44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 20, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, neighbour and friend for his question.
Let me make one thing clear. The title of this bill, while perhaps a little better than the title it replaced, is in itself a sign that it must be abolished. I used the word “Indian” unwillingly, and it turned my stomach every time I used it throughout my speech. I was using it for the sole reason that it is the title of the act. Indians do exist, and they are the inhabitants of India. It is not the term for first nations, Métis and Inuit people. These people are known as indigenous people.
Again, as our NDP colleague said in his previous question, each and every one of these indigenous people must be treated individually. What I am trying to say in answer to the question is that it is possible that many communities will see benefits as a result of several provisions of the current legislation. However, the best way to do this is to open a dialogue and start from scratch.
There is no requirement that the same law apply to all first nations. In order to determine what should replace the current legislation, it is important to listen to the first nations communities themselves. We will have to listen to what they want to do. If there is no consensus, obviously that also shows that there is no consensus in favour of it. If there is no consensus against it, there is no consensus for it. We can look—
261 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I thank the hon. member. I spent the last 30 seconds motioning for him to conclude his remarks. He will have time to answer a brief 30-second question.
The hon. member for Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the 2021-22 departmental results report for the Department of Indigenous Services Canada indicates that the department's ability to meet the target that it set for itself was only achieved at a level of 26%. In other words, of the goals the department set for itself, it was able to achieve only 26%.
My colleague has indicated that he is a member of a first nation, and this department is meant to provide services to first nations people across our country. Does he think that achieving 26% of the targets it set for itself indicates that the government is serious about its commitment to meeting the challenges faced by first nations people across our country?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The hon. member has only a few seconds.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I only have a few seconds. A quick question lends itself to a quick answer. I apologize for not heeding your instructions. I do not want you to think, even though we were friends even before we sat together, that I do not respect your authority as Speaker.
My very short answer to the question is no.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, before the Indian Act, first nations, Métis and Inuit thrived and passed on intergenerational love from generation to generation. The Indian Act is an attempt to erase indigenous peoples from the lands we now call Canada.
Bill C-38 is about status. It could have been about addressing discrimination to the fullest extent. I struggle to support Bill C-38, an act to amend the Indian Act. I am conflicted and disappointed to witness yet another form of incremental change proposed by the Liberal government.
As the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group have clearly stated, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says indigenous peoples have “the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture”. This bill does not meet this minimum standard. For decades, first nations have fought for their rights to be upheld. If Bill C-38 is passed as it is, discrimination against first nations women and their families will continue.
There are two reasons I support getting this bill to committee. Number one, while experts say it does not go far enough, this bill is needed, and number two, the failings of this bill to respect the rights of indigenous peoples will show, through public discourse at committee stage, that amendments are necessary.
Bill C-38 was tabled because of a court case, Nicholas v. Canada. It is not because the government is taking a proactive, co-operative approach to reconciliation. Introducing this bill is the minimum requirement set out in that case. After years of discrimination caused by enfranchisement in the Indian Act, 16 courageous plaintiffs sued the Canadian government in June 2021. They agreed to pause proceedings on the condition that legislation be introduced to address this inequity.
The Liberals' commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples is abysmal. If their commitment was real, Bill C-38 would be fulsome. It would have addressed all discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act. Incremental changes are not sufficient to ensure the advancement of indigenous peoples' rights.
I acknowledge that the Indian Act must be abolished. It is a complicated assimilative tool going back generations. The Liberal government has shown that it is not ready to abolish the act. Bill C-38, like previous court cases, makes amendments that are narrow in scope. Future court cases will be imminent if amendments are not made to this bill. Discrimination will be allowed to continue without the ability to seek reparations.
The Liberal government has shown that it is not ready to undertake the full-scale reconciliation needed to adhere to international law as the governing party. The following background will be the tip of an iceberg. All parliamentarians must commit to learning more about the Indian Act and how it continues to implement the genocide of indigenous peoples.
The Indian Act was established in 1867. John A. Macdonald understood the strength of first nations, Inuit and Métis as a threat to his causes. He had to find a way to weaken them. The Indian Act was the tool to continue the process of genocide against the first peoples who thrived on the lands we now call Canada. The Indian Act is a long-ago piece of legislation that was introduced in 1867. The act remains today.
Since its inception, the Indian Act has continued to deny equality for first nations. The Indian Act allows discrimination without justification. The Indian Act denies women status and therefore rights by gaining status. The Indian Act introduced residential schools, created reserves and imposed a band council system. The Indian Act also tells first nations who can have status and who cannot.
Before the creation of bands by this act, indigenous peoples had their own forms of governance. I am thankful for the strength of those who maintained their governance. I am thankful to Inuit elders. I am thankful to hereditary chiefs. I am thankful to the Wet'suwet'en. I am thankful to the Tseeweyhum family and the many others who keep indigenous legal orders alive.
The Canadian government has known about sex-based inequities in the Indian Act for decades. Bill C-31 in 1985, Bill C-3 in 2011 and Bill S-3 in 2017 have attempted to eliminate sex-based inequities. None of these bills worked to the fullest extent; what they did was complicate indigenous identity for some and not for others.
The Indian Act continues to divide indigenous peoples against each other. With each amendment, the Indian Act becomes more complex and confusing to navigate for indigenous peoples. Indeed, I am told by many how confusing it is to know if they have status, how to get status and if their children will be able to get it. They ask, “What are the implications of being removed?”
It is a shame that in 2020, the Minister of Indigenous Services tabled one of three reports after Bill S-3 to amend the Indian Act was passed. The final report made recommendations that are not being addressed in Bill C-38 by the Minister of Indigenous Services today.
As of 2020, there were over 12,000 applications for status still needing review. The special Bill S-3 processing units created in 2016, as of February 2023, have 1,770 files in progress and 3,990 files in the queue. The bill before us would do nothing to address this backlog. First nations are waiting up to 18 months for a decision by Indigenous Services Canada. This is unacceptable.
Bill C-38 would address enfranchisement, deregistration, loss of natal band membership and certain offensive language. These are long-awaited amendments that indigenous peoples have demanded for decades.
Enfranchisement is a particular genocidal policy and a clear example of Canada's attempts to assimilate indigenous peoples. Enfranchisement was either voluntary or involuntary. Women were enfranchised when they married a non-indigenous man between the years of 1869 and 1985. Other examples of enfranchisement included going to university, becoming a doctor or lawyer, working as a minister, seeking to vote and if one sought freedom from residential schools. Amendments introduced in 1985 attempted to remove enfranchisement. Obviously this did not work.
Bill C-38 would still discriminate against women and children who were involuntarily enfranchised. Descendants are unable to transmit entitlement to registration to the same extent as families that were never enfranchised. Those who were enfranchised as a band or collective have no entitlement to register under the Indian Act today.
I will now turn to deregistration, which provides for removing status from membership. There can be any number of reasons to deregister. These provisions would keep the safety of not impacting the children of those who may have deregistered.
The third component of Bill C-38 is on natal band membership. Bill C-38 would provide a legal mechanism to re-affiliate women to their natal bands. This amendment would serve to allow for membership to be reinstated on a band list based on specific conditions. It would address reinstatement of membership for a group of individuals who were originally prevented from being reinstated based on oversight.
Finally, the bill would amend outdated language, which is a small but important step. The offensive language regarding first nations peoples who require dependency on others would be amended. The offending definition of “mentally incompetent Indian” would be replaced with “dependent person”.
Bill C-38 would address these cases, and it is estimated it would impact around 4,000 people. Many more would remain discriminated against.
The Liberals had a chance to remove discrimination from the Indian Act once and for all. Bill C-15, on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, became law in Canada. The Liberals had a chance to introduce that bill so that it would be in alignment with international law. Instead, they are introducing more piecemeal legislation. The past court challenges, Descheneaux v. Canada, McIvor v. Canada, and Matson v. Canada, make it clear. The Senate committee on aboriginal peoples makes it clear. The Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group makes it clear. So many more make it clear. The Liberal government's pattern of reluctant piecemeal changes in response to litigation is unjust.
There is no justification for Canada to ignore, and indeed infringe on, indigenous people's rights. Parliaments would debate again after the passage of Bill C-38 why it is not okay to keep disrespecting indigenous peoples and infringing on their rights.
Two other major issues not addressed are the second-generation cut-off and the ability to seek reparations. The second-generation cut-off in section 6(2) is not addressed in Bill C-38. This is shocking, given how much attention has been paid to this section in past works. In its Bill S-3 review, the ministry of Indigenous Services Canada reported on it. The Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group in its works reported on it. The Senate committee on indigenous peoples reported on it. They all recommended to remove provisions related to the second-generation cut-off.
If bands reject second-generation cut-off, it is because they are not being properly resourced by Indigenous Services Canada to meet the needs of their increasing membership.
Section 6(2) is sexist, and it is problematic. Who a child's mother is, is usually readily apparent. Who the father is, is not always apparent. Whether the father acknowledges his paternity, and this can be counted as the second-status parent for purposes of eligibility for status, is essentially his decision. The two-parent rule continues Canada's program of forced assimilation. Maintenance of the two-parent rule would fulfill the genocidal intention of the Indian Act, getting rid of “the Indian problem”.
Until this rule is amended, hundreds of thousands of indigenous people, mostly women and their descendants, will be discriminated against.
First nations children were robbed of their mothers. First nations children continue to be robbed of their mothers. The current child welfare system continues to separate indigenous peoples from each other. The Liberals say they will consult on second-generation cut-off. Consultation should not be necessary. Discrimination is discrimination. No amount of consultation will result in the justification of it. The government must interpret the rule of law as adhering to international human rights laws and the charter.
We are told by the Liberals that the public portion of this consultation will not begin until 2024. It will be much longer before legislation is drafted and presented before the House again. This tactic to delay is a denial of the rights of indigenous peoples. We should not have to wait for discriminatory provisions to be removed. There is no justification for discrimination to be allowed to continue.
Another form of oppression is preventing indigenous peoples from seeking reparations. Bill C-38 includes specific clauses that will not allow victims of these policies to seek reparation for the discrimination they have experienced. First nations women and children will continue to be harmed, yet they will not be able to seek reparations, even if discrimination is found.
In past bills, there were related provisions legislating that governments are not liable for harms done under the act. Persons are prevented from seeking claims against the government for discrimination caused by the implementation of the Indian Act.
These injustices remain in Bill C-38. According to human rights laws, Canadians are allowed to seek reparations. Why can first nations not do so?
Bill C-38 is a flawed proposal. While it addresses some injustices in the Indian Act, discrimination against first nations would continue. Bill C-38 continues the Liberal incremental approach to reconciliation.
The Liberals' interpretation of Nicholas v. Canada is about status. Bill C-38 must not just be about status; it must be about addressing discrimination and violations of basic human rights. It must be about reconciliation.
I ask this again: Why is it that when Canadians experience human rights violations, they are allowed to seek reparations, when first nations are not?
I hope that Bill C-38 can be salvaged. I hope that, at committee, we hear from experts explaining why improvements must be sought to ensure that first nations' rights are on par with Canadian human rights.
2057 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague from the NDP is very passionate about the issues she speaks of. I serve on the indigenous and northern affairs committee with her and I know that she is very serious about solving these issues.
She spent a fair amount of her time going to great lengths to explain the shortfalls of this bill. She talked about the second-generation cut-off and how much work has already been done on that.
As we have talked about today, since this bill was introduced, it has taken almost a year for us to actually get to debate on this. We have had a lot of time to initiate some of these changes.
With all those frustrations and concerns, has there been any attempt by her or her party to utilize these discussions to leverage their coalition agreement with the Liberals to actually include some of these indigenous issues in their agreement, to get some action?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, when it comes to the confidence and supply agreement, we have discussed, very clearly, what the conditions are. In terms of indigenous issues, we have been clear about what we need to do, so there would be no surprises.
I shadow the Minister of Indigenous Services, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Minister of Northern Affairs. I continue to work with the ministers that I shadow to make sure that we are going beyond what is said in the confidence and supply agreement, so that indigenous people's rights are being respected.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut for her speech. She too, like our colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, is very credible. She is very concerned and knowledgeable about the issue, to say the least.
Earlier, I was talking about consensus-building, which is not the federal government's role within first nations.
Since the beginning of this debate, we have been talking about the Indian Act, about reviewing it, improving it and making changes to it. Basically, my question to my colleague is this: Rather than talking about legislation, should we not start talking about agreements between the federal government and first nations?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, indeed, nation-to-nation conversations are absolutely important. When it comes to recognizing the right to self-determination and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we must show through our actions what reconciliation actually means. That also means including the use of indigenous legal orders.
I hope that, through our conversations, we will continue to advance the importance of nation-to-nation relationships.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the wisdom and knowledge she has brought to the House on this issue.
Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have failed indigenous, Inuit and Métis people with their incremental approach to reconciliation. In fact, I still remember that the Conservatives under the Harper government said that the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls issue is an Indian issue. Here we are today with this bill, yet another bill with an incremental approach.
Can the member advise the House on what generational damages she sees for the people, the women and families on the ground as a result of Canada's colonial and incremental approach to ensuring indigenous rights are respected.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, being Inuk, I have grown up in a colonial system, and people do not understand that a lot of the time. All I have to say to better describe it is that my dad committed suicide. I was raised in the foster care system. I have too many families that I have to thank for helping raise me to be who I am.
The unfortunate truth about my story is that it is a common story of indigenous peoples. What I just shared is common to so many first nations, Métis and Inuit. With the ignorance we experienced from regular, mainstream Canadians, we had to start using terms such as “systemic racism” and “genocidal policies”. The terms help explain what the impacts are of these discriminatory policies, discriminatory lies and administrative tactics to not only steal our lands but continue to steal our time and oppress us.
I am so thankful to indigenous peoples who keep our culture alive and who keep our languages alive.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I must say, at this great distance, that I speak to you acknowledging that I am on the territory of the W̱SÁNEĆ peoples, who held this land on the southern Vancouver Island and the islands I represent, whom I have the honour to work with. I try constantly to remember that I am in a nation-to-nation relationship with five different first nations that are on this territory. Although, as the chiefs will always remind me, they are Indian Act nations and, in reality, we are villages within a much-larger nation of the W̱SÁNEĆ nation.
I am deeply honoured to share a working place with the member of Parliament for Nunavut, and I appreciate her voice and leadership more than she knows. I was so disappointed when I read Bill C-38. She confirmed for me my sense that this is so much less than what one should expect at this point.
I was the first member of Parliament, as far as I know, a number of years ago, to call for the repeal of the Indian Act in the House of Commons. I turned to my colleague at the time, Romeo Saganash, to tell him I was about to call for the repeal of the Indian Act. I asked him if he thought that was okay, because I had not consulted with a lot of first nations before I did that. He said that nobody asked them before they passed the legislation, so he thought it was okay.
We have a long road to go. It is not a slow road, and yet the steps being taken by the government are slow and often completely contradictory in terms of reconciliation.
I wanted to express my deep support and gratitude to the member and let her know that, where I can, I will do what she recommends on Bill C-38. It obviously needs—
329 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I need to allow time for the answer.
The hon. member for Nunavut.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, solidarity is so important, and in a party system, it is very hard to see solidarity. I do feel the sense of solidarity the member has shared with me, and I think we all need to talk about solidarity more often when it comes to discussing indigenous people's rights.
I started off my conversation about intergenerational love and how we lived with it since time immemorial. Since 1867, all the successive governments stripped us of our intergenerational love. We have shown that, through our strength and our willingness to understand that our culture is too important, it is for us to manage the wildlife and the environment. We are the right people to be the leaders in Canada.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as a Métis, an indigenous Canadian, I am happy and pleased to see this bill coming in. It has taken a long time.
However, I am concerned about the NDP-Liberals and how they have worked against indigenous people in many respects, such as with natural resources projects. There have been projects, such as northern gateway, that were approved and wanted by indigenous peoples. Why are the NDP and the Liberals working against indigenous peoples?
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, when oppressed people have been led to poverty and have been suppressed for generations, the options they have become fewer.
The industry and the mining companies provide an option that looks attractive because governments are failing indigenous peoples. When indigenous peoples are saying they support it, it is because it is the only option left. I thank the Wet'suwet'en who continue to fight against the LNG project.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I really have appreciated hearing the debate in the House today. It draws our attention to the fact that this is a very complicated issue that we really need, in the House, to listen to far more than to debate amongst ourselves. I thank the last member for her speech on her concerns about the circumstances that our first nations and our indigenous peoples find themselves in.
Part of the challenge, I do believe, is that indigenous communities are multiple and they come from very different perspectives themselves. I have had conversations with young leaders in the indigenous community who say that their circumstances are so complicated. In their minds, it will take time. What they want to see is something that is really important. I will focus on just this one point and get into the bill more at the next opportunity I have to speak.
The bill would provide strides toward reconciliation and the reversal of discrimination and inequalities within the Indian Act, but it is only a milestone in a long journey of self-determination for first nations across Canada.. What I hear more than anything, over and over again, from indigenous individuals who want to see a good future for themselves and their families is that they do not want to be stakeholders in Canada. They want to be shareholders. I look forward to that day with them.
234 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us seeks to establish a federal eye care policy.
The federal government fails at almost every one of its basic mandates, like having a half-decent foreign policy and a border that is not a firearms drive-through. I will not even mention passports. It is therefore not surprising for the government to try to change the channel by undertaking something outside of its jurisdiction. However, the Bloc Québécois, as always, will participate in good faith in the study of this bill. Even if it is hard to fathom what the federal government has to do with eye care, one cannot be against motherhood and apple pie.
Losing one's eyesight is a curse that affects too many of our constituents. Let us examine the issue together, look at what the government is doing—or rather not doing—and try to find ways to minimize the damage.
As an economist, I will start with some raw numbers. I know the Speaker will like that. Call it occupational conditioning.
It is important to remember the impact that these problems can have on everyday life. When a person experiences sensory loss, it compromises their safety and their relationship with the world. They lose their main connection with the world. That is not something that I would wish on anyone, even my worst enemy.
The population of Quebec is growing older and that is causing an increase in health care needs. The demand for care for eye conditions and diseases is no exception. In fact, there are already huge economic and financial costs associated with that. In 2019, Canadian society paid close to $9.5 billion in direct costs and $4.3 billion in productivity losses directly related to vision loss.
According to the Canadian Council of the Blind, these costs, particularly those related to vision loss in Canada, will only increase and could go from $32.9 billion in 2019 to $56 billion in 2050, which represents an increase of 70% in 30 years.
In addition to this growth in the demand for health care, which is expected to continue, the Canadian health care system has been institutionalizing a fiscal imbalance between the federal and provincial levels of governments since the 1990s. That was when major cuts were made to the Canada health and social transfer. In other words, Quebec has no authority to raise enough taxes to cover the growing costs of health care, while the federal government is collecting far too much considering the services it offers and their dismal quality.
The causes, as we know, are the so-called federal spending power, which allows the government to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction, along with inadequate intergovernmental transfers, the most problematic of them being the Canada health transfer.
According to the 2002 report of the commission on fiscal imbalance, this federal transfer not only applies to areas under provincial jurisdiction, it includes terms and conditions that unquestionably limit the provinces' decision-making and fiscal autonomy.
Unless and until health transfers become more generous and more flexible, Quebec's health care system will struggle to provide care to all Quebeckers who need it, including, of course, those having problems as a result of eye disease.
Bill C‑284 certainly is a step in the right direction. Overall, it does respect provincial jurisdictions. However, there is one exception, namely the first of the four pillars of the proposed national strategy, which interferes in an area of provincial jurisdiction. I believe that it is always important to remind the federal government that anything having to do with hospitals or clinical practice is the responsibility of the Government of Quebec and the other provincial governments.
Nevertheless, bringing in a federal strategy for eye care, especially when the time comes to play a role in funding research and approving drugs or devices, was more than necessary for advancing treatment in this field. That is why the Bloc Québécois will join the Canadian Ophthalmological Society and the Canadian Association of Optometrists in supporting Bill C‑284.
Eye disease will become an increasingly bigger problem over the years, as I mentioned earlier. We are pleased that a bill addressing the issue has been introduced to move forward on this important issue, although we will reiterate again and again that provincial jurisdictions must be respected.
Although we do support the bill, it would have been nice if it had been more ambitious, while still respecting provincial jurisdictions. No one can be against developing national strategies and designating certain months to raise awareness, as the bill plans to do with the month of February, but sooner or later, the Quebec health care system will need transfers.
Once this bill passes, it will be high time for the federal government to finally provide the health transfers that will allow for meaningful investments to make concrete improvements to eye care services in Quebec. For example, these transfers could make it possible to adapt online government resources or offer people enhanced coverage under the Quebec health insurance plan, RAMQ.
Quebec's department of health and social services is already doing a lot through RAMQ. Quebec has one of the best provincial eye care plans in Canada, but it costs money. Indeed, on March 9, Quebec increased its coverage for ocular prostheses, something that had not been done in at least 30 years.
The rest of the provinces offer eye care coverage that varies from government to government. The provinces have already done a great deal of work, but there is still a lot to do. Of course, that requires investment. All in all, we agree with the spirit of the bill, and we will ensure that future bills addressing eye care get more and more ambitious, especially when it comes to health transfers.
When examining this bill, the Bloc Québécois will obviously take the time necessary to ensure that provincial jurisdictions are respected, as I mentioned, and that the federal strategy complements what is already being done in Quebec. Doing no harm is the least the federal government can do.
The Bloc Québécois will always be there to support measures that will enable Quebec to take better care of its people. Let us remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the Liberal government has a lot of good intentions. We will simply ensure that the initiative, which is commendable overall, does not turn into yet another headache for those in Quebec who are actually taking care of our citizens.
1115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to talk about Bill C-284, an act to establish a national strategy for eye care. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, who brought forward Motion No. 86 in a previous Parliament to make this a reality.
In 2003, the Government of Canada promised that we would have a national vision health plan. Twenty years have gone by, and nothing has been done. The issue of health and vision care is fundamental to quality of life.
I will say at the beginning that I have had bad eyes my whole life. I have had to wear glasses. When I realized I had a cataract, I was shocked. The effect it had on my ability to work was dramatic. I could not read reports. I was stunned at how quickly my vision deteriorated, yet in the midst of the height of the COVID crisis, I was able to get into a public hospital in Canada to get treated. My quality of life turned around immediately. I know it was much to the chagrin of Conservatives that I was back at work the next day, holding both the Conservatives and the Liberals to account.
Issues of health care and vision care are fundamental. We see that cataracts, for example, affect 3.5 million people. Age-related macular degeneration affects 1.5 million people, and glaucoma affects 294,000 people. Diabetic retinopathy affects 749,800 people. This is affecting people in Canada, so to have a strategy to make sure we are including vision care in the overall understanding of health care is very important.
Certainly at the heart of the New Democratic Party's vision of health care, from 1961 with Tommy Douglas, is the belief that we need head-to-toe health coverage for everyone in Canada. It is not just about quality of life; it is also about the impact on our economy. It is about those we love being able to live lives of dignity. Deloitte just put the cost at $33 billion in 2019, from a lack of proper eye care for people.
If it is diagnosed early and people have access to treatment, vision loss can be prevented in 75% of cases. How do we make sure that happens? It is about having timely access. It is about being able to go to an eye doctor. I mention this because in Ontario, the government of Doug Ford, the man who promised the people of Ontario that he would give them buck-a-beer, targeted eye care against seniors. As of September 1, once-a-year eye coverage that had been available has now been moved to once every 18 months. The Conservatives say that this is not a problem and that it is saving us some money, but here is the kicker: When someone is 84 years old, suddenly has a worsening eye condition and is told that they are not allowed follow-up eye coverage and will have to wait another 18 months to be seen, this is the difference between being able to see and going blind. However, Doug Ford said that seniors are no longer eligible for that care.
Adults with lazy eye are also no longer covered in Ontario. I talked about cataracts and having lived through the frightening impact of suffering a cataract. People are no longer eligible to have cataract surgery in the Ontario of Doug Ford unless they can prove that their condition would cause significantly decreased vision. It is up to the person who is not able to see to prove to the Conservative bureaucrats in Ontario that they are eligible and that they deserve cataract surgery.
Doug Ford also does not think retinal disease is an issue that should be looked after. Corneal disease is no longer a priority for Doug Ford. Optic pathway disease is no longer a priority for Doug Ford. In each case, the person must prove they are suffering significant impacts before they are eligible for treatment. Otherwise, they pay out of pocket. For people who cannot pay out of pocket, particularly in times of high inflation, the impact is the potential of going blind.
I think that any ordinary, decent human being would realize and agree that that is a real misuse of public trust, but then this also is the government that decided that, instead of favouring seniors with eye care, it would look after Mr. X in the Greenbelt.
Who was his other friend, the guy who calls himself the Phoenix Kiss? Is this like an episode of the Sopranos? Mr. Phoenix Kiss says, “Meet the fixer.” He really fixed Doug Ford, with this bogus transfer of public land so that insiders could make money. Then, of course, there were the gifts at Doug Ford's family wedding. There were developers showing up to give money.
Members do not want to stand up and defend Doug Ford? Okay, I will continue.
One could hear the music playing as if it were right out of The Godfather. That was criminal, corporate, Conservative culture to a T. Those are the same people who say, “You know, when we get into power we're going to do nothing for people except sell off a whole bunch of public buildings paid for by the taxpayer to our friends”. I wonder if Mr. Phoenix Kiss and Mr. X will be invited. Actually, Mr. X does know the member for Carleton who lives in the mansion at Stornoway.
I raise these issues because this is about issues of priority. In Ontario, senior citizens have a right and should be able to know that if they have problems with cataracts, or a degenerative visual disease for which they can get treatment, without regard to whether they are an insider developer who hangs out with the Ford family at their weddings. That is what public health care is about. Public health care is about the obligation of federal and provincial officials to put in policies that make sure that we develop the long-term benefits for the people of our country.
The New Democratic Party thinks this issue of a vision care strategy is really important. We are going to need to see, of course, some standards that we put in place to ensure that across Canada we are addressing the serious issues concerning lack of service for those who are suffering from visual impairment. For people who are blind, there is a real lack of services. We have seen in indigenous communities a lack of ability to access proper treatment, especially at a young age. When the inability of a child to see properly at a young age is identified, we are able to rectify problems that will affect their learning from the get-go. I certainly remember back in grade 3 when the nuns were yelling at me because I was heckling, it was also because I could not see the board. Then they gave me glasses and I became a much more focused heckler.
I know that my laser eye now has caused a lot of problems for both Liberals and Conservatives because I stay focused on the issues and it is not just the blur that it used to be. I can actually identify the differences between these parties and where they are both bloodily similar. That requires really good political eye progress.
I would stay all day talking about the issue of proper eye care coverage and the need for us to take responsibility on this issue, but I want to say that New Democrats support this bill. We think it is a good initiative. It is a bill that we have supported in the past. We supported it when it was sponsored by the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. We have waited 20 long years to have a national vision care strategy and we need to get it implemented.
We need to also start talking about a long-term path to providing public coverage for all forms of eye care. This kind of care is fundamental to the value and quality of life and it is fundamental to the value and quality of our society. We will certainly be supporting this bill.
1398 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
