Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 181 - 195 of 255
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in this important discussion about the Canada health transfer, or CHT, and funding for health care.
Our government is committed to improving the health care system so that it can meet the needs of Canadians today and in the future. Our system must adapt if it wants to provide better health care and better results at an affordable cost given the aging population, the increase in rates of chronic disease and the financial pressure resulting from new drugs and new technologies.
From the beginning of the global coronavirus pandemic, our government has been proactive, shown leadership and worked with the provinces and territories to support their efforts to deal with this crisis. More specifically, our government invested more than $19 billion to help the provinces and territories safely restart their economies. This amount includes $500 million to guarantee that health care systems will be ready to face future waves of the virus; $740 million for vulnerable Canadians, including those in long-term care and palliative care facilities, and those who receive home care, and risk having more serious cases of COVID-19; and $500 million to support and protect people struggling with mental health, addiction or homelessness.
Our government also supports virtual care services and online screening to relieve emergency services and promote physical distancing. We have invested $240 million in creating virtual care and mental health care tools in order to support the provinces and territories in this work. This investment is in addition to the $500 million from the COVID-19 response fund, which was distributed earlier this year to the provinces and territories in order to help them respond to critical needs in the health care systems and to support mitigation efforts.
This funding was provided as an ad hoc complement to the Canada health transfer, which is the primary federal funding mechanism for supporting Canada's health care system. It allows for the provision of predictable, long-term funding to the provinces and territories. In 2020-21, our government will provide nearly $42 billion in cash assistance to the provinces and the territories through the CHT. This represents on average more than 23% of planned health spending by the provincial and territorial governments. In 2020-21, the Province of Quebec will receive $9.4 billion from the CHT.
The CHT will increase each year based on economic growth, with a minimum increase of 3% per year. Over the next five years, funding for the CHT to the provinces and territories should reach more than $200 billion. These funds are allocated to the provinces and territories on an equal per capita basis, which guarantees the comparable treatment of all Canadians, regardless of where they live.
The Canada Health Act sets out the criteria and conditions the provinces and territories must meet to receive their full contribution through the CHT. With the exception of its link to the Canada Health Act, the CHT is unconditional, and gives provinces and territories the leeway to decide how best to distribute the funds in order to meet their residents’ and communities’ health care needs.
I would like to take a little time to talk about the history and evolution of the CHT. The current flexible block funding approach to the CHT differs substantially from the cost-sharing program that existed when the public health insurance plan was introduced. Before 1977, the federal government matched eligible provincial and territorial spending on doctors and hospitals at a rate of 50%. However, expenses for these items constituted only about three-quarters of the provinces’ and territories’ total health care expenses.
In other words, the cost-sharing arrangement in place before 1977 did not cover other health care expenses such as pharmaceuticals, home care, mental health services and related health care services that were beginning to represent a growing share of the provinces’ and territories’ health care expenses. As we know, these health care expenditure components increased over the years. The share of spending for doctors and hospitals decreased, and now represents less than 60% of the provinces’ and territories’ health care expenses.
Even during the first period of the cost-sharing program for eligible expenses, federal transfers never really represented 50% of spending for doctors and hospitals. They represented less than 37% of the provinces’ and territories’ total health care expenses. As the health care system evolved, all of the parties involved agreed that a more flexible funding system was required to help the provinces and territories meet their own health care priorities and not only to help foot the bill for doctors and hospitals.
When the established programs financing, or EPF, was introduced in 1977, the federal, provincial and territorial governments agreed to replace the earlier equal cost-sharing program with a more flexible block- or cash-funding approach. This meant that, instead of the federal government equalizing the provinces’ and territories’ spending on doctors and hospitals, the provinces and territories received a cash transfer that they could spend on a broader range of health care priorities.
More importantly, in our context, the EPF program included a stipulation that the federal government was to permanently transfer tax room or tax points to the provinces and territories. This transfer of tax points meant that the federal government permanently reduced its tax rates, while the provinces and territories increased theirs by the same amount, which had no net impact on the taxpayer's tab. More specifically, 13.5 percentage points of the federal personal income tax and one percentage point of the federal corporate income tax were transferred to the provinces and territories. Instead of the federal government collecting taxes and transferring them to the provinces and territories, the provinces and territories could now collect these taxes themselves and spend them as they saw fit.
In 1977-78, the value of the transfer of tax points was equivalent to approximately 22% of the provinces' and territories' spending for doctors and hospitals, the public health insurance plan, while the health transfer represented 33%, for a total of 55%. The cash transfer represented almost 25% of the provinces' and territories' total health care spending. Until recently, this threshold, which is the reference point for the federal cash contribution, was long recognized by the provinces and territories themselves.
As I mentioned, the CHT now represents more than 23% of the provinces' and territories' health care spending. But the federal government's contribution to health care in provinces and territories is not limited to the CHT. Much of the funding related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the funds from the safe restart agreement, which are intended specifically for health care, will be transferred directly to the provinces and territories.
In addition to the extraordinary measures the government implemented to help the provinces, the territories and all Canadians deal with the coronavirus pandemic, the federal government has also provided significant and ongoing support for health care. These investments were made during the previous Parliament when, in August 2017, all the provinces and territories agreed on $11 billion in federal funding over 10 years to improve home care and mental health services. This new funding alone increased the federal contribution to provincial and territorial health spending by nearly 25%. The government also provides considerable direct health care funding as part of its health promotion and protection responsibility, which includes regulation. It supports public health, research and national health organizations, and delivers health care services to specific groups, such as indigenous populations. In addition to direct federal spending and provincial and territorial transfers, the government also helps individuals and companies via the tax system.
Let me close with the following.
In conclusion, our health system needs improvement in some areas. However, experience shows us that we cannot improve things just by injecting more cash. Canada spends more on health than most other countries, yet we are not getting the results Canadians need and deserve.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.
In my speech, I tried to show that costs were once shared 50-50, but that this only represented part of the costs for the provinces and territories. In time, following a series of agreements between the federal government and the provinces and territories, this arrangement was changed, and the 50-50 formula that did not cover 50% of provincial costs was changed to a more flexible formula that took different factors into account when calculating the transfers.
The opposition is trying to make the House believe that we went from 50% to 23% and that the federal government disengaged from the health care system of the provinces and territories, but that is simply not true.
There is predictability built into these agreements, but COVID-19 called for targeted intervention. I believe that the Bloc Québécois would be the first to rise and oppose everything we are doing had there not been this targeted assistance to cope with COVID-19.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question. I am very happy for the opportunity to talk about the environment, since the science clearly shows that pollution costs our health care system a lot of money.
For that reason, since 2015, our government has been taking a never-before-seen approach to tackling this issue. The more we can reduce pollution in Canada, whether it be air pollution, water pollution, or pollution associated with climate change, the healthier our country, planet and people will be. On top of that, if we reduce pollution, there will be fewer demands and pressures on our public health care system across the country.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.
I am in complete agreement with her. The transition should have started a long time ago. We did start it, but that was followed by 10 years of inaction under the Conservatives.
She is right to say that this bill is not an action plan. It is a framework bill. We presented the first component of the action plan in 2016. It was the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, which all of the provinces and territories adopted. The minister also announced that this plan will be updated very soon.
I would like to address two points raised by my colleague. She believes the advisory body is insufficient. However, before entering politics, I co-chaired an advisory council on climate change for this government. The council proposed a series of measures, including purchase incentives for electric vehicles and investments in energy efficiency retrofits. A few months after our report was released, those measures were incorporated into the 2019 budget.
The hon. member also said that there is no external evaluation, yet there is an entire section on the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. This is right in his wheelhouse, since he is responsible for making sure that the government meets its objectives in various areas. Consequently, I am having a bit of difficulty understanding my colleague's questions in this respect.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
We are both concerned about climate change, which has been my pet cause for many years. I attended the first UN Conference of the Parties in 1995. All I am missing is a cane.
I am a little confused. I will quickly read out a few excerpts from the bill, including part of the preamble:
...the Government of Canada is committed to achieving and exceeding the target for 2030 set out in its nationally determined contribution communicated in accordance with the Paris Agreement....
It also mentions the commissioner of the environment in subclause 24(2), which I will read out:
The [commissioner's] report may include recommendations related to improving the effectiveness of the Government of Canada's implementation of the measures with respect to climate change mitigation that it has committed to undertake....
If I understood what my colleague said, she would like to force future governments to meet targets. In a democracy, I do not see how we can force a government that has been duly elected by the people to not change its mind. As an environmentalist, I want all governments to meet the targets, and I believe that we have a collective responsibility to ensure that that happens.
However, how can we enact a law that forces something on people who have a perfectly legitimate democratic right to change their minds?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his intervention, which was very interesting and very relevant.
He talked about the importance of culture. I would like him to sum up in 30 seconds how he sees the vital connection that exists between language and culture.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.
Aside from being a means of communication, language is also an expression of our culture. It tells our stories and accompanies our dreams. Language gives us the ability to understand and help each other, and it helps us move forward.
Our sense of belonging to a community is built around a common language. Language and culture are passed on in various ways, through literature, visual arts, music, science, history, philosophy or dance. Among the main instruments of cultural transmission are television and radio. A long time ago other legislators in the House realized that and started demanding that television and radio contribute to the production of Canadian stories. Their decision was greatly beneficial to our cultural landscape.
However, the definition of television and radio has changed a lot since the last time the Broadcasting Act was updated, 30 years ago. In those days, we did not have touch screens or voice-activated devices. We were lucky if we could get the remote control to work on the first try. Nevertheless our laws remained unchanged since that distant past.
That is why I introduced Bill C-10 a few days ago. Its objective is simple: to extend the scope of the Broadcasting Act to online broadcasting services, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime or Spotify, and ensure that they too contribute to the production of Canadian stories, including francophone stories. It is a matter of fairness. The web giants can no longer ignore Canada's francophones and their culture. This is particularly important because francophones and their language and culture are a minority in North America.
In order to preserve French under such circumstances, we need more than just good intentions. That is why robust legislation is so important. Bill C-10 is a way of telling francophone artists that there is no us without them. Our reform recognizes the specific challenges they are facing and addresses them directly. Their work deserves to be more well known and better funded and broadcast.
Finally, I want to talk about Montreal, a francophone city that is rich in culture and heritage. It has been my adopted home for over 30 years. From the early days of radio and television, creators have looked for ways to represent and reflect all aspects of life in Montreal in their productions.
It has been captured in such songs as Je reviendrai à Montréal by Robert Charlebois and Montréal by Ariane Moffat. On screen, the city and its inhabitants have been immortalized in documentaries such as the recent Chef en pandémie, series such as District 31 and La vie, la vie, the children's show Passe-Partout, and Montreal's distinct alleyways.
There are also those who make us laugh in French: Catherine Éthier, Eddy King, Rosalie Vaillancourt and Adib Alkhalidey. The Couscous Comedy Show stage in Montreal has launched quite a few acts now appearing on television and Apple Music.
In essence, Montreal inspires and sets the tone. It is a place where people can connect, where francophone productions around the world can collaborate. Montreal's stories, francophone stories, are there. They need to be seen and heard. Our children and grandchildren deserve to see themselves in those characters. They deserve a chance to write those stories themselves someday.
In 2016, I was honoured to be awarded the Impératif français prize for my contribution to the vitality of the language. It is not, however, my mother tongue. I learned to speak English before I learned to speak French. Switching from an English school to a French one was not without its challenges, but my mother felt that I ought to learn this beautiful language, and I have cultivated it throughout my life.
Winning the prize did not strike me as an end in itself. It was just a sign that I had to keep doing that work. Today, that commitment has brought me to my work as Minister of Canadian Heritage. Those who work to ensure the vitality of our language and our culture and to pass it on to others can count on our government to support, recognize and applaud their efforts.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.
He seems to be having a hard time understanding that on this side of the House there are many proud Quebeckers to whom protecting the French language is a concern and who are working to protect it in Quebec, of course, but also from one end of the country to the other.
We are doing this through tools such as the Official Languages Act or the Broadcasting Act. I will also soon be introducing a bill on the media and web giants. We are using every tool we have to continue to protect this language and our francophone communities, whether they are in Quebec or elsewhere in the country.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her comments.
We had the pleasure of chatting recently. New Brunswick is a wonderful province I have had the opportunity of visiting many times.
I have written three books in French, and the book fairs there were even busier than in Montreal or Quebec City. The francophone community there is active, healthy and engaged.
That is why we want to continue to work with francophones in Quebec and across Canada, especially in the member's beautiful part of the country.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I greatly admire my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent. There are issues on which we disagree, but I do not think that the protection of French is one of them. I think that, like many others in this room, we both agree on this issue.
I think that our government has accomplished a lot since it took office in 2015. My predecessors at Canadian Heritage, who are here with us tonight, did a lot for CBC/Radio-Canada and the Canada Council for the Arts. We will continue to address other issues to do even more to protect francophones across the country.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention.
I have two questions about the criticisms of Bill C-10 on broadcasting. On the issue of percentages in the bill, the Association québécoise de la production médiatique said, “The AQPM believes that it would be hard to include percentages in the legislation and that it is better to go before the CRTC to debate better conditions to impose on online broadcasters and undertakings.” That is what independent producers are saying and that is what ADISQ, the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo says. By the way, ADISQ says it is grateful to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his team for being so receptive.
Will the Conservative Party vote in favour of Bill C-10?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Chair, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé has said a number of times this evening that nothing people have been saying amounts to anything more than words and that nothing has been accomplished.
I have a question for my hon. colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis. The federal government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Telefilm Canada, Musicaction and the Canada Media Fund to support French music, French television series and French films, many of which have reached international audiences.
Does he see this as concrete action on the part of the federal government?
Let's also consider the $4 billion we invested in arts and culture, a significant chunk of which went to francophone artists in Quebec and across Canada.
Does my colleague see all that as concrete action in support of the French language from coast to coast to coast?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite that the CBC is an autonomous Crown corporation responsible for managing its own operation while offering Canadians accurate and quality information without political interference.
The Conservatives would like to tell the CBC and journalists what to cover and how, but that is not how democracy works. Some might say that the Conservatives are delusional because they seem to find conspiracy theories wherever they look.
We need to respect journalists' independence, and we will always do so.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, William Shatner is, in fact, from the wonderful city of Montreal.
One of the interesting aspects of the bill, one could argue, is that for the first time ever, it puts an emphasis on indigenous production, whether it be with regard to music, TV or the big screen. I am wondering if my hon. colleague could help us understand how this would help reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and his passionate testimonial about local media.
I myself delivered La Tuque's L'Écho when I was a boy. I also wrote for several local media outlets. However, there appears to be some confusion. Bill C-10 is about broadcasting, not the media. I publicly announced my intention to table another bill on the media and the use by Internet giants like Facebook and Google of Canadian content without appropriate compensation.
My hon. colleague is talking about the Yale report on which our bill is indeed based. It is somewhat ironic, since the former leader of my hon. colleague's party, on the day the report was published, proposed that we scrap it, so I am not sure I understand.
If the local media is so important, and I believe my hon. colleague in that regard, why is it that the Conservative Party has opposed our every effort to help Canadian media?
Results: 181 - 195 of 255 | Page: 13 of 17

|<
<
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data