal portion of student loans would offer loan holders an average of $4,000 of savings over the lifetime of their loan, and this is important. For years New Democrats have called for the elimination of interest on student debt. We should not be making money off the debt that students are incurring to get an education. Frankly, I have long believed that post-secondary education should be free, at least the first four years, whether it is an apprenticeship, community college or university, whatever it is, so that we encourage and facilitate our younger generation to become more educated. I believe higher-educated societies are more prosperous societies, and it is an investment. Just like public school is free until grade 12, there is no reason we should not extend that to 16 years of public education. What is not in this legislation is what will have the largest impact on people. It has been estimated that the cost of home heating could go up by as much as 30% in some places in Canada, so eliminating the GST on that would be a simple way to offer Canadians respite in an immediate way. Food bank usage has drastically increased as the grocery chains that supply Canadian consumers with the food they need to survive are recording profits of $1 million extra a day. Health care systems across this country are in chaos. There is no new money and no progress after the recent meeting of health ministers for improving health care and ensuring that the federal government increases its share of spending to better approach the fair deal that historically is the underpinning of the Canadian health care system. The economic policy being used in this legislation is a good start, but it is not broad enough. If we expanded some of these good concepts in a much more broad, targeted and intelligent manner, we could generate billions of dollars that could be used for these very valuable social and economic development programs. Once again, when we educate our young people, it is not merely good for them. These are people who will generate the ideas, economic activities and professional skills that will generate income into the future, so it is an important economic basis as well.

681 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 137 - Nov/29/22

Nov/29/22 6:27:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-295

Madam Speaker, I am pleased, as always, to stand and speak on behalf of the people of Vancouver Kingsway, bringing their concerns, ideas, hopes and aspirations to this chamber. As health critic for the New Democratic Party, I am always happy to see a bill that addresses the state of health in our country and proposes a solution. This bill is very specific. Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code, targeted at the neglect of vulnerable adults, would do two things. First, it would: [amend] the Criminal Code to create a specific offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and their managers to fail to provide the necessaries of life to residents of the facilities. Second, it would: [allow] the court to make an order prohibiting the owners and managers of such facilities from being, through employment or volunteering, in charge of or in a position of trust or authority towards vulnerable adults and to consider as an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing the fact that an organization failed to perform the legal duty that it owed to a vulnerable adult. All Canadians were horrified over the last two years to see residents in Canada's long-term care homes living in the deplorable and, frankly, outrageous conditions that so many of the people who built this country are forced to live in. We saw how seniors in long-term care homes have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. In Canada, long-term care residents accounted for 43% of all COVID-19 deaths. Between March 1, 2020, and August 15, 2021, over 56,000 residents and 22,000 staff in Canada's long-term care and retirement homes were infected with COVID-19, resulting in more than 14,000 deaths among staff and residents. Frankly, the most astounding figure that I saw was that Canada had the worst record of all OECD countries, the highest percentage of deaths in long-term care homes on a per capita basis of any OECD country. That speaks to a deplorable and long-standing issue in our long-term care sector. Throughout the pandemic, there was a difference between for-profit long-term care facilities and public or non-profit facilities. The for-profit facilities had much worse patient outcomes than not-for-profit homes in general. According to an analysis by the Toronto Star, residents of for-profit facilities have been more three times as likely to catch COVID-19 as those in a non-profit facility, and for-profit facilities have seen more than twice as many staff infections per bed. Resident deaths have also been more common in for-profit facilities. All Canadians were stunned when we saw that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec had to call for the Canadian Armed Forces to be deployed in some of the hardest-hit long-term care homes across Canada, where they documented horrific accounts of inhumane treatment, abuse and substandard care. “Assault” is not too strong a word. According to the CAF reports, residents in two Ontario nursing homes died not from COVID-19, but from dehydration and neglect. The stories were documented by soldiers. I have read those documented notes of CAF soldiers, who simply wrote down in unembellished form what they saw when they entered those homes. They read like a horror story from a third world. They found residents lying in bed in soiled underpants. They found instructions that care aides were not allowed to change the bedding on a bed for 24 or 48 hours, even when the patient had an incontinence problem. Incorrect medications were given to patients. Patients were malnourished and were not fed properly. This was simply outrageous. I want to make the point that COVID did not cause these problems. COVID exposed these problems in Canada's long-term care sector. To date, more than 30 proposed class actions have arisen from the COVID-19 pandemic across Canada, and several of them allege that the owners and operators of long-term care and retirement facilities failed to take appropriate health and safety measures to protect their residents from COVID-19. Several provincial governments have adopted legislation limiting the potential liability of long-term care owners and operators. For example, under the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act, 2020, plaintiffs now need to show that those operating long-term care centres were grossly negligent to avoid statutory liability protection. That is a higher standard than applies to ordinary negligence claims. In this country, what provincial Conservative governments have done is to act not to protect the vulnerable patients in long-term care homes, but to protect the managers and owners of those long-term care homes who were responsible for unbelievable incidents of abuse and neglect. That is shameful. The courts have not yet considered the meaning of “gross negligence” under that legislation, but the phrase has been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada going back 80 years. I can state that it is a very marked departure from the generally required standard of care or even simple negligence. Under section 215 of the Criminal Code, it is currently an offence for a person to fail to provide the necessaries of life to a person under his or her charge if that person is “unable by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge,” and “is unable to provide themselves with necessaries of life”, and “the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.” That is a very high standard, because it requires death or a permanent injury to be the foreseeable outcome. Bill C-295 would create a specific offence under section 215 of the Criminal Code where a person is an owner or manager of a long-term facility and fails to provide necessaries of life to residents of the facility, and where “the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently”. We have some concerns about even that test, but the point is that bringing the attention of Canadians and members of the House to the deplorable conditions in the long-term care sector in this country is a valuable and worthy exercise of our time in this place. Anything that we can do to address that is needed. We think that Canada's New Democrats have a much better and more structured approach to this problem. We want to end for-profit long-term care and bring long-term care homes under the public umbrella. Long-term care is part of our health care system. When seniors are in hospital, they are in a health care system. Very often after that they are transferred to a long-term care home and suddenly they drop off the health map. That is incomprehensible and it endangers these people. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the reality that for-profit companies cannot be reliably counted on to protect our loved ones and keep workers safe. We also believe that the victims of negligence in Canada's long-term care facilities deserve justice. That is why, due to the confidence and supply agreement, the one that the Conservatives scoff at, the New Democratic Party was able to force the Liberals to commit to tabling a safe long-term care act, to ensure that seniors are guaranteed the care they deserve no matter where they live. I was in this House for nine years of the Conservative government. It never passed a long-term care act. With the current government, in the seven years since the Liberals have been in power, they have never passed a long-term care act. It took the New Democrats to come to this House and demand that on behalf of Canada's seniors. That is a positive step that we look forward to enshrining in this place. Although Bill C-295 is a step in the right direction, it of course will not solve the problem. Rather than addressing the issues through a private member's bill, Canada's New Democrats expect the Liberal government to honour the confidence and supply requirements through government legislation. We will be present for that. Finally, the Liberal Party promised in the last election to invest $6.8 billion in long-term care, $1.7 billion to ensure personal support workers are paid $25 an hour and $500 million to train personal support workers. That money has not flowed yet and New Democrats are calling on the government to honour its commitments and start putting money into the long-term care sector so that every senior in this country, no matter where they are, gets access to safe, quality, long-term care as their age and their contributions to our society so dearly benefit and deserve.

1530 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 117 - Oct/25/22

Nov/29/22 6:05:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-295

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on this bill. The NDP will be supporting it, because we, as the party of health care, have been extraordinarily concerned about the deplorable conditions in long-term care, which COVID may have exposed but which have existed for a long time. My question is about resources. The bill, of course, would punish people after neglect has occurred. The NDP is concerned about preventing that neglect in the first place. In the last election, the Liberal Party promised to invest $6.8 billion in safer long-term care. It also promised to invest $1.7 billion to ensure personal support workers are paid $25 an hour, and $500 million to train 500,000 personal support workers. I do not think a single dollar of that funding has flowed yet from the government. Can my hon. colleague tell the House when the money is expected to flow, so we can take care of our seniors instead of punishing people who abuse them?

170 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 47 - Mar/28/22

Oct/25/22 2:49:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, emergency rooms across Canada are closing, because there is not enough staff to keep them open. Canadians are dying while waiting for care. Just this week, a man passed away in Quebec after waiting 16 hours in the ER. This situation is occurring in every corner of our country. It is an outrageous situation for a G7 nation. We need national leadership. When will the Prime Minister sit down with the premiers to negotiate stable, sufficient and long-term federal health care funding and save Canadians' lives?

89 words

Context: House Hansard - 45 - Mar/24/22

Mar/28/22 12:20:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about jurisdiction. I wonder if he is aware that the Supreme Court of Canada has declared that health care is shared jurisdiction in this country. I wonder if he is aware that the words “health care” do not appear in the Constitution at all. I wonder if he is aware that the only power given to the provinces in our Constitution is the establishment and maintenance of hospitals. Finally, I wonder if he is aware that the Canadian health care system, which Quebeckers and all Canadians treasure so much, would not exist without federal legislation that established five conditions for the transfers of funds. This is the system that he and the Bloc Québécois want more money for from the federal government. Is he aware that this system is dependent on federal jurisdiction, which ties the money to conditions?

152 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 31 - Feb/15/22

Mar/24/22 12:24:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Quebeckers are so grateful to the NDP for working co-operatively with the Liberals in the 1960s to bring them public, universal, comprehensive health care, which he clearly supports because he wants more money for it. That is because the NDP, unlike the Bloc Québécois, works constructively and positively in Parliament in order to deliver for Canadians, which is something they do not do. Absolutely, the NDP is the party of health care. We are going to continue to fight for more federal contributions to get the federal government up to its 50% contribution to public health care in this country, as it should be.

115 words

Feb/15/22 4:30:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree very much with my hon. colleague about the importance of the Canada Health Act and federal spending. I also worked for a union for 16 years, so I appreciate her contributions to working people. However, I must take issue with the member's inaccurate statement that health care is provincial. I am going to read from the Library of Parliament paper on the jurisdiction. It states that “...the Constitution Act, 1867 does not expressly include “health” as a legislative power assigned either to Parliament...or to the provincial legislatures....” The Supreme Court of Canada has not interpreted section 92 as giving provincial legislatures exclusive jurisdiction over health care. The Supreme Court of Canada, in Schneider v. The Queen, stated: ...“health” is not a matter which is subject to specific constitutional assignment but instead is an amorphous topic which can be addressed by valid federal or provincial legislation, depending in the circumstances of each case on the nature or scope of the health problem in question. The Schneider decision also says that the national concern doctrine is a basis for a federal health jurisdiction, saying: ...federal legislation in relation to "health" can be supported where the dimension of the problem is national rather than local in nature.... Therefore, when my hon. colleague says that it is not the federal government's business to be in health care, she is constitutionally wrong. Is the member aware that the phrase “health care” does not occur in the Constitution and that the Supreme Court of Canada has said that health care is federal—

272 words

All Topics

Feb/14/22 10:48:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Mr. Speaker, the major difference, with great respect, is that the people in the Bloc Québécois continually misconstrue the Constitution. They think health care is exclusively a provincial jurisdiction, but it is not. It is a shared jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada said the federal government has the spending power, the criminal law power and other powers to enter into this area. We will not find the words “health care” in the Constitution. All that is in it is the establishment and maintenance of hospitals. That is what the provinces have. It does not say anything about dental care. We need all levels of government working together to build the kind of health care system we need in this country. I believe the federal government should be a partner with the provinces. It is not just an issue for the provinces alone.

149 words

All Topics

Feb/14/22 10:13:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech. I think she gave a very accurate and compelling case for why the federal government needs to increase its Canada health transfers to the provinces. I think we all, on this side of the House, in the NDP, join in that feeling that the 22% share of federal health spending in this country is not sufficient. I know the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have, to some degree, a difference of opinion on the jurisdiction of health care in this country. We also know there are conditions in the Canada Health Act. There are five major conditions that every province has to meet in order to get that funding. I am wondering if the member would describe to the House what kind of accountability she would have the provinces demonstrate in exchange for that money from the federal government. Does she accept that the provinces should have to at least show that they are spending the money in health care, and maybe account to the taxpayers of this country how that money is being spent, or does she think there should be absolutely none of that whatsoever?

204 words

All Topics

Feb/14/22 1:34:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Madam Speaker, where I think the New Democrats and the Bloc join together is on our position that we need the federal government to play a proper role in funding health care in this country. Notionally, 50% is what the federal government should be paying. Where I disagree with my hon. colleague is on what role the federal government plays. The federal government has shared jurisdiction in health, and when we talk about conditions of health transfers, I have three words for my hon. colleague: Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act has five conditions that must be be met, and no province gets any funding from the federal government unless they agree to abide by those five conditions. My hon. colleague is simply wrong when he thinks that the federal government is an ATM machine and is obligated to give money to the provinces with no obligation whatsoever on how the provinces spend the money. That is constitutionally wrong, and it is belied by the Canada Health Act.

169 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 28 - Feb/10/22

Feb/14/22 1:18:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Madam Speaker, this bill is two paragraphs long. I agree with my hon. colleague that we need more money in the health care system. I believe in further transfers, but this would give $2.5 billion to buy rapid tests that would then be distributed to the provinces. I am just wondering whether my colleague agrees with that. Does he think there is any reason why this should be slowed down? Does he see any problem with the intent behind this bill?

82 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 23 - Feb/3/22

Feb/10/22 11:53:12 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we stand at a pivotal time in our country's history. Canadians in every corner of our land have been profoundly affected by what has been described as a once-in-a-century global pandemic. I think it is uncontroversial to assert that no one could ever have envisioned the sweeping and dislocating health, economic, political and social ramifications of COVID-19. Over three million Canadians have been infected. Some 35,000 Canadians lost their lives, all too frequently suffering and dying alone. Families have been separated. Important celebrations and markers in people's lives have been cancelled. Workers have lost their incomes, and small business people their enterprises. Culture, education, travel and friendships have been negatively impacted. Mental and physical health have been seriously tested. It is fair to say that Canadians are exhausted and have been challenged, not only by the virus but by the severe disruptions they have had to endure to respond to it. I also think it is fair to acknowledge that policy-makers at all levels of government have had to act in unprecedented circumstances. We have all had to improvise at times and make the best decisions we can based on an imperfect understanding of the facts and the vicissitudes of an uncertain future. It is a stark reminder that Mother Nature is bigger than all of us and impossible to outsmart. As such, I think some grace and generosity of spirit would be helpful for our country at this time. However, it is also imperative that we acknowledge that mistakes have been made, important responsibilities have been breached and circumstances have been exploited, and I believe that blame is shared by every institution in our country. Government leaders have seized upon the pandemic as a political opportunity to engage in wedge politics and to seek partisan advantage. Political parties have exacerbated divisions and irresponsibly fanned the flames of insurrection. Public health agencies and officials have failed to adequately prepare our nation for this emergency. This is particularly unforgivable when we had previous warnings and blueprints to do just that. Numerous policy reversals and errors were made, and certainty has been inappropriately expressed when data was unclear and developing. Large corporations have used shortages and economic vulnerabilities for excessive profiteering, and Canadians themselves have, occasionally unwittingly and sometimes deliberately, spread misinformation or hateful rhetoric online. The result is that division among citizens has rarely been so sharp. An unfortunate and irresponsible oversimplification of issues has developed. Perhaps most alarmingly, a lack of transparency has stifled scientific debate, impaired legitimate questioning and allowed errors to persist when they have occurred. This is unhelpful, it is unscientific and, most importantly, it does not serve to improve Canadians' health or public confidence in our institutions. I believe it is time to recognize all of this and make changes where possible. We are now fully two years into this pandemic. Times have changed, and so have our citizens. People are much better informed and have access to data and different practices from around the world. In many cases, they can now draw upon their own experiences. They have a much sharper notion of what works, what makes sense and what does not. They can spot inconsistencies and identify policy reversals, of which by now there are a myriad. It is time to recognize that many Canadians have legitimate questions about the health policies and mandates they have been asked to observe. After two years of the pandemic, Canadians are understandably tired and frustrated. People have been making profound sacrifices, and they want to see their federal government take leadership by telling them there is a road map moving forward. Let me be clear. Nothing justifies the spread of disinformation or the denial of science. Nothing justifies intimidating health care workers or holding cities hostage. While assembly, protest and expression are cherished values in our country, we do not and cannot make policy by mob rule. Equally, we cannot abandon vulnerable people to COVID by dropping all public health restrictions overnight, as some provinces propose. That would be irresponsible and driven more by politics than by science. We know that seniors and those with vulnerable health conditions are at greater risk of becoming seriously ill if they contract COVID, and we must ensure that evidence-based public health measures are in place to protect them. While COVID is still circulating in Canada and internationally, a vaccines-plus approach continues to be essential to the pandemic response. This includes layering vaccinations with timed and targeted public health measures and individual protective practices. As Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, has recently acknowledged, it is important and timely to re-examine public health measures to determine what the next step should be. New Democrats agree. We believe it is both healthy and necessary to review our current policies based on data, science and evidence, both to confirm that we are on the right track and to make course corrections where we are not. We must not hesitate to ask searching questions and follow the science. Indeed, the very essence of science is questioning. We question giants such as Newton and Einstein. Surely, we can question the Prime Minister and the Liberal government. Frankly, given their performance failures to date, we must do so. However, it is important to note that the motion before the House mis-characterizes what Dr. Tam stated. At a news conference on February 4, Dr. Tam responded to questions on vaccine passports and travel restrictions by noting that the federal government is looking at a “whole range of public health measures” and policies with the provinces and territories to determine what the path forward might be for a whole suite of these measures. Importantly, Dr. Tam also stated, “maintaining layers of protection remains important to reduce spread, particularly as we continue to spend more time indoors over the winter and as public health measures begin to ease in areas of the country.” This is prudent. We must recognize that as very high infection rates continue to challenge or exceed testing capacity, reported case numbers underestimate the true number of infections in Canada, and the ongoing high volume of COVID cases across Canada continues to place a heavy strain on our health care system because of increased hospital admissions and high illness among health care workers. This motion is fundamentally flawed. It prejudges the science by coming to a conclusion before the investigation has been completed. While all Canadians, of course, look forward to a return to normal and the elimination of extraordinary public health measures, it is completely irresponsible to call for such before we know it is responsible and safe to do so. In any event, some things are very clear. In order for us to move out of the pandemic better prepared for the future, the federal government must increase health care transfers to the provinces and territories. This kind of federal leadership will help it address staff shortages, increase capacity in hospitals and make sure that Canadians can get the care they need when they need it. This is a lesson of COVID that cannot wait to be implemented. We have to ensure that more beds are available in ICUs and general wards, and that surge capacity is better planned. Canadians must be able to get surgeries in a timely manner, and have quicker access to life-saving diagnostic tests and screenings for things such as cancer. The federal government also needs to improve access to PCR and rapid antigen testing and personal protective equipment for all Canadian health care workers, frontline workers, educators and households. Testing and tracing remain core parts of dealing with COVID in any scenario, as we cannot manage what we do not measure. Further, it is essential that the Liberals stop protecting the pharmaceutical industry and support waiving intellectual property rights on global COVID‑19 vaccines and technologies to get the world vaccinated. Immune escape variants will continue to emerge and threaten our hard-won gains unless everyone in the world has full access to vaccinations and other health technologies as they emerge. This is not just a matter of equality. This is a matter of self-preservation and self-interest. One thing is certain. New Democrats consider ourselves to be the party of health care. It was through the vision, hard work and determination of New Democrats across this country that our public health care system was conceived and built. New Democrats will never stop fighting for Canadians to have effective, evidence-based public health measures and the strong, resilient and comprehensive public health care system they and their families deserve.

1454 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 23 - Feb/3/22

Feb/3/22 3:33:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, picking up on my hon. colleague's comments, he is absolutely right. Among OECD countries, Canada's ICU beds per capita is less than everyone but Mexico. We are 26 out of 27 in terms of number of doctors per thousand. Among developed countries, we rank tenth out of 10 in terms of wait times. Of course, the reason for this is that in 2014 the Harper Conservatives capped the federal health transfer at 3% when health care costs are rising at 5%. The current government said it would change that, but then it adopted the Harper cuts. Will my hon. colleague finally acknowledge that part of the problem today is the Conservative and Liberal cuts to health care that kept federal transfers at 3%, and does he agree with the NDP that it is time to raise it so that we can start properly funding the health care system in this country?

155 words

Context: House Hansard - 13 - Dec/8/21

Feb/3/22 2:48:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the COVID pandemic has exposed the dangerous results of underfunding Canada's health care system. Overburdened ICU wards, burnt-out staff, cancelled surgeries, excessive wait times for diagnostic tests and millions of Canadians without a family doctor, mental health care or prescription medicines are impossible to deny, but this is not surprising. The federal share of health care spending has plummeted from 50% to just 22% today. Will the government provide national leadership at the upcoming premiers meeting and increase the Canada health transfer to ensure the long-term funding needed to protect Canadians?

96 words