Don Davies

[Canada Pharmacare Act, June 13th, 2023]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-340, An Act to enact the Canada Pharmacare Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Canada pharmacare act, with thanks to the member for Burnaby South for seconding this legislation. He follows in a long line of great NDP leaders, from Tommy Douglas on, who have built and are building our great public health care system.

No one should have to face the impossible choice of paying rent or filling a prescription, yet every year millions of Canadians go without their prescription medications because they cannot afford them. This legislation would establish a framework for universal, comprehensive and public pharmacare across Canada.

It is modelled on the Canada Health Act and based on the recommendations of the Hoskins advisory council. Like the Canada Health Act, the Canada pharmacare act specifies the conditions and criteria for provincial and territorial prescription drug programs to receive federal funding. This includes the core principles of public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility.

After decades of delay, Canadians cannot afford to wait any longer. It is time to add medicine to medicare. I call on all parliamentarians to support this long overdue initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act, June 12th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, one of the benefits of having been in the House for a while is I do have recollection of previous Conservative governments. I watched the Harper government bring in time allocation time and time again. Therefore, it is quite rich to see Conservatives stand up in this House and complain about the use of time allocation. I would point out as well that the Conservatives are correct that time allocation can be an abused process by a government if it is using it to limit debate. However, of course, it is not abusive if it is doing it when the opposition is trying to filibuster and is trying to frustrate the legitimate business of the House, which is what Conservatives are doing in this House. Canadians need to know that.

I was in the House the other night when the Conservatives put up 15 speakers to debate their motion to strip the short title of a bill on child care. That was the entire debate. Therefore, when the opposition is using that kind of process to frustrate the will of the democratically elected majority in the House, which is what is happening in this place, that certainly justifies the use of time allocation. I wonder if my hon. colleague would agree.

[Child Health Protection Act, June 12th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-252, which has the laudable goal of prohibiting food and beverage marketing directed at children of materials that are unhealthy and damaging to their health. This legislation is long overdue.

By way of a background, Canada's New Democrats have been advocating for a ban on unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children for many years. In 2012, over 10 years ago, the NDP member of Parliament for New Westminster—Burnaby introduced legislation to expressly prohibit advertising and promotion for commercial purposes of products, food, drugs, cosmetics or devices directly to children under 13 years of age. One can tell already from that short list that the bill was more ambitious than the one we are discussing today, which deals only with unhealthy food and beverages, but it dealt and engaged with the very same concepts before the House today.

In 2016, as has already been heard in the House, Senator Nancy Greene Raine introduced the child health protection act. It was called Bill S-228, and that legislation would have banned the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages primarily directed at children under 17 years of age. A bit later I will touch on how this bill has reduced that age to 13, and of course, under 17 would have been more ambitious. As I will advocate in my remarks today, it would have been preferable.

Health Canada held an online consultation in 2017 to seek feedback on restricting the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages to children. That was over six years ago. That consultation was open to the public, health organizations, industry and any interested stakeholders.

At the House Standing Committee on Health at that time, the Liberals unfortunately amended Bill S-228 to reduce the age limit from under 17 years to under 13 years old. They also added a five-year legislative review, which is a prudent measure.

According to UNICEF Canada, the proposed age cut-off of 17 was more likely than a younger age threshold to protect the most vulnerable from the harmful impacts of marketing. While there are different interpretations of children's evolving cognitive capacities, research suggests very strongly that not only are teens exposed to more ads than younger children and remember them better, but also that they have more means. Teenagers who are 15 and 16 years of age often have more expendable or disposable income, act in a more unsupervised manner and are more likely to purchase unhealthy foods than children under 13, yet I think, due to pressure from the industry, that threshold was reduced to 13.

Although Bill S-228 did pass third reading in both the House and the Senate, unfortunately that bill died on the Order Paper due to a Conservative filibuster in the Senate prior to the 2019 federal election. That has left us where we are at today.

I would also comment that the Liberal government has made a number of commitments since it was elected in 2015 that remain unfulfilled on this issue. The former Liberal health minister, in her 2019 mandate letter, was directed to “introduce new restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children”. That was never followed through with.

The current health minister's 2021 mandate letter instructed him to support “restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children.” I suppose it can be said he is supporting that, in the sense that the government side is supporting this legislation, but we must remember there has been no action from the government. This is a private member's bill we are dealing with here, not a government bill.

What is the result of the inaction? It is not benign. Each year, the Canadian food and beverage industry spends over $1.1 billion on marketing to children. This marketing appeals to children through product design, the use of cartoon or other characters, as well as fantasy and adventure themes, humour and other marketing techniques. Clearly these techniques work, with there being children as young as three years old who are brand aware and can recognize or name food and beverage brands.

This marketing to children means that over 50 million food and beverage ads per year are shown on children's top 10 websites alone. Their personal identifying information is collected from websites and apps for the purposes of further targeting online marketing. Children in Canada are observing an estimated 1,500 advertisements annually, just on social media sites alone, and nearly 90% of food and beverages marketed on television and online are high in salt, sugars and saturated fat. That is what we as policy-makers are faced with in the current situation.

Let us look at the facts. Poor nutrition and unhealthy food and beverage are key contributors to poor health in children. Good eating habits and avoidance of unhealthy food are key preventative elements of health policy. There is strong agreement among leading Canadian pediatric and allied health organizations that the impact of food and beverage marketing is real, significant and harmful to children's development.

Marketing to children has changed dramatically in the last 10 to 15 years. Today it is a seamless, sophisticated and often interactive process. The line between ads and children's entertainment has blurred with marketing messages being inserted into places that children play and learn. Marketing of food and beverages to children in Canada is largely self-regulated by the same industries that profit from the practice. Research reveals that these voluntary measures are not working. Numerous studies have found strong associations between increases in advertising of non-nutritious foods and rates of childhood obesity. One study by Yale University found that children exposed to junk food advertising ate 45% more junk food than children not exposed to such advertisements. In Canada, as much as 90% of the food marketed to children and youth on TV and online is unhealthy.

Three-quarters of children are exposed to food marketing while using their favourite social media applications. Again, the majority of those ads is for unhealthy foods that are ultraprocessed and beverages that are high in saturated fats, salt and sugar. This does not just affect children. Canadians are the second-largest buyers of ultraprocessed foods and drinks in the world, second only to the Americans. The result is that nearly one in three Canadian children is overweight or obese. The rise in childhood obesity in recent decades is linked to changes in our eating habits. Overweight children are more likely to develop health problems later in life, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure.

Children are uniquely vulnerable to marketing manipulation until the point that they achieve two specific information-processing skills. The first is the ability to perceive the difference between commercial and non-commercial content, and the second is the ability to understand the persuasive intent behind advertising. Before the age of five, most children cannot distinguish ads from unbiased programming. Children under eight do not understand the intent of marketing messages, and they believe what they see. By age 10 to 12, children do understand that ads are designed to sell products, but they are not always able to be critical of these ads.

Canada needs to get in step with other countries in the world. Other jurisdictions have since adopted similar legislation, including Norway, the United Kingdom and Ireland. By the way, my Conservative colleague was questioned about Quebec earlier and the impact of their legislation, which has restrictions on advertising to children.

Here are the facts: Quebec's restrictions on advertising to children have been shown to have a positive impact on nutrition by reducing fast food consumption by 13%. That translates to 17 million fewer fast food meals sold in the province and an estimated 13.4 million fewer fast food calories consumed per year. Quebec has the lowest rates of obesity among five- to 17-year-olds in the country, as well as the highest rates of vegetable and fruit consumption in Canada. That is relative to every other province. Now, it is true that childhood obesity rate are rising everywhere, but I think the effect of this marketing is quite clear, which is that it has slowed the rising obesity and unhealthy consumption of food marketing in Quebec, partially at least because of their early and, I think, progressive adoption of legislation before the House now.

I would also point out that Quebec has prohibited all commercial advertising targeting children under the age of 13 since 1980, so it is very clear that it is the time for the rest of the country to get in step with this. I think most of us in here are parents, have siblings who are parents, or maybe intend to be parents at some point. Certainly, we were all once children. It should be non-controversial to say that marketing of unhealthy products to our children in this country should be something that we are vigilant on and that we should act to prohibit. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation before the House today.

[Child Health Protection Act, June 12th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague for this bill, which we will be supporting.

My question concerns the age. My colleague referred to Senator Greene Raine's bill from 2016, which would have prohibited marketing to children under 17 years of age. At that time, the Liberals, her colleagues, at the health committee amended that bill to reduce the target age from 17 to 13. According to UNICEF, the proposed cut-off of 17 was more likely than a younger age threshold to protect the most vulnerable from the harmful impacts of marketing. We know that teens are exposed to more ads than younger children and that they remember them better.

Is my colleague interested in watching to see if the food manufacturers target more ads at 14-year-olds to 17-year-olds, and does she agree with the NDP that we have to be very vigilant to protect those children as well from this kind of marketing?

[Textile Waste Reduction Strategy Act, June 6th, 2023]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-337, An Act to establish a national strategy on the reduction of textile waste.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to introduce the textile waste reduction strategy act, with thanks to the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for seconding this bill.

Consumers are currently buying more clothes and wearing them for less time than ever before. This has caused a sharp increase in the pollution, waste and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the fashion industry in Canada. We send nearly 500 million kilograms of textile waste to landfills every year.

This legislation would help address the impacts of fast fashion by requiring the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to develop a national strategy to reduce, reuse and recycle textile waste.

This bill is the result of the vision of a bright highschool student from Vancouver Kingsway, Kaylee Chou, who attends Windermere Secondary School. Kaylee is this year's winner of my Create Your Canada contest, which invites highschool students to participate in our democracy and offer their ideas for a better country. I hope all parliamentarians will support her thoughtful and creative initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Health, June 1st, 2023]

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

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

[Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, May 31st, 2023]

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

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

[National Strategy for Eye Care Act, May 31st, 2023]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2023]

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

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

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

[Pharmacare, May 30th, 2023]

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

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