SoVote

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

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

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Apr/28/23 1:41:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member and committee chair for her speech. I am concerned about our youth's eye health. Research shows because of the ever-increasing use of screens, phones and tablets, and also because youth are spending more and more time indoors, there will be an epidemic of retinal detachments in the future. This is a serious eye condition. Could my colleague comment on this concern?

70 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro

Apr/28/23 1:42:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-284

Madam Speaker, what I have found is that when I started to do the research on Bill C-284, I knew very little about it. I have been fortunate to have pretty good eyesight all of these years, other than what my own family experienced through blindness. What I have learned is that the number of things that happen with one's eyes is quite remarkable. When one suddenly starts to notice something about one's eyesight not being the way it was the day before, one needs to get immediately to a doctor, an ophthalmologist or an emergency ward to have that looked at. Very often, people go completely blind within hours when different things happen, such as the pressure behind their eye and all of those things that the ophthalmologist and optometrists and so on will tell us about.

141 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Apr/28/23 1:43:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in terms of eye care, the member is absolutely correct to say that it is critical. However, the cost of eye care is increasing and, oftentimes, what we are seeing is that it is getting delisted in terms of coverage under the health care plan. That certainly is the case here in Ontario. From that perspective, what does the member have to offer in ensuring that coverage is provided so that people can in fact access the necessary health care and eye care that they need?

88 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro

Apr/28/23 1:43:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-284

Madam Speaker, I enjoy, very much, working with my hon. colleague and I know how hard she fights for her community and, in fact, for all Canadians in a variety of different capacities. I think that one of the things that would come out of Bill C-284 is the fact that the provinces and the federal government have to sit down at the table together and look at the huge cost to society as a result of not having sufficient health care when it comes to eye vision and vision loss. The fact is that they would have to sit at the table together, look at the numbers, look at the impact that it is having on society, and come up with solutions. I think that is the only way that we are going to get this to move forward, because we have that interaction between the provinces and the Government of Canada. There needs to be more co-operation and that is what a vision desk would do. It would provide that opportunity to do the analysis required and recognize the need for the investments.

187 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)

Apr/28/23 1:44:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for putting forward this really important bill. Eye care is absolutely critical for Canadians. I say this as just a few months ago my husband was a patient having cataracts removed from both eyes, and seeing how much technology has changed, seeing how many things are available now to patients and how we can make that better for all in putting this forward. On World Sight Day in October, I had the opportunity to meet with an incredible group that came with OneSight. In that group was Dr. Stan Woo from the University of Waterloo. He and I just connected; I guess it was the energy and excitement for what he does at the University of Waterloo, including the research and development and seeing what they can do for patients to ensure that they have the proper care. When there are opportunities for reversals they know what to do to ensure that the treatment, such as medication, can be used. The knowledge and what they are doing there, not just at the university but shared across this great country, and how they can ensure that access to eye care is available from Nunavut down to the Maritimes, is extraordinarily important. People at the university, when I was there on my visit on January 20, shared with me all of the incredible things that they were doing for research. It was noted here in this bill: “promote research and improve data collection on eye disease prevention and treatment”. Being at the university, that is the type of stuff that I saw being done there: making sure that they knew what was happening among their own patient base and making sure that they had the expertise across the country working to ensure the best technologies were going to be there so that the future of eye care was going to be enhanced. One of the best parts of doing research on private members' bills is looking at what I saw on cataract surgery, where it suggested that there are two separate surgeries. I brought my husband home just a couple of weeks before Christmas, after having double cataract surgery where he had two cataracts on one eye and one on the other, and wearing these cups on his eyes. Within 24 hours I woke up to a husband who for the first time could actually see me. I do not know if he wanted that, but he actually saw me for the first time because he was as blind as a bat in the morning. From the research I was doing, I saw that they used to do them separately and now they can do them together. It is all of this treatment and research and how they can do patient care better. This is the type of work that I would hope we would see in a national eye care strategy, and promoting the information and knowledge-sharing between the federal and provincial governments and in relation to eye disease prevention and treatment. I was very grateful that the member focused on four key issues here in looking at macular degeneration, cataracts, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. These are four key things that we see especially in our aging population. For instance, AMD is age-related macular degeneration. We know that there are approximately 2.5 million Canadians being impacted by this and it is impacting people my age and older. It impacts younger people as well, but this is usually something that we see in the aging population, 55 and older. Understanding things like reducing smoking, diet and genetics in the family through awareness campaigns and what we can do as the national strategy is really important so that people understand their vision. Some of the diseases have no symptoms, so it is important to make sure that we have a program so Canadians in every part of this country, whether they are living in indigenous communities or well-developed communities, have access to this type of care as well. So many of these diseases have no symptoms but absolutely need the kind of care that they have. We can also look at things such as cataracts, which is the most common type of vision loss. It is something very simple. Many Canadians are going around wearing their glasses. I lose my glasses all the time. People could have that type of surgery, knowing that each and every day it is getting better. I can remember my father having his cataracts removed and now my husband. I am just seeing that with the research we are doing by the doctors working together, we are actually providing great programs and great opportunities for patient care. Glaucoma is impacting over 728,000 Canadians, which is related to age. I will read this about it: Glaucoma affects more than 728,000 Canadians and takes the form of a number of related disease types. The most common types are open-angle, which is more prevalent and can go unnoticed due to a lack of early symptoms, and angle-closure, which can be painful with a sudden onset. These are the things that we learn in research, and being members of Parliament, we get to do the research and learn about these things. It is important that all Canadians understand this. Currently, there is no cure for glaucoma, but there are treatment options. When people have pressure in their eyes and may not understand what it is, they need to recognize the importance of going to see an optometrist or ophthalmologist to ensure they get the proper care they need. I am also very supportive of clinical trials. As I said, there is work being done at the University of Waterloo and work being done at the London Health Sciences Centre in my hometown area, in my backyard. We have seen some incredible research, not only at the University of Western Ontario, but also throughout the Collip Circle area, where people are working to make sure that patient care is the number one priority. Finally, when we are looking at this, I want to talk about the considerations. The bill notes, in subclause 2(3), “The national strategy must take into consideration existing frameworks, strategies and best practices related to the prevention and treatment of eye disease, including those that focus on addressing health inequalities.” I will let the member know that I am very supportive of this bill, but this is where I have to say the government approach has to be right. We cannot do what it has done in the past. We know the Canadian Dental Association, back in 2014, had a national oral health strategy. We saw the hygienists do it. We saw a number of organizations talking about oral and dental care. When it came to having a program with the government and Canadian dental benefits, it took none of those suggestions. Instead, the government implemented its own dental program, which was not supported by the Canadian Dental Association at the time because it was not part of those discussions. That is one of my only fears. We need to make sure that people are at the table. We need to make sure that we have the researchers, the ophthalmologists, the optometrists, the patients and the academia, and that we have everybody working together so we have a proper strategy. Unlike the dental program, which was brought out by the government, not everybody was at the table. When we are talking about that, we need to make sure we have diverse opinions as well. The reason I will continue to elaborate on the Canadian Dental Association is that the government has talked about the number of children who have been impacted by this program, which is sending out cheques to parents. As a person who comes from the dental health field, I would have loved for the government to consult with members of Parliament. I actually used to go out to teach about dental health. If someone wanted to see a lady who could teach them how to brush their teeth, or if they wanted to sit in my chair, I would show people how to do their little, round brushing. Those are the types of things that we should be focused on when we are looking at a dental health program. Instead, we saw a government say that it was going to send cheques out to Canadians, and that they will go to get their dental health needs dealt with. Right now, we are in a crisis in Canada. Families cannot afford to put food on their tables. The government is coming out talking about the number of families, and I think they are saying 250,000 Canadian children have been able to use this program. However, I ask how it got those numbers. Nothing has been audited. We do not have information coming from the Canadian Dental Association or any of the providers that would be providing this type of information because they would not know. All we know is that we gave out cheques to families. We have the healthy smiles program, which has been working here in Ontario. We should have been using its existing framework and working on that. That is the same type of work I want to see here. I hope we have success with this program and strategy because Canadians need it.

1582 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Apr/28/23 1:54:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek, for introducing this bill. Let me begin by saying that vision health is important. Obviously, it is a component of overall health, but one that is often underestimated. My Conservative colleague has given some personal examples to show that quality of care can change lives and change people's quality of life. I thank the member who introduced this bill. There are several important elements in the bill, one of which involves raising awareness. It seeks to designate February as age-related macular degeneration awareness month. Obviously, this is important. In my opinion, we should never miss an opportunity to remind people of the importance of issues that affect us all. We all have daily obligations that keep us very busy, and these issues must always be brought to the forefront. The bill provides for the development of a national strategy. Many national strategies have been proposed lately, including for autism, cancer and diabetes. I am skeptical about the effectiveness of these national strategies, because they generally lead to the tabling of a report that is ignored by the government most of the time. I hope that will not happen in this case if this bill is adopted. However, it needs to be said that national strategies often face the same fate as Labatt 50, in that they get shelved. Although we agree in principle, let us be careful not to encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction. This bill seeks to raise public awareness, but it affects health, which is a provincial jurisdiction. That being said, the issue is truly important. I think we know the data. Data from 2019 shows that 1.2 million Canadians suffer from diseases that could lead to vision loss, and 4.1% of those people could become blind. We know that eight million Canadians suffer from an eye disease that may lead to blindness. For some of these diseases, blindness is preventable. We know that the direct annual health care costs related to these diseases leading to vision loss can reach up to $9.5 billion. Of course, there are human costs, but there are also social costs, such as lost productivity because of these diseases, and those costs can reach $4.3 billion per year. I mentioned age-related macular degeneration earlier. With the growth and aging of the population, the costs related to those diseases could increase substantially. These are issues of critical importance. Let us not forget that health is a provincial and Quebec jurisdiction. Quebec already has a number of programs in place to address various ocular conditions. Vision care services are covered by the government in Quebec for people under 18 years of age and people aged 65 and over. Last month, reimbursements for ocular prostheses were increased. It had been 30 years since those amounts had been increased, so that is progress. This also serves to show that Quebec and the provinces need funding, transfers and money to be able to cover these programs. Developing a national strategy is all well and good, but the levels of government that are responsible for providing this care on the ground must be properly funded. The RAMQ's visual devices program helps people obtain assistive devices like video magnifiers, ocular prostheses, night-vision goggles and Braille typewriters. These programs seek to improve the quality of life of persons with visual impairments, but they are expensive. I will say it again. As the population ages, these diseases will become increasingly common. We will need to be in a position to improve the quality of life and productivity of the people who live with them. There is talk of having a national macular degeneration awareness day, but I have to say that I would have liked this bill to include a national degeneration of health transfers awareness day. I offer that as a suggestion. For two years or more, the provinces and Quebec have been calling for $28 billion a year in extra transfers for health; that way, the federal government's contribution to provincial spending on health would reach 35%. I know that this cause is important to my colleague and that she is well-meaning, but inside these envelopes there could be money for eye care. A national strategy and a report identify a number of things, but do not provide care to those who need it, care that could change their daily lives. The government is obviously short-sighted about the needs of Quebec and that is rather sad. As I said, the aging population is going to increase the cost of health care and these transfers are necessary. In response to the aging population, more should be done in research and development and to expand our programs, including support programs for those who have vision problems. There is also a shortage of workers, which means that we will be trying to keep older people in the labour market. We know that vision problems are bad for productivity and for the economy. They are also bad for those who want to keep working. Statistics Canada's most recent report states, and I quote, “the percentage of people with self-reported good vision without correction decreased with age.” That is a bit like the Liberal government's vision regarding health transfers. It has been diminishing with age. The government's vision has been diminishing for eight years now. For almost two years, we have been calling for a summit to be held with the provincial premiers and the current Prime Minister to discuss these issues. Instead, what the government did was to impose conditions on the provinces, which means that they are currently unable to enhance their existing programs or design new programs that would provide people with better eye care. It seems as though the Liberals might need some Bloc Québécois glasses to better understand the needs of Quebec. I would like to offer them mine. Practically speaking, that would help them to provide care to those who need it, which could make all the difference in people's self-esteem, how they function in society, and their work and family life. This is a human issue. We are all equal when faced with the various health problems we may experience throughout our lives, and we should all have access to care. Although I am clearly making some jokes, I hope my colleague realizes that I welcome her initiative. I know that she has been holding consultations and reaching out to various groups. Her intentions are excellent and, as I said, we agree in principle. We will be proposing amendments, but I understand that this is an important issue for my colleague, and I acknowledge that. I will close by saying that the statistics clearly demonstrate that the issue of degenerative vision affects women in particular. I do not fully understand what causes this, and I will not presume to be a doctor or biologist, but I do know that there are also gender equality issues. Helping people become more aware of an issue, more aware that care is needed and that this affects women more than men—there is a fundamental equity aspect to that. As I mentioned, we will support it in principle, study it in committee and act in good faith. We are skeptical about the outcome of these major strategies, but our colleague is certainly making it possible to discuss this important issue, raise public awareness and reflect on the issue of vision care. I thank her for that.

1278 words