Adjournment Proceedings

An adjournment debate on enforcing the Canada Health Act in Alberta, where patients can pay out of pocket for faster care. Gord Johns of the NDP said the government is not keeping its promises to protect public health care and asked the health minister to make her plan and enforcement rules public. Karim Bardeesy, a parliamentary secretary, replied that the government supports care based on need rather than ability to pay, withholds health funding from provinces that allow extra charges, and prefers working with provinces to resolve problems. Both members opened by congratulating Louise Arbour on her appointment as governor general.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

2 statements

Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“I want to congratulate Louise Arbour on becoming governor general. I also want to protect our public health care system. Health care should be based on need, not the ability to pay. When provinces let doctors charge patients for necessary care, we hold back their health funding. We work with the provinces to fix these problems, and we give the money back once they stop charging patients.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the incoming governor general, the Hon. Louise Arbour, who is a voice for human rights, a voice for women in the law, a voice for official bilingualism and a voice for many of the values we hold sacred in this country. I want to congratulate her on her appointment. I also want to share my resonance with the values the hon. member is identifying. I am the son of two physicians who were immigrants and chose Canada over the United States because of their belief in providing health care regardless of the cost and regardless of someone’s ability to pay. Indeed, my first interest in politics came from hearing their stories about their bedside conversations about what was happening in the hospital where they were working and their concern that medicare was maybe under threat. The hon. member and I are just two of the millions of people who care passionately about our universal public health care insurance system and share our commitment wholeheartedly, something that has become key to our national identity. It is one of our defining nation-building achievements, reflecting who we are and what we value as a nation: a simple, enduring principle that access to medically necessary care can be based on need, not the ability or willingness to pay, and something that has a strong cross-partisan consensus. The Canada Health Act, an achievement of previous Parliaments, puts that principle into action, safeguarding universal access to medically necessary hospital and physician services without financial barriers, and setting the standard that provinces and territories must meet in order to receive their full share of the Canada health transfer payment. As guardian of the Canada Health Act, and of those payments, the government will uphold it with resolve and care. When a province or territory allows patient charges for medically necessary services, dollar-for-dollar deductions are made from that jurisdiction’s Canada health transfer payment, as I think Canadians would expect. Since 2015, those deductions have totalled more than $329 million. Deductions are not taken without some serious consideration of the potential violation that is involved. I think that is evidence of the federal government’s steadfast commitment to the values at the heart of medicare, values that are a shared duty, a shared responsibility, if we are going to protect them. Our health care system is strongest when governments at all levels work together to ensure that Canadians can receive the services they need without financial barriers. This shared duty guides how we enforce the act. Our goal is not to penalize provinces and territories at the first sign of non-compliance but to uphold the principle of medicare through collaboration, through connection and through communication. When issues arise, we reach out. We listen. We gather the facts and share information openly. We work with our provincial and territorial partners to resolve challenges, as I know the minister is doing. We apply the act fairly and consistently, always mindful that co-operation, not confrontation, has kept medicare strong for generations. This approach has actually delivered results. Since 2018, more than $227 million has been returned to provinces and territories after they took action to eliminate patient charges for medically necessary services. This shows how collaboration protects access to care based on need, how the collaboration we do results in a reaction by the governments we are engaging with. We bring that spirit of collaboration to the work before us today. We will remain engaged, reviewing proposals in good faith, asking questions early and keeping lines of communication open. Where adjustments are needed to respect the Canada Health Act, we will work together to ensure that they are made. That is how we protect patients. That is how we keep medicare’s promise.

Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“Our government strongly supports public health care. People should get medical care based on their need, not their ability to pay. We want to work with the provinces to protect this system, instead of just punishing them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, the shared commitment to medicare, as expressed through the Canada Health Act, is a very strongly held commitment. We are very fortunate to have a minister who is a fierce guardian of that commitment. The exact way in which we engage with any one situation, again, relies on those principles that I mentioned around collaboration to ensure that access to medically necessary care remains based on need, not on the willingness to pay a loan. Enforcement is one tool, yes, but there are other tools we can use to engage provinces and health care providers constructively in this conversation. I know that commitment, on this side of the House, is very firm, and it comes from a very deep place of commitment to our values as a party and to national identity.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 117

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 117 statements
  2. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 8 statements
  3. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Taxation 8 statements
  6. Oral Questions Natural Resources 5 statements
  7. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  8. Oral Questions Rail Transportation 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Finance 10 statements
  10. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  12. Oral Questions Finance 7 statements
  13. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 6 statements
  15. Oral Questions National Defence 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions National Defence 8 statements
  20. Government Orders Business of Supply 57 statements
  21. Government Orders Government Orders 2 statements
  22. Government Orders Government Orders 2 statements
  23. Government Orders Government Orders 2 statements
  24. Government Orders Government Orders 3 statements
  25. Government Orders Government Orders 2 statements
  26. Government Orders Government Orders 3 statements
  27. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  28. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  29. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 5 statements
  30. Private Members' Business Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act 5 statements
  31. Private Members' Business Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act 7 statements