SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 187 - Apr/28/23

Mr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Apr/28/23 12:47:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address the chamber on Bill C-42, which would amend the Canada Business Corporation Act, or CBCA, and make consequential changes to other statutes. We are here to discuss this proposed legislation because a lack of beneficial ownership transparency is impairing Canada's ability to combat serious financial crimes, such as fraud, money laundering and tax evasion. It also limits our capacity to enforce domestic and international sanctions and to effectively trace and freeze financial assets. Finally, it is impacting the trust of Canadians and foreign investors in our marketplace. Our inability to quickly and quietly identify a company's beneficial owner delays criminal investigations; denies law enforcement leads to potential suspects, witnesses and evidence; and impairs the identification and seizure of suspected proceeds of crime. It also reduces the ability of private businesses to protect themselves. Bad actors have long used corporate vehicles to obscure the ownership and control of assets to the detriment of Canadians' and other's confidence in private businesses. A public beneficiary ownership registry would complement the existing tools of law enforcement, while facilitating the identification of changes of ownership without the risk of alerting the suspects of an ongoing investigation. In turn, this would help prevent the dissipation of criminal assets subject to investigation or freezing orders. The need for this type of registry has, by now, been well established, notably by public consultation held by the Government of Canada in 2020, as well as the Commission of Inquiry Into Money Laundering in British Columbia more recently. Such registries have, moreover, existed in the United Kingdom and many countries since 2016 and have proven a useful tool in deterring misuse of corporations for illicit financial activity by law enforcement, journalists and civil society. In 2018, for example, Transparency International found that the then Czech prime minister was the sole beneficiary of two trust funds owning shares of a Czech conglomerate in receipt of EU subsidies. In a significant conflict of interest, Slovakia's public registry showed that the prime minister remained the ultimate owner of these trusts. In 2019, the department responsible for the U.K. registry, the world pioneer, published a review of lessons learned so far. All law enforcement organizations the department spoke to had used the registry to inform criminal investigation, with most reporting using it at least weekly and noting the positive effect it had on their work. According to other resources, the U.K. registry was accessed more than two billion times a year. More recently, the OpenLux investigation by journalists who had compiled and analyzed data from the Luxembourg's public beneficial ownership registry uncovered politically exposed persons, criminal organizations, an arms dealer and oligarchs linked to Luxembourg companies. A beneficial ownership registry would also serve tax authorities here and abroad, who would be able to use the information to track and fix tax evasion and aggressive avoidance. The Panama papers, as well as other mass leaks, have shown that private players look for places with weak beneficial ownership transparency and then layer ownership of corporate entities across those jurisdictions to obscure personal ownership interests and income. The longer the chain of entities between the income and the beneficial owners, the harder the truth is to ascertain. We should not underestimate the significant burden tax evasion and avoidance have on the Canadian economy. More generally, placing beneficial ownership information in an accessible registry would provide criminal and civil intelligence value, helping law enforcement and regulators stay abreast of evolving fraud cases, trends and ways corporations may facilitate these trends. This awareness supports actionable intelligence to generate investigative leads. Certain government authorities may also have a bonafide interest in identifying the beneficial owner of the corporations they do business with, licence or oversee. Making beneficial ownership information publicly available further supports good governance and trust. All businesses can check who they are doing business with by reviewing the registry of potential suppliers and customers, and businesses regulated for anti-money laundering purposes can consult the registry to support their due diligence. Registries and the transparency they foster further serve as a deterrent to illicit actors. When reporting and disclosure requirements are tightened against a particular sector, product or service, prospective criminals will shift their tactics to find alternative ways of laundering funds. By depriving owners of their anonymity, registries will make Canada a less desirable jurisdiction to commit financial crime, forcing them to use more risky criminal vehicles or to go somewhere else entirely. All in all, it is clear that the registry proposed by the bill would significantly improve Canada's ability to fight financial crime. It would help public authorities verify owners across corporate layers, help businesses better validate the identity of their trading partners, fight money laundering, fight tax aversion, and render more difficult the use of corporations for illicit activities. I hope all members of the House will join us in supporting the passage of this bill.

828 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Apr/28/23 12:54:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very interesting speech. We obviously agree on Bill C‑42. With regard to the fight against tax havens, my colleague talked about the Panama papers scandal. Does he agree with me that, despite all the money that has been invested and all the laws that are in place to give us the power to intervene, Canada is still lagging behind other countries on this? The Canada Revenue Agency recovered less money than Revenu Québec. Let us compare the numbers. The United Kingdom recovered $317 million, Germany recovered $246 million, Spain recovered $209 million, France recovered $179 million, Australia recovered $173 million, and Canada recovered $21 million. Is that acceptable?

127 words

Mr. Majid Jowhari

Apr/28/23 12:55:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, naturally it is not that simple. However, all those tools that exist are still open to us, and we are hoping this bill will further strengthen the regime we have and allow us to increase our vigilance over those types of illicit activities.

45 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Apr/28/23 12:55:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns I have with the bill is the ability of law enforcement agencies in Canada to use the information in a correct way to go after money launderers and those who would be committing crimes under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. I was pleased to see that the member for Richmond Hill referenced the Cullen commission in British Columbia. I wonder if the Liberals would be open to exploring at committee stage further clarifications as to the power of law enforcement to use this tool to get to the root of the criminals who are undertaking money laundering in Canada, denigrating our institutions, and as a result, Canadians losing faith in the ability of our law enforcement to combat these kinds of crimes.

133 words

Mr. Majid Jowhari

Apr/28/23 12:56:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are looking forward to getting this bill to committee where we can explore all the opportunities available to us to further strengthen it. Any measures, tools, regulations or legislation that help our law enforcement officers to identify the criminals and people who are money laundering, using the values of the Canadian people in a very negative way, need to be addressed. They need to be empowered.

69 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Apr/28/23 12:57:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the issue around how money laundering is impacting real estate is very significant. In fact, a special panel did a review on this in British Columbia, and one of its top recommendations was to have a beneficial ownership of land registries across the country. B.C. did that, and I believe we need to do that, given the housing crisis we are faced with. The conservative estimate on the impacts of money laundering on real estate in British Columbia is at least a 5% hit with respect to the cost to housing. I have previously asked this question. It appears the government members do not think this is incorporated into the bill. My question for the member is this: Does he feel this should be incorporated into the bill to ensure that we also tackle money laundering through real estate?

142 words

Mr. Majid Jowhari

Apr/28/23 12:58:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, we need to make sure that we tackle money laundering through real estate. I believe that, if the real estate is purchased through corporations, the current bill would be able to assist, but I strongly suggest that we introduce a land registry with a clear indication of who the beneficiaries are, because that in itself is a tool to flip real estate and further assist in the laundering of money.

73 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/28/23 12:59:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-42 today. I think it is very important for us to recognize that, as time goes by, we have had, very much, a heightened sense of awareness on such an important issue. If I reflect back to a number of years ago, very rarely would we hear about the types of situations that are being debated today inside the chamber. We are very much aware of things, such as the Paradise papers and issues surrounding corporations, the issues surrounding money laundering and so many other issues. Canada and other countries around the world are looking at ways we can deal with the issue of beneficial ownership and the impact it is having. We are looking at a registry and trying to improve the system. Listening to the many comments today from members across the way, and members within the Liberal caucus, we find that there seems to be fairly widespread support. Yes, I respect that opposition members and others do have questions about the legislation. I suspect that will be the opportunity, once we get into the committee stage, to look at what possibilities there might be to strengthen the legislation. I have actually been encouraged by the debate thus far on the legislation. I have had the opportunity to ask a few questions, and I would like to be able to highlight a few concerns, in a broad way, that I have. If I were to respond to the debate today, there are a couple of things that come up. In particular, the NDP made reference to the whole issue of tax fairness and lost revenues. I think that, if we were to canvass Canadians as a whole, we would find that Canadians do not mind paying their taxes, as long as there is a sense of fairness to it. People want to pay or are prepared to pay their fair share. That is the reason why, if we take a look at it, over the last number of years, virtually since we have been in government, the government has taken a number of actions to build on the fact that Canadians' expectations are that we improve and make the system better for all. I do not know how many times I have had the opportunity to talk about some of the initial initiatives we have taken as a government. I would like to start off from the particular point that, shortly after being elected, in recognizing Canada's middle class and supporting Canada's middle class, there were a number of tax initiatives taken, as well as actions by the government. I would like to amplify a couple of those initiatives. The first one that comes to mind, of course, is the tax reduction legislation we brought forward at the beginning of the mandate for the middle class. It was a piece of legislation, very clear, to ensure there is a higher sense of tax fairness by enabling a break for the middle class. At the same time, if we will recall, there was an additional tax that was put on Canada's wealthiest 1%. That is something we recognize is an issue in tax fairness. We have also seen other budgetary measures. I mentioned the issue of tax avoidance and those individuals who go out of their way in order to pay their fair share of taxes. This is something that, I would suggest, we can look at through a lens of tax fairness. However, if we are going to be true to our word, we need to properly resource the CRA to go after those individuals, groups or corporations that are trying to avoid paying taxes in questionable ways. There was a significant amount of money allocated to CRA over a couple of budgets. Prepandemic, we saw an additional investment of hundreds of millions of dollars. Do not quote me on this, but I believe if we were to combine the total investments that the federal government has put in supporting CRA in going after individuals or corporations trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, it is likely just over $1 billion. The expectation for CRA is to look at ways to recover money from lost taxes. The last time I looked, the number of records being looked at was well over 1,000. Pre-2015, it might have been fewer than 100. So we know that CRA is in fact much more proactive today than it has been in the past. Again, from my perspective, it is about looking at ways to ensure that there is a higher sense of tax fairness. In the recent budget, we have a sense, in terms of taxes, with respect to banks and insurance companies where inappropriately high profits were taken. We have seen taxes being put onto those sectors in the most recent budgets, again, with the goal of ensuring that there is a higher sense of tax fairness. The member for Elmwood—Transcona also made reference to the whole issue of corporate tax. I noticed that he tried to group the Liberals and the Conservatives together by saying that whether it was Liberals or Conservatives, we believe in giving corporate tax breaks. Yes, there have been corporate tax breaks. I am not one who believes in the trickle-down theory of corporate tax breaks personally, but I would suggest to the member that when the NDP has had the opportunity to govern, particularly in my home province of Manitoba when I was in opposition during NPD Premier Gary Doer's administration, there were corporate tax reductions. I think we have political parties of all stripes that have implemented corporate tax deductions. However, Canadians are very concerned when they hear of that, especially if they are having to pay their taxes when there are all sorts of inflationary demands. So, if we take a look at the comments I just put on the record, there is a need for Bill C-42. Bill C-42 is an attempt by the government to do a number of things. It is not only ensuring that there is tax fairness, but also a higher sense of transparency and accountability. As has been pointed out, money laundering is a very serious issue in Canada, in some provinces more than others. It has caused a great deal of hardship. The best example is likely the one the member across the way mentioned in regard to housing. We have speculators and people who want to launder money using housing as a tool. Not everyone who invests in housing in Canada is necessarily money laundering. I am not trying to say that, but we do know that money laundering does take place in our residential communities and in the development of condominiums. The member made reference to Vancouver and British Columbia. We know it goes far beyond any one province. We can talk about what is taking place in Toronto and find that there is laundering and speculation. That does drive up the cost of housing. With the budgetary measures that we have taken in the past and the budget implementation bills in the past, we have tried to put in some restrictions in order to prevent that foreign ownership, or even put a tax on individuals who are not living in or a resident of Canada, with the idea of having a fairer share of taxation. The issue with respect to the transparency and accountability of corporations really does kick in here. At the end of the day, when we look at the Canada Business Corporations Act, it is all about the modernization of that legislation to ensure there is a higher sense of corporate transparency and accountability. From my perspective, if we take a look at the primary tool, we are going to have a registry that is open and public, and quite searchable for ownership information or beneficial ownership. By doing that, I believe there will be a huge difference. If we look at what the Canada Business Corporations Act does, it enables certificates of compliance, as an example. If a corporation is not in compliance with the legislation, we would have a tool that would ensure that the corporation might not get that certificate. That can have a profound impact on the corporation itself. Without that certificate of compliance, it would have difficulties with things such as loans and suppliers. At the end of the day, I believe the passage of this, and the establishment of a public, searchable beneficial ownership registry, would ensure there is a lot less money not taken into account, so less money laundering and less money being used in illegitimate forms. For me, that is something we need to recognize within the legislation. The government has been committed to a robust and effective regime to combat money laundering and terrorist financing to improve the public trust in our corporations. It does not take much for a corporation to fall on the wrong side of the whole issue of money laundering and the impact it has on the corporate community. A vast majority of our corporations are in fact good entities that contribute in many different ways. It is not just jobs. It is all forms of opportunities, community development and so forth. Because of the bad apples that are out there, it does leave a negative stain. Therefore, when we talk about the legislation trying to minimize issues like money laundering and improving accountability and transparency, a vast majority of corporate stakeholders do not have any problem with this. The consultation that has taken place goes back to 2020, going right into 2022 where there was a great deal of consultation with different stakeholders and interest groups. There were even foreign consultations with other nations. We want to make sure that we get it right. We appreciate the privacy issues and that has been raised here. With respect to what had taken place in Europe, there was a court decision in regard to the issue of privacy, so we do want to tread carefully on that particular issue. However, it is absolutely critical that we continue to see the legislation move forward because it would make a difference. There are some provinces that have actually gone further than other provinces. Quebec has passed its legislation and I believe it has been implemented. I am not 100% sure of that. Because in a federal system we have to take into consideration that there are jurisdictional issues, we have to be aware that some provinces still need to do a whole lot more than other provinces. Therefore, taking a pan-Canadian approach to looking at best practices and looking at the legislation that we are bringing forward today would go a long way in ensuring that not only those federally regulated corporations that are registered through the Canada Business Corporations Act but also those in provincial and territorial jurisdictions will have that obligation of ensuring that there is more transparency and accountability. In looking at the legislation and listening to the comments, I believe I have a fair reflection in terms of many of the comments that were said earlier today. I would encourage members to view the legislation in part in terms of the commitment that has been made to try to get this passed before the end of this year, which is faster than we had initially indicated. However, in order to do that, we look to opposition parties to follow through on some of the words that they have stated today in terms of that tentative principled support that they are providing and allow the legislation to go to committee. I would think that would be a positive thing, given that all parties seem to support the principle of the legislation. Therefore, I would encourage members to take the issues, as I know they have, of money laundering and of ensuring more accountability and transparency within a very important sector, in the name of making sure that there is a higher sense of tax fairness. Again, that, to me, is what it is all rooted in. Canadians do not mind paying their fair share of taxes and it is very upsetting when they hear of the money laundering that takes place, or of individuals or corporations wanting to get off the hook for paying their fair share of taxes.

2080 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Apr/28/23 1:19:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Madam Speaker, overall, as the member for Winnipeg North summarized, we have been having a pretty comprehensive debate on Bill C-42. There have been suggested amendments from each party, with broad unanimity that we need to take further action to combat money laundering in Canada and its impact on the housing market. I was particularly pleased that a number of members on all sides raised the Cullen commission and the impact crimes are having, especially on British Columbia. The future public beneficial registry will be a tool to combat the use of illicit funds in our economy. Is the Liberal Party open to providing further clarification as to the extent of the power of law enforcement to use it? What other tools can we give our law enforcement agencies to make sure that money laundering is finally combatted in the way Canadians expect us to do?

147 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/23 1:20:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I recognize that the member of Parliament represents an area in British Columbia. Nowhere in Canada have we seen the issue of money laundering raised and brought to our attention more than in British Columbia. It has been raised through the media, showing the complexities of the problems resulting from money laundering. There are very strong criminal and tax avoidance elements to it. It is an issue that is very upsetting for Canadians, because it is about tax fairness. Canadians expect that the government is going to do what it can in order to resolve the issues. I say that pre-emptively to indicate to the member that it is really important for Ottawa to continue to work with the Province of British Columbia and look at joint ways in which we can deal with that very serious issue.

141 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Apr/28/23 1:21:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his speech. My colleague from Joliette mentioned, in a question posed a little earlier, that Revenu Québec had done a much better job than the CRA on tax evasion by recouping significant amounts, which was one of the arguments used by the Bloc Québécois to justify giving Quebec full taxation powers by implementing a single tax return. I would like my colleague to comment on the idea that this bill will make it even easier for Quebec to recoup even more money hidden in tax havens by tax evaders, providing further justification for giving Quebec full authority over its tax returns.

117 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/23 1:22:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is in Canada's best interest to have each province create its own collection agencies. We would have 10 or 12 different ones: Revenue Quebec, Revenue Manitoba, Revenue Alberta and so forth. I would be concerned. Once it was provided the additional financial resources during the pandemic, the CRA demonstrated how successful it can be. There have been well over a thousand investigations. CRA is well equipped to ensure that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are well represented. I am also concerned about those valuable CRA jobs in the province of Quebec. At the end of the day, people in Quebec and the rest of Canada are well served by the CRA. Once it is provided with the proper resources, it will be able to deal with a lot of the things we expect it to do. That is one of the reasons we funded it with just under $1 billion to do so.

163 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Apr/28/23 1:23:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Madam Speaker, if the member for Winnipeg North wants to see the bill proceed faster, maybe the government should not schedule it for Friday sittings. That is just my opinion. There is an offence and punishment section in Bill C-42. It lists that corporations found guilty of an offence can be liable for a fine not exceeding $5,000. The punishment for individuals can be as high as $200,000. Of course, the whole purpose of this bill is to uncover individuals who may be using corporate entities to hide themselves. That being said, does the hon. member think $5,000 is a sufficient deterrent to prevent corporations from doing this, or would he see value in maybe increasing it to make it commensurate with the offence of the transgression?

131 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/23 1:24:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a number of things in the legislation would hopefully enable companies to abide by it and recognize that, at the end of the day, we will be able to deal with the issue in a much stronger way. For example, in my comments, I made reference to the certificate of compliance. Often, in order to acquire financial support, a corporation or an individual needs to have a certificate of compliance. If it is not issued, this can have a profound impact on the corporation or the individual. Whether in fines or the certificate of compliance, a number of tools would enhance the opportunity for us to ultimately see more compliance within the legislation. As I said, a big part of it, I believe, is going to depend on our justice system and the CRA and making sure that they are properly equipped. That is why I indicated earlier that it is great to see that not only are we bringing forward legislation, but, as we have demonstrated in the past, we are also providing substantial financial support for the CRA.

182 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Apr/28/23 1:25:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, another question on where the government stands on possible amendments relates to the impact of significant interests. Under the legislation, only individuals with over a 25% interest in a corporation would be covered under the beneficial ownership registry before us today. Is the government open to making amendments to the law that would lower the threshold of significant interest? Second, it has come up in debate today that there are questions about whether trusts will be covered under this beneficial ownership registry. Is the government open to examining the impact of trusts as they relate to money laundering as well?

102 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/23 1:26:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government has indicated that it wants to get the bill to committee and has always been open to ideas that would ultimately make the legislation stronger for the betterment of Canadians. I would suggest to the member that if he has some very specific amendments he would like to put forward, he does not necessarily have to wait until the bill gets to committee. Some ideas might flow out of committee presentations from witnesses, or the member might have his own personal ideas. I think of lawyer trusts, for example, which were mentioned earlier today, and how those trusts could possibly be incorporated, or something of that nature. There are opportunities here, and I look forward to the legislation going to committee. I know the member has expressed a great deal of interest in this issue, and I wish him well in terms of working, maybe not in a politically partisan way, towards how we could give strength to the legislation. We should keep in mind that there have been consultations not only here in Canada but also with other nations, from what I understand, to ensure that we have good, solid legislation going to committee.

199 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Apr/28/23 1:28:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have heard the member for Winnipeg North make reference several times today to the resources that have been dedicated to the CRA in order to fight tax evasion and other things of that kind. However, what we have seen from the CRA is a very persistent focus on Canadians in difficult financial situations, who availed themselves of CERB when the government encouraged them to do that at the height of the pandemic but do not have the money to pay the government back. This means that the time and resources spent on pursuing that debt will not yield a return. Meanwhile, as we heard in debate earlier today with respect to the Panama papers and other revelations about global tax fraud, we see Canada really not comparing at all to our allies in recovering that tax debt. When we talk about the Canada emergency wage subsidy, we know that there were companies that took money that they were supposed to pay directly to workers and, in some cases, they locked out their workers after getting the wage subsidy. The government has not tried to get any of that money back. How does giving more resources to the CRA help with the problem if it just means the CRA is going to pursue the poor and let the big fish off the hook?

225 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/23 1:29:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government has not let the big fish off the hook. There are hundreds of millions of dollars, getting close to a billion dollars, and it may be just over a billion dollars, but do not quote me on that, over the last number of years that we have invested in the CRA to look at going after the big fish. We have seen a dramatic increase of files now that the CRA is pushing as a direct result of those investments. With regard to issues that the member talked about in terms of CERB, I am not too sure exactly what the NDP's opinion is. Based on some of the comments I heard, and please correct me if I am wrong, the NDP seems to be of the opinion that circumstances do not matter, that the CRA should not be going after people in whatever form CERB was collected. I think that there—

158 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/28/23 1:30:11 p.m.
Watch

It being 1:30 p.m, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

25 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)

Apr/28/23 1:30:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-284

moved that Bill C-284, An Act to establish a national strategy for eye care, be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Madam Speaker, I am very excited to stand today for the second hour to speak on my bill, Bill C-284, which would establish a national eye care strategy, on second reading. For many years, Canadians have been calling for a comprehensive national plan for vision health, including you, Madam Speaker. You have mentioned this issue many times. Historically, the federal government has lacked any substantive framework on the matter of public eye health care. As it stands, supplementary coverage has only been extended to particular groups of people who qualify for provincial medicare services. The current structure has created huge gaps in access to care, leaving the majority of Canadians to pay for their eye health care expenses out-of-pocket or forcing them to work private insurance packages into their already narrow budgets. I find this system unacceptable. The vision loss crisis in Canada requires a coordinated response, and this is what the national eye care strategy is all about. Here are some of the numbers, to give an even better idea of what is going on in vision health in our country. Over eight million Canadians, or one in five, have an eye disease. There are 1.2 million Canadians who live with vision loss or blindness. There were 1,292 deaths associated with vision loss in 2019 alone. Meanwhile, 75% of vision loss cases can be prevented if patients are diagnosed early and have access to treatment. Dr. Arshinoff of Humber River—Black Creek has told me many stories of people who would have gone blind had they not been able to get immediate attention. Too often, we take our eyes for granted. My grandmother died with a blinding eye disease, and I had a long-time friend and mentor who was also blind when he died. My aunt suffers from blindness related to macular degeneration today. Age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma and cataracts are among the top five causes of vision loss here in Canada. AMD affects millions of Canadians and is the leading cause of blindness for those over 55. However, it fails to garner the same attention as other common eye diseases. Many of us in this room may also develop age-related macular degeneration, and as part of this bill, I would like to see February designated as macular degeneration awareness month to give us an opportunity to focus on the signs of AMD and what we can do about it. There is a high percentage of seniors and school-aged children who have undiagnosed eye problems. Very few children had an eye test during the pandemic, and many also spent an inordinate amount of time in front of computer screens. Even more, over 3,000 Canadians are in need of and waiting for an eye transplant. The Canadian Transplant Society actively recruits Canadians to become organ donors, but many people have a fear about donating their eyes. In polls, over 81% Canadian respondents say they would donate their organs, but only 35% actually sign up to do that. Losing one's vision increases mental, financial and social hardship. It can lead to a loss of mobility and inability to live independently, to drive, to read or to participate in physical activity. It can result in a loss of social interaction, which can often lead to depression and other mental illnesses. Vision loss has a profound impact on individuals, their families and society, costing our economy an estimated $32.9 billion a year. Of this cost, $4.2 billion is attributed to reduced productivity in the workplace. Over half of that cost, $17.4 billion, is also attributed to reduced quality of life, which is primarily due to a loss of independence, especially in the aging population. Over $983 million was spent last year across Canada on injections to treat AMD. A national strategy for eye care will allow all provinces and the government, as well as health care researchers and practitioners, to sit down at one table and jointly develop and implement the measures necessary to make sure that all Canadians from coast to coast to coast have equal access to eye care, no matter where they live. Not long ago, I came across a heartbreaking story of a man who lives in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. It has been five years since he last updated his prescription glasses, even though he has been eligible for a new pair for the last three years. He could not get an appointment with an eye doctor and he is still waiting. Some of the issues have to do with the pandemic, which caused gaps in people getting in for eye doctors' appointments, but a lot of it is because we take it all for granted. Nevertheless, the fact that access to eye health treatment varies widely from province to province seems so wrong to me. With Bill C-284, I am hoping to change that. I am sure many colleagues have heard many similar stories while talking to people about their eyesight and when they last got their eyes checked. It is something that we just take for granted. By the time a person finds out they have a problem, it is usually too late. Access to eye health care should not be treated as a luxury. It is a crucial service needed throughout all walks of life. Seniors need eye health care to keep themselves capable and protected. Working people need it to stay dedicated to their responsibilities and to not be excluded because of physical ability. Children and young adults need eye health care to study and navigate the world around them. Eye health care means having a safe and enjoyable quality of life. Bill C-284, if passed, commits the government to a national strategy dedicated to improved access to eye care and rehabilitation services, a strategy that also envisions the creation of a vision desk at the Public Health Agency of Canada and investments in research to find new treatments to prevent and stop blindness. The bill is also calling on enhanced access to eye health care for indigenous people who, for far too long, have been neglected and not had any access to any assistance on eye health care. We take our vision for granted. From social isolation to depression to travel difficulties, there are so many challenges when one cannot see. Many people never stop to consider what it would be like to go blind. We have to increase the awareness of vision loss and what we should be doing every day to protect our eyesight. I would like to see this piece of legislation move as quickly as possible, as I indicated. Thanks to all the support we have here in the House for this bill, as soon as it can get to committee, get through committee, back here and passed through the Senate, it would become law. I think there are many people across Canada, many of the organizations fighting blindness, CNIB and so on, that are desperately hoping that this time this is actually going to happen. Throughout my 33 years in political office, my mentor, Paul Valenti, suffered from age-related macular degeneration and died two years ago. My grandmother, Annie Steeves, was blind most of her life, as is my Aunt Ruby Steeves. I am doing this bill for everyone but especially for them. I am thrilled that in a position as an MP and on behalf of my family and all Canadians, I can truly make a difference by putting forward this bill, which will open the door for more recognition of vision loss and its implications and, of course, with the help of all members in this House and all parties that have indicated that they are very supportive. Bill C-284 will have a direct, positive impact on Canadians' vision health now and for generations to come. For many years, optometrists, ophthalmologists, researchers and patient advocates have been calling for federal leadership on eye care. The CNIB, Canadian Council for the Blind and Fighting Blindness Canada are just a few of the organizations. As I mentioned earlier, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing has been a leader in the fight for vision care in Canada and I am very happy to have you in the Speaker's chair today while I do the second reading. We have started many great health care initiatives in the chamber over the past several years, including dental care and pharmacare. The national eye care strategy is the next important step in making health care accessible and affordable for all Canadians. Making eye health, vision care and rehabilitation services a health priority requires our support. I call on all my colleagues in the House to continue to work together, to change attitudes toward blindness, to ensure that the 1.5 million Canadians with sight loss are understood and provided with the necessary supports. I encourage all members here today to become champions for Bill C-284 and refer it to the health committee as soon as possible. Together, we can continue the momentum to help the bill become a law for all Canadians.

1558 words