Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 106 - 120 of 586
View Don Davies Profile
NDP (BC)
View Don Davies Profile
2021-03-23 12:21 [p.5107]
Madam Speaker, what I always fail to understand about the Bloc Québécois position on standards is that it seems to fail to understand the way that the Canadian health system is set up. The Canada Health Act establishes standards. That is the basis of our entire health care system, of which the people of Quebec, I am sure, are very proud and count on. The Canada Health Act sets out five principles, including portability, accessibility, universality, public administration, etc. and those standards must be met in order for the health transfer to be received by the Province fo Quebec and every other province and territory.
I fail to understand why the Bloc Québécois members rail against standards when the whole basis of our system is predicated on Quebec's meeting those standards. They want the money coming from the Canada health transfer, which I agree with my Bloc Québécois colleagues that it has to be increased. However, that is only the case if Quebec meets the standards set in the Canada Health Act. New Democrats simply want to expand our system using the same model that has been so successful and cherished by so many Canadians.
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2021-03-23 14:29 [p.5127]
Mr. Speaker, real leadership is about finding solutions, not looking for excuses. If, as a nation, we took the approach of the Liberal government looking for excuses, then we would have never had universal health care.
We know this pandemic has disproportionately impacted seniors, who were the hardest hit, particularly in long-term care, and we know that for-profit long-term care had the worst conditions.
Will the Prime Minister show leadership and support our New Democratic opposition day motion to remove profit from long-term care so our seniors are cared for with respect and dignity?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-03-23 14:29 [p.5127]
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians in the House and across the country can agree that we need to ensure our seniors are getting the care, treatment and dignity they so richly deserve. That is something on which we are committed to working with the provinces and territories.
Unlike the NDP, we understand and respect the Constitution of Canada that designates certain areas of jurisdiction as being provincial authority, but we will work hand in hand with the provinces and territories to ensure that right across the country all seniors get the top quality of care. It is something we all want. It is something we are going to work together on, in partnership, to deliver.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2021-03-23 17:02 [p.5150]
Mr. Speaker, a year ago, Quebec and Canada were hit hard by the COVID‑19 pandemic.
I clearly remember Premier Legault's and the Liberal Prime Minister's press conferences. They were daily events that everyone tuned in to religiously to hear about how the coronavirus would affect our health, our jobs and our lives. There was even an expression the Premier of Quebec used back then: “We're putting Quebec on pause”. That pause was supposed to last a few weeks. It went on for many more weeks and months, and now it has gone on for over a year.
We remember how people stood together. Across Quebec, rainbows and that slogan, “Ça va bien aller”, were ubiquitous. At the time, everyone though everything really would be fine. Good things happened. Political parties set aside partisanship, and the House of Commons unanimously passed unprecedented support programs in response to the calamity. That was what had to be done.
At the time, members may recall, we did not know how to protect ourselves from the coronavirus. We had no vaccine and no idea when it would be available. PPE for health care workers was scarce. I will never forget March 2020. Fortunately, Canadians listened, they followed provincial health guidelines and confronted the threat together, a threat we are still confronting today.
However, the Liberal government, which had a duty to warn Canadians of the threat to our country, failed. The first reason is that it scrapped the early warning unit whose mandate was to predict this exact kind of situation. Instead of preparing to protect Canada, the Liberal government sent tons of protective equipment to China. When asked to provide equipment for health workers in the provinces, the government was slow to do so. When asked to close the borders and take action to prevent COVID‑19 from entering the country, it did nothing. When asked to take action to provide rapid testing immediately, it failed.
After seeing the Prime Minister on his front steps, it became clear that the Liberal government was quick to advise Canadians to take action to protect themselves, but it was slow to act itself. One thing is sure: Canadians and employers have been listening. Today, what we are asking for and what Canadians want is a plan. Canadians want to know one thing from the government. They want to know when the sacrifices they have made over the past year will finally end.
Everyone around the world agrees that mass vaccination is the most effective way to reopen the economy and get back to normal. Unfortunately, this government failed to provide vaccines quickly to Canadians, such that we are lagging behind the rest of the world when it comes to the vaccination rate. Canadians need transparency. Canadians want to have a clear indication of the effects of vaccination and the moment when vaccination will allow them to get back to normal life.
That is why the Conservative Party moved today's motion, to call on the government “to table within 20 calendar days, following the adoption of this motion, a clear data-driven plan to support safely, gradually and permanently lifting COVID‑19 restrictions”.
Lockdowns and restrictions were put in place to give the government time to come up with permanent solutions such as vaccines, rapid tests, and a capacity to screen variants. These tools exist now. The problem is that the current Prime Minister is incapable of ensuring that they are widely used across Canada. Canadians want the government to tell them when and how we can safely and permanently lift the restrictions. The provinces are also asking the federal government the same thing. This plan is more than necessary and the federal government does not seem to realize that it has an important role to play.
It must first answer to those who have suffered the most during this pandemic. I will name a few groups that have suffered. First and foremost, I am thinking of Quebec and Canadian women, the first on the front lines of the health network, the first to leave their jobs to take care of their families. Unfortunately, they are also the most affected by domestic violence. Quebec is facing a dramatic increase in the number of femicides. According to a Radio-Canada article, there were six murders linked to domestic violence in just one month in Quebec, when there are usually one dozen a year on average. In Canada, in 2020, 160 women died from a violent act, which corresponds to one woman killed every two and a half days.
Claudine Thibaudeau, a social worker at SOS Violence Conjugale, told Radio-Canada the following: “The pandemic has been used by violent partners as a pretext to exert more control in the relationship. We feared this would happen, and it has. Many victims of domestic violence have also put off considering breaking up.” As a result, there could be a second crisis ahead.
We owe all women transparency and, most importantly, a plan, to end the spiral of violence that many women are experiencing. We must especially prevent the spiral from escalating by ensuring that domestic violence organizations are able to plan for a potential second wave of violence.
We also owe young Canadians a plan. According to Santé Montréal in Quebec, more than one in five young adults perceive their mental health as fair or poor. In Montreal, 46% of young people aged 18 to 24 report symptoms of generalized anxiety or major depression; in other regions of Quebec, that figure is 31%.
With the coming of spring, we see that the police are ticketing more and more young people who are not abiding by the public health guidelines. Young people also have the right to know when they will get a vaccine and when they will get their freedom back. Teens will be teens, and we cannot expect them not to act their age.
I am thinking of our seniors, most of whom have not had any contact with family for months. Too many Canadian seniors have died alone. Seniors who have been vaccinated have the right to know when their vaccine will give them more freedom.
Today, we learned that, starting March 24, the Government of Quebec is allowing dining rooms to reopen in long-term care facilities where over 75% of residents have been vaccinated for at least three weeks. At least these people now know part of the plan. What is the federal government's plan? What vaccination rate does it consider to be the threshold for lifting the health restrictions?
Businesses are waiting. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, many small businesses are no longer in business or are unsure of their future. The CFIB itself now has 15,000 fewer members as Canada enters a second year of the pandemic.
Borders are another issue. Everyone was calling for border closures at the start of the pandemic, but the Liberal government was conspicuously absent. At the time, there was no vaccine and no rapid test. Nobody really knew how to treat COVID-19 patients. Ventilators were in short supply, and the borders were open. Now, we have vaccines and rapid tests. Treatments are getting better and better, and the federal government has worked out how to keep the border more tightly closed than at the height of the pandemic. Is the Liberal government planning to take rapid testing into account in any way? Is it planning to take the vaccinations into account?
Hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers will be returning to Quebec from their winter homes in Florida in the days and weeks to come. The vast majority of them have been vaccinated. They should not have travelled, but they did anyway. These people will come back. Will they have to stay in a hotel for the mandatory quarantine?
Let me be clear: The at-home quarantine should be maintained, but these people are expecting a clear plan because the situation is not the same now as it was at the start of the pandemic.
Canadians have been exceptionally resilient. Now they need leadership. The motion seeks to give them hope again. After giving so much for the common good, they deserve to have the assurance that things will improve, that the temporary measures will not become permanent and that there will be value added for everyone at the end of this vaccination process. What do scientists think? When do they think the measures could be lifted? Does the government plan to have rapid testing in place and improved screening capabilities for variants? What measures will the government take?
With current vaccination rates so low, we may have to keep the safety measures in place a little while longer, as we have seen in other countries, but we are also entitled to know what vaccination rate the Canadian government considers to be the threshold for taking action to improve the situation.
There is no need to wait for the last case before announcing what is on the horizon. Action can be taken immediately, and that is what we expect the Liberal government to do. It is also what we expect through today's motion. I hope that members of the House will adopt this motion so that we can all have a clearer vision of our future.
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2021-03-22 12:06 [p.5013]
moved:
That, given that,
(i) during the first wave, 82% of COVID deaths in Canada happened in long-term care, the highest proportion in the OECD,
(ii) there have been over 12,000 long-term care resident and worker deaths in Canada since the beginning of the pandemic,
(iii) residents and workers in for-profit long-term care homes have a higher risk of infection and death than those in non-profit homes,
the House call upon the government to ensure that national standards for long-term care which are currently being developed fully remove profit from the sector, including by:
(a) immediately bringing Revera, a for-profit long-term care operator owned by a federal agency, under public ownership;
(b) transitioning all for-profit care to not-for-profit hands by 2030;
(c) working with provinces and territories to stop licensing any new for-profit care facilities, and making sure that measures are in place to keep all existing beds open during the transition; and
(d) investing an additional $5 billion over the next four years in long-term care, with funding tied to respect for the principles of the Canada Health Act, to boost the number of non-profit homes.
He said: Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.
As members know, this pandemic has gripped the entire world and everyone in the world has felt the impact of it. However, what I have referred to as a “national shame” is the fact that in our country it was our loved ones in long-term care, particularly seniors, who bore the brunt of this pandemic with their lives. This should never have happened.
Today, we are calling on the House to recognize this national shame and to do something about it.
What we have learned with incontrovertible evidence, an overwhelming amount of evidence, is that for-profit long-term care homes have had worse conditions of care, more rates of infection and more deadlier infection, which has meant that more people have lost their lives. I will be very clear: For-profit care means that more of our loved ones were killed. They did not get the care they deserved, because for those for-profit long-term care homes, profit was more important than people.
We know that 82% of COVID deaths in Canada happened in long-term care, which is a scathing statistic. This is the highest proportion in the entire OECD. We also know that this is not a new problem. The underfunding of long-term care homes has been chronic. The lack of care for our loved ones in long-term care has been chronic and long-lasting. COVID-19 simply exposed what was there for a long time.
The pandemic has shown us the effects of years of neglect and inaction on the part of past Liberal and Conservative governments. Our seniors in long-term care homes have been hit hardest by the pandemic. It is a national disgrace that our most vulnerable seniors, those in long-term care homes, are being hit the hardest. This is not only unacceptable, it is inexcusable. Our parents and grandparents built this country, and they deserve to retire with respect and dignity. There is clear evidence that conditions were worse in for-profit long-term care homes and more seniors died in those facilities.
What do we need to do? We need to immediately, with national and federal leadership, declare clearly that profit has no place in the care of our loved ones, that profit has no place in health care at all, but certainly not in the care of vulnerable loved ones in long-term care.
I will provide some of the clear and compelling reasons why we need to do this. For every dollar we spend on long-term care, if we spend that dollar on for-profit long-term care, not every dollar will make it to the care of our loved ones. Some of that dollar ends up in the pockets of shareholders, for profit. It ends up in the pay for executives. Not all of it will make it to caring for our loved ones.
We have some clear examples in two for-profit operators in Ontario, Extendicare and Sienna Senior Living. During this pandemic, during the worst outbreaks that our country has seen when it comes to long-term care homes, when our seniors were being ravaged by COVID-19, when workers did not have access to the necessary PPE and seniors were worried for their lives, instead of investing in caring for our loved ones, these two for-profit long-term care home operators paid out $74 million in dividends. Imagine that. In the worst outbreak in the history of our country when it comes to long-term care, gripped with a global pandemic these two for-profit operators, who had horrible conditions in their homes, paid out $74 million in dividends instead of investing in workers and in care. At the same time, they paid out $98.3 million to shareholders and received the Canada wage subsidy. They took public money with one hand and with the other hand paid, they out dividends.
No one should make a profit from neglecting our seniors.
We have also seen some terrible numbers out of Quebec. Nearly 5,000 seniors have died in almost 300 residential and long-term care facilities in Quebec. A recent media report revealed that the death rate is higher in the non-unionized private sector than in public and private institutions with collective agreements in place. This must never happen again. We need to immediately do away with the profiteering in long-term care homes, full stop.
We need to take profit out of long-term care homes immediately. We also immediately need to fix the long-standing problems that the Liberals and Conservatives have contributed to. We need to invest more in our health care and we need to act specifically to fix this problem.
There are a couple of key steps. First, Revera is owned by a federal agency. We need to immediately make it public. We must work with provinces and territories to ensure that Revera is delivering care in a public model and make it public immediately. We also need to transition all of our for-profit long-term care homes to not-for-profit and public homes by 2030. That is our plan.
We need to work with provinces and territories to stop licensing any new for-profit care facilities, and make sure that measures are in place to keep all the existing beds and spaces. We need to invest an additional $5 billion over the next four years in long-term care, with funding tied to respecting the same principles that are already agreed upon by all provinces and territories and are enshrined in the Canada Health Act. Those same principles helped us achieve what Canadians now are most proud of: universal health care. We can use those same principles to lift up our vulnerable seniors in long-term care homes.
We cannot go back to a health care system where making money and profit was more important than the care of our vulnerable seniors. We cannot go back to a time when, if a pandemic or an outbreak happened, our loved ones in long-term care would bear the brunt of it. We cannot go back to that.
Now is the time. This is when we can tell the people in this country that we are committed to moving forward in a way that honours the lives lost, by committing to never having it happen again. It is not enough to hear people in the House of Commons pay tribute to the lives lost. It is not enough for people to have moments of silence. It is not enough to talk about being sorry or to wring our hands. Here is the moment to do something about it. The evidence is overwhelming: We need to get profit out of long-term care homes. We need to protect our seniors and our loved ones, and we need to do it now.
I implore everyone in the House to support this motion, so that we can take a clear and bold step forward to protect our loved ones in long-term care homes. I do not want to hear excuses. We can work with the jurisdictions. We can work with the provinces and territories. People are not looking to hear excuses. They are looking for solutions. Here is a solution. The time for leadership is now. Let us see what leadership is.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-03-22 12:16 [p.5015]
Madam Speaker, my question to the leader is in regard to the importance of recognizing that the provinces provide the administration and support for care home facilities.
Has the leader or his health critic had any discussions with any province about this motion? If so, can he give an indication of which provinces are supportive of this motion, given that the provinces would, in part, be footing the bill for many measures that might be indirectly or directly implied through this particular motion.
Has he got the support of any provinces?
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2021-03-22 12:17 [p.5015]
Madam Speaker, if we took the approach suggested by the hon. member, we would never have had universal health care. It is a fact that many provinces were opposed to universal health care. That did not stop Tommy Douglas and the leadership of the New Democrats from saying that they knew people wanted this, people needed this and people were crying out for this. Just because a province does not agree does not mean that we stop and give up. It means we have to continue to push forward. What we saw when we established our universal health care system was that provinces started signing on voluntarily and eventually all of the provinces joined in. They did not all join in right away. They did not all agree right away.
What we are saying now is that we have the same opportunity to provide leadership and convince the provinces that this is the right way forward to lift up our seniors and our loved ones in long-term care homes.
View Rosemarie Falk Profile
CPC (SK)
Madam Speaker, I agree that long-term care homes have been the centre of the COVID-19 pandemic, but I missed a few things from his speech. I know that a workforce crisis, insufficient resources, limited access to care and aging infrastructure have all been identified as contributing factors to the outbreaks and fatalities in some long-term care facilities.
Does the leader of the New Democrats agree that the systemic problems in long-term care require a collaborative approach and a comprehensive solution?
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2021-03-22 12:19 [p.5015]
Madam Speaker, it is going to take collaboration and it is going to take a comprehensive approach. One of the clear findings, in addition to the fact that for-profit homes were the worst, was that the conditions of work and the conditions of workers were directly tied to the conditions of care. We need to make sure workers are paid good salaries, make sure they have enough hours, and make sure there are enough staff members to provide the care necessary.
Let us be very clear: With for-profit care, all of those essential care elements are cut. Hours and pay are cut just to make a profit. We need to work together. The solution has to be comprehensive, but let us not ignore that profit is at the heart of many of the problems. We need to lift up the conditions of workers, which will directly lift up the conditions of the long-term care residents.
View Louise Chabot Profile
BQ (QC)
View Louise Chabot Profile
2021-03-22 12:20 [p.5015]
Madam Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague.
Why introduce a motion that sets standards to be imposed on the provinces when, for several months now, the provinces and territories have made a common request, which we support, to increase health transfers to 35%? As hon. members know, we are talking about passing legislation on health, but transfers to the provinces have gone down from day one. They currently sit at just 22%. The provinces have been clear: They do not want national standards. In every—
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2021-03-22 12:21 [p.5015]
Madam Speaker, we agree that health transfers to the provinces need to be increased.
I have talked to people in Quebec and in Canada. They are angry because they have seen the impact that COVID-19 has had on seniors in our long-term care facilities. We must improve conditions in long-term care facilities specifically by removing profit from the sector. It is clear that is what we need to do. There is a report on Quebec only. La Presse showed that it is essential that we do this.
We are here to stand up for the interests of everyday Canadians.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jenny Kwan Profile
2021-03-22 12:22 [p.5016]
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to second this motion and rise to speak in support of it.
As we heard from the leader of the NDP, the motion basically calls for the federal government to act now to take profit out of long-term care, put people before profit and say that we, as a society, value the lives of seniors more than money.
Seniors in long-term care facilities have been especially hard hit by the pandemic. In the first wave of the pandemic, more than 80% of all COVID-19 deaths in the country were reported in long-term care facilities and retirement homes. That means one in five of the total COVID cases in Canada was among long-term care residents.
Of course, COVID-19 also affected the workers in those facilities. In Canada, more than 9,600 staff in long-term care facilities were infected with COVID-19, representing more than 10% of the total cases.
The pandemic has exposed severe cracks in our system, and some of the elderly and most vulnerable people paid the ultimate price for that. Across the country, more than a quarter of Canada's long-term care homes are for-profit. We have learned that for-profit care homes were more likely to see extensive COVID-19 outbreaks, and more deaths, than non-profit facilities.
Things got so bad in Ontario that the military and the Red Cross had to be called in to help care for seniors. How did things get so bad? In the for-profit care homes, care aides and personal support workers are underpaid and are often part-time or casual workers, which means they often have to work at multiple job sites to make ends meet. This can be deadly in the face of a pandemic, when social distancing is an essential health measure. To be clear, the reason they are underpaid is so the company can have a larger profit margin. They are part-time or casual workers, which also means they are not paid benefits or sick leave. In addition, long-term care homes often subcontract out services such as laundry, cleaning and cooking, and it is also very likely that subcontracted staff do not have paid sick leave. Without paid sick leave, workers may be compelled to go to work even if they are feeling ill.
All of these conditions contributed to an increased risk of transmission. The outcome was devastating for far too many seniors and their families, as well as the workers. The horror stories we hear in the media of the conditions the seniors were in take one's breath away. It is not supposed to be that way. The seniors in our communities helped build this country. Their retirement years are supposed to be their golden years. They deserve to live in comfort, with dignity and safety, as do people with disabilities. However, because of decades of cuts, underfunding and privatization, our continuing care system is broken.
The bottom line is that Canada has failed to protect long-term care residents and workers throughout this pandemic. We have to ask ourselves how it is possible that seniors in some care homes were abandoned in their beds for weeks on end. Some cried for help for hours before assistance was provided. Some had to be bathed as they had not been bathed for weeks. Can members imagine if those were their mothers or grandmothers? Such horrific stories are not just stories. They are the real experiences of loved ones.
Report after report revealed what we should know instinctively: that profit should never be the bottom line when it comes to continuing care. The evidence is overwhelming. It is undeniable that for-profit homes have seen worse results than other homes, with deadlier COVID outbreaks. However, at the same time, for-profit operators were getting public subsidies and paying out millions in dividends to shareholders while workers were underpaid, with some making minimum wage. Things were so desperate for some of them they had to resort to living in shelters. In fact, there was an outbreak in an Ottawa homeless shelter under exactly such a circumstance. It helps no one if essential front-line health care workers are pushed into homelessness. The colossal failure of the system is Canada's national shame.
Even outside of the pandemic situation, research has shown that homes run on a for-profit basis tend to have lower staffing levels, more verified complaints and more transfers to hospitals, as well as residents with higher rates of both ulcers and morbidity. We as parliamentarians have the power to do something about this. We must act now to prevent a repeat of this in the future. We must transition the for-profit model in long-term care to a non-profit model.
The NDP members want to see an end to for-profit long-term care by 2030. That is why we are calling for a national task force to devise a plan to get the job done. We must also set national standards. Let us work collaboratively with provincial, territorial leaders, experts and workers alike to set national standards for long-term care and continuing care that would include accountability mechanisms. Without national standards, the federal government is leaving the door wide open for the for-profit companies to cut corners and put profit first at the expense our loved ones. That cannot be allowed to continue.
Those standards should be tied to $5 billion in federal funding and the principles in Canada's Health Care Act. We can put in place a seniors care guarantee. Seniors deserve to know that they will have safe, dignified care both at home and in care homes available to them as they age. Families deserve to know that their loved ones will have the care they deserve, with inspections and appropriate levels of care and staffing ratios.
Workers deserve to know that their wages will reflect the value of their work and allow them to live in dignity without having to work multiple jobs or end up in a shelter because they cannot afford housing. They deserve to know that the government has their back and that they will have access to protective equipment and safe working conditions.
The federal government can show leadership by transforming Revera from a for-profit long-term care chain owned by a crown pension fund into a publicly managed entity. Public ownership of long-term care facilities would allow workers to work full-time at one home at competitive union rates, which would address understaffing and prevent the transmission of illness. The benchmark for quality long-term care is 4.1 hours of hands-on care per resident per day. However, no province or territory currently meets this standard of care.
Long-term care homes are chronically understaffed across Canada. Nurses and personal support workers at these facilities are often paid low wages, saddled with overwhelming workloads and are subjected to high levels of stress, burnout and even violence. Precarious and part-time employment often forces these health care workers to move between facilities to earn a living.
Waitlists for long-term care can have lengthy backlogs because the care facilities are not keeping pace with Canada’s aging population. This shortage leads to overcrowding at long-term care facilities and overuse of the hospital system by those without access to appropriate care.
There is a lack of accountability for long-term care facility operators due to lax enforcement of standards and regulations. For example, a recent CBC investigation revealed that 85% of long-term care homes in Ontario have routinely violated health care standards for decades with near total impunity.
We have the power within us to end this for this generation and beyond. Seniors deserve better. Families deserve better. Workers deserve better. Let us never forget these words from Canada's Chief Public Health Officer:
I think the tragedy and the massive lesson learned for everyone in Canada is that we were at every level, not able to protect our seniors, particularly those in long-term care homes. Even worse is that in that second wave, as we warned of the resurgence, there was a repeat of the huge impact on that population.
For those who want to say that we cannot do it because of jurisdictional issues, I will quote Marcy Cohen, research associate for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, who said that “The setting of clear standards in health care as a condition of federal funding is not an attack on provincial jurisdiction—it is the only path”—
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I just want to ask the seconder of the motion the same question that the parliamentary secretary did of the mover, and that is with respect to any possible consultation that has gone on with the provinces. The mover, the leader of the NDP, responded to that question by basically just saying that it is not as though we cannot do this without the provinces and that they could come on board later, but that is not the question that he was asked. He was asked whether any consultation had occurred, not how provinces feel about it.
We are just trying to figure out if any consultation occurred on this. Can the seconder confirm whether any of the provinces have been consulted on the motion?
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jenny Kwan Profile
2021-03-22 12:33 [p.5017]
Madam Speaker, I know the government often says that we cannot move forward on anything unless the provinces and territories are also in agreement. Of course, if we actually lived with that kind of suggestion, we would never have had universal medicare.
I will just finish the quote by March Cohen, because it goes to the heart of the issue:
The setting of clear standards in health care as a condition of federal funding is not an attack on provincial jurisdiction—it is the only path forward to a universal public system of long-term and continuing care, the same path Canada took to universal hospital and physician care. Seniors and people with disabilities deserve nothing less.
This motion calls on us to do exactly that work to engage with provincial and territorial leaders, experts in the system, and health care workers to come up with those standards to put in place protection for seniors, so that what we saw happen in the pandemic, with the loss of lives, will never happen again.
Results: 106 - 120 of 586 | Page: 8 of 40

|<
<
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data