Publication Search

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health recently blocked reforms that would save Canadians billions on their prescription medicines. The minister said he did this because he wanted to be consulted by Canada's drug price regulator but did not receive an invitation. In fact, documents obtained by the health committee show he was invited at least five times, and the minister's office either ignored or rejected them.

Why will the minister not come clean with Canadians and just admit that he refused to lower drug prices because big pharma told him not to?

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to stand in this House today and speak in support of Bill C-284, an act to establish a national strategy for eye care. I am proud to say that New Democrats will be supporting this bill and, in fact, as I will point out in my remarks, this is something we have been championing since the 1960s.

This legislation, in general, would provide for “the development of a national strategy to support the prevention and treatment of eye disease to ensure better health outcomes for Canadians.” The bill states:

 The national strategy must describe the various forms of eye disease and include measures to

(a) identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care practitioners and other professionals related to the prevention and treatment of eye disease, including clinical practice guidelines;

(b) promote research and improve data collection on eye disease prevention and treatment;

(c) promote information and knowledge sharing between the federal and provincial governments in relation to eye disease prevention and treatment; and

(d) ensure that Health Canada is able to rapidly consider new applications for treatments and devices used for macular degeneration, cataracts, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy.

This legislation would also designate the month of February as age-related macular degeneration awareness month.

I want to pause and thank my hon. colleague from Humber River—Black Creek, who has been an energetic, spirited and passionate sponsor of this bill. It would not be right to proceed any further without noting her energy and great work in promoting this overdue policy.

Eye health has been underfunded and deprioritized in Canada for too long. As a result, millions of Canadians are being put at unnecessary risk of vision loss because they lack access to eye care. A national strategy on eye care would ensure better access, better outcomes and quality of life for Canadians. It would also support Canadian leadership in vision research that can be exportable to the world.

Canada's New Democrats believe that our public health care system should cover us from head to toe, and that includes comprehensive eye care. Currently, access to eye care varies widely from province to province, resulting in variable health outcomes and exacerbating inequalities in our health care system. Over eight million Canadians are living with an eye condition that puts them at significant risk of blindness. An estimated 1.2 million Canadians are currently living with vision loss, with many facing a lack of investment in services and supports that impacts their living life to its fullest potential. That number is expected to grow to two million people by 2050. It underscores the need and the appropriateness of acting now so that we can arrest that alarming development.

The leading causes of vision loss in Canada are the following: Cataracts affect some 3.5 million people; age-related macular degeneration, 1.5 million people; glaucoma, about 300,000 people; and diabetic retinopathy, almost a million people or some 800,000.

Routine eye exams play a crucial role in the prevention of vision loss. If certain eye diseases are diagnosed early enough, they can be effectively managed through different invasive measures and before expensive and more invasive procedures are required. According to a recent report by Deloitte, the cost of vision loss to our economy, both directly and indirectly, was some $33 billion in 2019. That is projected to grow to some $56 billion by 2050.

If diagnosed early and if people have access to regular screening and treatment, most vision loss can be prevented: in fact, in about 75% of cases. Seventy per cent of existing vision impairment in Canada is estimated to be correctable with prescription glasses. The sizable proportion of correctable vision impairment is related to the barriers to access to vision care in Canada. Most guidelines recommend having an eye exam once a year for people aged six to 18 or 65 and older, as well as for those with diabetes or with an existing eye disease. For healthy people aged 19 to 64, one visit per two years is considered sufficient. However, this very basic diagnostic health need is not being met.

I will give a few examples. Starting September 1, free annual eye exams paid for through the Ontario health insurance plan will no longer be available to seniors. Manitoba and Nova Scotia currently only insure eye exams every 24 months for every senior, which is twice as long as is recommended. Millions of Canadians without extended health benefits do not have their eyes checked or cared for, due to cost.

As I said, the NDP has been advocating for universal public optical treatment since its founding convention in 1961. I am going to quote from that convention, which reads, “Believing that a country's most precious possession is the health of its citizens, the New Party will introduce a National Health Plan, providing benefits to those who need them without regard to their ability to pay. The plan will cover a full range of services: medical, surgical, dental and optical treatment, as well as prescribed drugs and appliances.”

It is a little over 60 years since that statement was made, and here we are in a G7 country and we are not making sure every citizen can get their eyes checked every year, never mind have the relatively inexpensive correction done that would prevent them, in many cases, from getting vision loss and even blindness. That is a national shame and it is time it was rectified.

More recently, the NPD's 2019 election platform committed to achieving head-to-toe public health care for all Canadians, and we specifically included eye care. In the 2021 platform, we committed to a long-term path to providing public coverage for eye care, along with other health services. In May 2021, the New Democrat member of Parliament for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, who I note is in the chair today, introduced Motion No. 86. That motion called on the federal government to work toward the creation of a national strategy for action on eye health and vision care. One can see not only that our support for this bill is there because of the need and the overdue nature of this, but that New Democrats have been playing a key role in placing this issue on the national agenda for decades.

I have to point out where the Government of Canada has simply failed to meet its commitments in this regard. In 2003, the Government of Canada made a commitment to the World Health Organization to develop a vision health plan for Canada by 2007 and to implement that plan by 2009. To date, no plan has been developed.

As recently as July 2021, the Government of Canada voted in the UN General Assembly for the first agreement to be adopted at the United Nations designed to tackle preventable sight loss and ensure that eye health is part of the United Nations sustainable development goals. In this resolution, the establishment of a national vision health plan was endorsed again by Canada.

As much as I credit the hon. member for taking this overdue measure, one has to wonder why this had to take the form a private member's bill, why the government is not meeting its own obligations and why it is not actually introducing government legislation using the full force of its control of the Order Paper to meet its own commitments, which it has made not only to Canadians but on the world stage.

It is important to note as well that this legislation has the support of stakeholders across this country. Several organizations, including Fighting Blindness Canada, the Canadian Council of the Blind, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Vision Loss Rehabilitation Canada, Diabetes Canada, the Canadian Association of Optometrists, the Canadian Ophthalmological Society and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, have all advocated for a national eye care strategy for many years.

I want to pause for a moment to talk about the particular impacts this has on marginalized groups, including its gender impacts. When gender differences limit access to proper eye care services, women are at greater risk of developing eye diseases that are otherwise treatable and preventable. Recent studies published in The Lancet Global Health in 2020 revealed that women carry the greater burden of visual impairment globally. More women than men have impaired vision due to cataracts, age-related macular degeneration and dry eye disease. One in four women is at risk of vision impairment, compared to just one in eight men.

I will conclude by thanking the hon. member again for introducing this bill and let her know that the NDP will enthusiastically support it at all stages.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat in the chamber listening, and the Conservatives have put up speaker after speaker claiming they care about child care and talking about the urgent need for child care. They also stand in this House and talk about the very real crisis that most Canadians are finding themselves in economically. However, what are we debating in the House tonight? Anybody watching this should know that we are debating a Conservative motion to delete the short title of the bill on child care. They have 15 Conservative members speaking to their motion to delete the short title of a bill on child care. If that does not speak to a disingenuousness in getting to the real issues facing Canadians, I do not know what does. Talk about a waste of this House's time.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague can comment on that. What does it tell him? The Conservatives say they really care about child care and want to deal with the real economic issues facing Canadians, but does he think the Conservatives putting up 15 speakers to talk about deleting the short title of the bill is consistent with that?

Mr. Speaker, yet another study once again proves public pharmacare saves our health care system money: $1,500 per patient every year. It also reveals patients cannot access medicine because of cost. This means more hospital visits, needless suffering and billions of dollars wasted.

The New Democrats have pushed for public pharmacare for decades because we know it saves lives and money, and the Liberals have promised it since 1997. Will the minister finally implement public pharmacare to keep our bottom line and Canadians healthy?

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague's speech, and I think there is a little bit of confusion about what a conflict of interest or a perception of a conflict of interest is and what it means when such a charge is made.

Nobody is questioning the eminence of David Johnston or his lifetime of service. Many eminent people can have impeccable integrity but can still be caught in a conflict of interest or a potential or perceived conflict of interest simply because of their relationships. Mr. Johnston obviously had a family relationship with the Trudeau family, including skiing with the children of the Trudeau family. He was on the board of directors of the Trudeau Foundation, the same Trudeau Foundation that is implicated in the interference file because of its reception of money from the Chinese government.

Does the member not agree that the optics are such, leaving aside Mr. Johnston's pristine reputation and record, which we do not doubt, that this places him in a perceived conflict of interest? Does he not agree that it would be better for everybody and for Canadians' confidence if we found another eminent Canadian, with the same impeccable credentials but who is not in a perceived conflict of interest, to look into this matter?

Mr. Speaker, a new report shows the number of Canadian teenagers regularly vaping is now shockingly among the highest in the world. This puts the health and lives of youth at great risk, and experts say it is Liberal inaction fuelling this growing crisis. The government's refusal to take on big tobacco is allowing it to use flavoured products to hook a new generation of Canadians.

Why are Liberals standing back while big tobacco uses flavours like cotton candy to lure teenagers into become addicted to nicotine?

Mr. Speaker, I represent an urban riding in a major municipality, and I think that there is a pretty broad consensus in my constituency that people are in favour of strong, fair and rational gun legislation and restrictions. I think they understand the connection between the proliferation of guns and associated violence that comes from it, but at the same time, we do have a healthy number of people in my riding who engage in sport shooting or hunting, even though they live in an urban setting.

I wonder if my hon. colleague can tell us, as the first iteration of the bill did not draw a very good line in that regard, what improvements she would point to in the bill that would give assurance to people who do use firearms responsibly for hunting or sport purposes that they will be able to access the equipment they need to carry on with their legitimate activities.

Mr. Speaker, during National Nursing Week, we recognize the critical role nurses play in our communities.

Last weekend, I travelled to Newfoundland and Labrador for important discussions on health care. I learned that there are 750 vacant nursing positions in that province. Ninety per cent of nurses experience burnout, and 85% believe that understaffing is creating unsafe conditions for patients.

Nurses called on the government to include an emergency retention fund in this year's budget, but no help was delivered. When will the Liberals finally provide this crucial support for Canada's nurses?

Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the most ethnically diverse ridings in the country. Over 100 languages are spoken in my riding. About 35% of my riding is ethnically Chinese; 15%, Filipino; 15%, South Asian; 6%, Vietnamese; and it carries on.

History has shown us that the actions of a foreign government, whether Japan or Italy in World War II or the Austro-Hungarian Empire, can lead to impacts on the diaspora population in our country. What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on that and what suggestions does he have for us to be careful and cautious as we explore the malevolent behaviour of foreign governments? How can we make sure that this does not translate into discrimination or oppression against people who may be from those countries by origin, but who are Canadian citizens in our country and communities?

Mr. Speaker, on March 18, the Shri Guru Ravidass Sabha Vancouver marked a momentous day by breaking ground at the site of its new gurdwara.

This wonderful organization was established in 1982 and provides both a place of worship for Sikhs and a centre for social, educational and cultural activities for the entire community. For over four decades, its congregants have shared and taught us all the values of equality, justice and compassion.

I congratulate Vancouver Kingsway resident and gurdwara president Bill Basra and his entire executive on their initiative and hard work to get to this exciting point. Mr. Basra is a pillar of the community, who helps people from all walks of life. He is a shining example of kindness, generosity, humility and true leadership.

I look forward to celebrating at the official opening of the new gurdwara with all who are contributing to its creation.

[Member spoke in Punjabi]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised universal public pharmacare in 1997. Since then, countless committees and commissions, including this government's own Hoskins report, have advised that single-payer pharmacare is the only way to go, but Canadians are still waiting for the Liberal government to keep its promise. While the Liberals protect big pharma's profits, the NDP is fighting to deliver public pharmacare so Canadians get the medicine they need.

After a quarter-century of delay, will the minister finally commit to implementing universal, public pharmacare?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians pay the third-highest prices in the world for prescription medicines. Since 2015, the Liberals have been promising to lower costs, but failed to deliver. Now officials from Canada's drug price regulator confirm the Minister of Health stopped them from lowering drug prices for Canadians by billions of dollars. Former board member Matthew Herder testified that big pharma knows it can get the minister to do its bidding.

Why are the Liberals putting big pharma's profits ahead of Canadians' health?

Madam Speaker, I live in Vancouver, which I think is the epicentre for the housing crisis not only in this country but around the world. It is fair to say that it is indeed a crisis.

Housing anchors us in our communities. It is not just a commodity that can be traded, purchased and sold. It is an absolute necessity. It is how people anchor themselves for work; their children go to schools and people connect to community.

This has been a crisis for many years I was just curious to put this to my hon. colleague. To hear him speak, one would think the housing crisis in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland began in 2015. I can tell the member most assuredly it did not. It started back in the early 1990s when the government of Brian Mulroney actually cancelled the federal government's participation in the national housing program and, of course, the Liberals promised to restore it and did not, so we have really had an absent federal partner for many decades.

I wonder if the member acknowledges that. Could he tell us what specifically he would do to make sure that we can build truly affordable housing and not just rely on market supply? What does he think the federal government could do to make sure that people get access to social or affordable housing?

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on this bill. As he knows, it follows a bill that I introduced in 2019 to do the same thing, to make it an aggravating factor in sentencing for there to be an assault on a health care worker.

I noticed that in this bill, he uses the term “health care professional”, and he has expanded the protection to first responders. However, there is no definition of “first responder” or “health care professional” in his bill. I am wondering if he would be amenable to us, at committee, putting definitions in so that we can ensure that the broadest possible coverage is in place to protect our frontline responders and health care workers.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to express, on behalf of my New Democrat colleagues, our support for Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code, assaults against health care professionals and first responders. Once again, I would like to offer my gratitude and congratulations to my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George for his constant attention and care to our frontline responders in this country. This is a continuation of his fine work in this area.

In brief, this legislation amends the Criminal Code to require courts to consider the fact that victims of an assault were at the time of the commission of the offence a health care professional or a first responder engaged in the performance of their duty as an aggravating circumstance when they are the victim of that offence.

I think it goes without saying that no health care worker or first responder, in this country or anywhere, should ever be subjected to violence in the workplace. Bullying, abuse, racial or sexual harassment, and physical assault should never and can never be considered just part of the job. These workers care for us at our most vulnerable, and I think we have a responsibility to care for them in return.

Violence against health care workers in specific is a pervasive and growing problem in the Canadian health care system. Both the number and intensity of attacks are increasing at an alarming rate. Assaulting a health care worker or a first responder not only harms the individual involved but also puts our entire health care system and first response system at risk. Workplace violence is a major factor driving Canada's dire health staffing shortage, and I am sure it is a dissuading and discouraging factor for people pursing this career.

Workplace violence is a pervasive problem in health care settings across Canada. Prior to COVID–19, health care workers had a fourfold higher rate of workplace violence than any other profession. Incidents of violence against health care workers and first responders escalated dramatically during the pandemic. I might say as well that first responders are often the first people on the scene when we are dealing with Canada's overdose crisis, and I do not think I need to point out how pervasive that is in every corner of the country and the danger it presents to them.

In a 2017 survey, 68% of registered practical nurses and personal support workers reported experiencing violence on the job at least once that year. Nearly, one in five said that they had been assaulted nine or more times that year. According to the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, violence-related lost-time claims for frontline health care workers have increased by almost 66% over the past decade. That is three times the rate of increase for police and correctional service officers combined. First responders, notably paramedics and firefighters, also experienced violence and threats on a shockingly frequent basis.

That is why on February 28, 2019, I introduced Bill C-434, an act to amend the Criminal Code, assault against a health care sector worker. That legislation would have amended the Criminal Code to require a court to consider the fact that the victim of an assault is a health care sector worker would also be an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing. I reintroduced that legislation in successive parliaments in February 2020 and December of 2021.

Although the present bill, Bill C-321, before the House today is very similar to Bill C-434, it does not define a health care worker as broadly. This bill is limited to an assault against “a health care professional or a first responder”, but does not define the terms. The bill I introduced was specifically drafted to ensure that, when we talk about a health care worker, we include not only professionals, but everybody who works in a health care setting, from the porter who greets people at the door, to the orderly and the admin clerk, many of whom experience bullying, abuse and violence. I know my colleague has already indicated that he is willing to look at a broadened definition, and I thank him for that because we want to make sure that this contemplated measure does not exclude any health care sector workers who are not members of professional bodies.

As has been pointed out by my colleague on the government side, in December of 2021, Bill C-3 was passed in the House, which amended the Criminal Code to enhance protections for health care workers, those who assist them and those accessing health care services, and it received royal assent at that time.

Among other measures, Bill C-3 amended the Criminal Code to make it an aggravating factor in sentencing for any offence when there is evidence that, one, “the offence was committed against a person who...was providing health services, including personal care services,” as a part of their duties or, two, where there is evidence that the offence “had the effect of impeding another person from obtaining health services, including personal care services”.

By the way, I also think it is important to point out that we ensure that this bill is broadly defined to include any setting in which a health care worker may perform health care services, including in the home, long-term care centres or any other non-conventional place other than a hospital.

Unlike Bill C-3, the bill before the House, Bill C-321, broadens that protection, I think very laudably, to apply to first responders who are engaged in their duties but not necessarily engaged in providing health services. This is a welcome improvement. Again, I thank my hon. colleague for broadening this important protection.

Assaulting a peace officer is already a stand-alone offence under section 270 of the Criminal Code. The punishment for assault of a peace officer is no more serious than the legislated sentence for common assault. However, the court is likely to consider that the victim, as a peace officer, is an aggravating factor at sentencing.

The Criminal Code offences in sections 129 and 270 do define public officer and peace officer, but case law on the interpretation of section 2 shows the varying occupations that have been counted as peace officers for the purposes of prosecutions under the Criminal Code in particular contexts. They have been included to define members of the Anishinabek Police Service and military police. However, despite the existence of cases which mention paramedics or firefighters that cite section 270 of the Criminal Code on peace officers, there are none that I am aware of where the person assaulted was a paramedic or firefighter. Therefore, current case law suggests that first responders are not considered peace officers under the Criminal Code. This omission must be rectified and would be rectified by this bill that is before the House.

I have already talked about Bill C-321 employing the term “health care professionals” and how that is not defined in this bill, so we are going to work, I hope collaboratively, to ensure that that definition is broadly expanded. It is similar with first responders, who are not defined in this bill because the Criminal Code does not define this term. Other federal statutes do not either, so it will be important for us to have a good, broad description of that to ensure that any person in this country who is providing first response services in our communities is covered by this legislation.

I want to just mention that this is an important step because the Criminal Code is an expression of society's values and priorities. I think sending a message to the Canadian public that these health care workers are taking care of us, that they deserve to be protected and are inviolate is an important message for Parliament to send.

I am not sure I understood completely the comments by my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois. He did mention some important points about broadening this protection to many other kinds of workers, but there is one key difference. Health care workers and first responders do a job that we ask them to do. We ask them to be there for people when they are in trauma, and we are putting them in a situation that regular workers are not often in. They have no choice but to be there. They have to be there. That is why I think it is particularly important to send the message that they are inviolate and we must protect them. We have to send a message that under no circumstances is it ever acceptable to violate those people, either by word or deed.

Finally, I want to recognize that, as important as this bill is, it is only a first step. To keep health care workers and first responders safe, they need resources and tools. We want to prevent them from getting assaulted in the first place so they need proper security. They need proper physical barriers. They need sufficient staffing.

We all need greater mental health supports because we also have to recognize that many times the people who are doing the assaults are in some cases victims and are suffering from mental illness and trauma themselves. We have to recognize that we need a comprehensive holistic approach to this problem so we are doing everything we can to prevent the situations that often lead to assaults from happening in the first place instead of dealing with the sentencing after the assault occurs.