 Sunday, February 05, 2023
In search of a healthy dialogue
Ottawa is holding its breath as premiers gather in the nation's capital, with just days to go before perhaps the most important "working meeting" in years. Senior Writer Peter Zimonjic previews the meetings.
Plus, Senior Writer Darren Major digs into the latest news on Parliament's hybrid format. | | |  | Tuesday’s first ministers’ meeting and the future of health-care funding | Peter Zimonjic, Senior Writer | | | | On Tuesday, Canada’s premiers will meet in Ottawa with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to pursue a new health-care funding agreement.
Health-care funding has always been a contentious topic between the provinces and the federal government, but the pandemic’s effects on an already strained system have made the need for a new funding agreement more urgent.
The last health-care summit involving federal and provincial ministers of health took place in Vancouver in early November. It ended in failure.
Before that meeting had even concluded, the premiers issued a statement saying “no progress” had been made. They argued that the federal government had to put up more money, sooner rather than later.
MORE: Trudeau will host premiers Feb. 7 to hammer out health-care funding deal
“Substantive resources are required to support and accelerate this essential work, and provinces and territories need a predictable federal funding partner,” provincial leaders said then.
The first sticking point in the negotiations has to do with math.
Canada's premiers say the federal government is only paying 22 per cent of the cost of providing health care. They want that boosted to 35 per cent — an increase of $28 billion to the $45.2 billion Canada Health Transfer (CHT), starting this year — and for the CHT to increase by six per cent annually after that.
READ: B.C. has no 'red line' going into health talks with federal government, premier says
The federal government has said that while the CHT only covers 22 per cent of health-care costs, taxation powers transferred to the provinces in 1977 to pay for health care — and funding for things like mental health services, home care and long-term care — bring the federal government's share up to as much as 38.5 per cent.
The day before the premiers issued their statement, Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos said he was willing to increase the CHT, providing the provinces agreed to target any additional money to specific areas. Duclos also said Ottawa wants progress on those areas to be measured. | | | ![[image of the Liberal MP Randeep Sarai in the House of Commons]](https://newsletters.cbc.ca/i/amf_cbc/project_93/premiersnovember.jpg?size=1212x0&w=BsyAfWxqIKgoLXCq-ZEdB42-TQPw) | Premiers of Canada's provinces and territories, including then-premier John Horgan, meet in July 2022. (Chad Hipolito/The Canadian Press) | The federal government’s stated priorities include reducing backlogs, working to better support and retain health care workers, improving access to primary care with reforms and more doctors, improving mental health services, reforming how palliative care is delivered and changing the way health-care data is shared within provinces and across the country.
The provinces initially balked at the suggestion that any additional money from the federal government would have to be earmarked for specific initiatives.
Provincial and territorial premiers have argued that health care falls under their jurisdiction. Since that November meeting, there have been signs that premiers may be willing to meet the federal government’s demands.
FULL STORY: Ontario in 'full support' of federal push to tie health-care funding to data
Last month, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said he would accept conditions on new money because “there always has to be accountability,” providing the provinces get “a little bit of flexibility.” Quebec Premier François Legault also said last month that he would accept some conditions, specifically on sharing health-care data.
Doctors and health administrators say that more money is essential but targeted reforms are needed to improve service delivery.
Monday’s meeting will be all about how many conditions and reforms the provinces and territories are willing to accept in exchange for more money, and how firm the federal government is going to be on maintaining those targeted areas when it comes to opening its pocketbook. | | | ![[image of the Centre Block of Parliament Hill]](https://newsletters.cbc.ca/i/amf_cbc/project_93/duclostrudeau.jpg?size=1212x0&w=Bt_uGwCzZkrkqAEwgO8KAt5AVoPM) | Prime Minister Justin Trudeau listens as Minister of Health Jean-Yves Duclos speaks during a news conference on the COVID-19 pandemic in Ottawa last year. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press) | | | | | | |  | Committee says hybrid Parliament should remain | Darren Major, Senior Writer | | | | Last week, the House of Commons procedure committee submitted a report recommending that the pandemic practice of holding hybrid sittings in Parliament — which allow MPs to participate in House business in person or virtually — should be made permanent.
That includes allowing MPs to Zoom into question period and committee meetings, and use an app to vote on motions and bills when they aren’t present in the House.
While virtual parliament has allowed the House of Commons to continue functioning during lockdown, it has also exposed some viewing the proceedings to more than they may have expected.
Quebec Liberal MP William Amos, for example, was not only caught naked during a virtual House of Commons sitting, but was caught urinating on camera as well.
FULL STORY: The hybrid model of Parliament is once again under the microscope. Is it here to stay?
He described both incidents as accidental and said he would step away temporarily from his parliamentary roles. He later announced he would not be running for re-election.
Throughout its study, the committee heard from a number of MPs who supported the extension of the hybrid model.
Parm Bains, a Liberal MP from British Columbia, told the committee how the hybrid system has allowed him to deal with dialysis treatment and a kidney transplant.
MORE: The House of Commons had a loud, busy year. Was it effective?
"If it were not for the hybrid Parliament provisions, I could not have safeguarded my health and kept my commitment to represent my constituents in Parliament," he said.
New Democrat MP Laurel Collins said the hybrid format can make engaging in politics more accessible and attractive for Canadians who might otherwise face barriers.
"If you want more young women to enter politics, if you want more women to stay in politics, make Parliament more family-friendly. Hybrid Parliament is a tangible way to do that," the B.C. MP said. | | |  | Prime Minister Justin Trudeau takes part in a hybrid sitting of Parliament in 2020. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press) | | | Not all parties agree with the final report. The Liberals and NDP supported continuing the practice, but the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois filed dissenting reports.
The Conservatives argued in their report that any extension of hybrid sittings should have a hard deadline to give MPs time to review how the system is working and consider any further changes. The Tories also raised concerns about accountability, arguing that ministers should be required to appear in the House and at committees in person.
The Bloc raised similar concerns while also noting that the health concerns of interpreters could affect the House’s ability to operate in both official languages. Throughout the period of virtual or hybrid sittings, injuries among interpreters have been numerous, resulting in significant staffing shortages.
READ: Speaker Anthony Rota on decorum, security and making sure MPs see each other as humans
“We regret that the Committee members have decided to minimize both the safety issues faced by parliamentary interpreters and the negative impact on language rights caused by technological issues, most of the time to the detriment of the use of French,” the Bloc MPs wrote.
The report appears to have attempted to address those concerns. A number of recommendations called for further examination of interpreters’ concerns and more resources to address potential health issues.
The report also said ministers appearing in person should be considered “best practice.” But the Conservatives balked at that suggestion, calling it “a fig leaf covering a decay in the core constitutional concept of responsible government” in their dissenting report.
Both the Conservatives and the Bloc noted in their reports that decisions to make major changes to House procedure should be based on consensus. It is now up to the government to respond to the committee's report, but any permanent changes likely would need the approval of the House. | | | | | More from CBC Politics |  | | It was a “climb down” and it was “humiliating” for the federal government — that much seems beyond dispute. But the government’s real mistake was to box itself so thoroughly in a corner that throwing up its hands was the only conceivable way forward. Read more | | | | | | The Liberal government has withdrawn a series of controversial amendments to pending firearms legislation, Bill C-21, that some firearms owners say would have unfairly targeted hunters and farmers. Read more | | | | | | Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry François-Philippe Champagne said Friday the government has legal options to recover $173 million it gave to soon-to-be defunct medical company Medicago for COVID-19 vaccine development. But he didn't say whether the government is looking to get its money back. Read more | | | | | | When finance ministers meet in Toronto today, they'll hear both an update on the country's economic outlook and a pitch from Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland on the need for a shared response to the competitive challenges posed by the United States. Read more | | | | | Share this newsletter | | or subscribe if this was
forwarded to you. | | | |
![[Image of the Power & Politics show logo]](https://newsletters.cbc.ca/i/amf_cbc/project_93/ISSUE_36/unnamed.jpg?size=1212x0&w=B4Y6EbqQrhlamPKkcU3TaqYZ0zLc)
