Don Davies

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for a thoughtful speech. I think it covers a lot of the main issues.

This is a modern, progressive country, and I am actually pleased to see the government moving forward on legalizing cannabis. It is the right move to make. It takes some political courage and actually reflects what the majority of Canadians want to see as law in this country.

Of course, crafting that law has a lot of other aspects to it, including modernizing and updating our Criminal Code when it comes to impaired driving. We all know that police have had difficulty in our country enforcing impaired driving provisions when it comes to drugs. That will lead into my question about marijuana.

One of the difficulties technologically is coming up with adequate testing to make sure we are measuring present impairment, as opposed to just picking up the presence of THC in a person's body that could indicate previous ingestion but not necessarily impairment at that time. I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on what provisions in the bill he thinks would be helpful in making sure that we can keep impaired drivers off the road but not improperly interfere with or criminalize people who are not impaired.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions.

One is that we are aware that there are some challenges with respect to testing for the presence of THC in the active bloodstream. We know that there are tests that can determine what are called the metabolites of THC. Because THC is very fat-soluble, the THC stays in the fat and then it is slowly released. Therefore, we can test the breakdown products of THC, but that is not necessarily an indicator of present impairment.

The second aspect of the question is that for people who are prescribed medicinal cannabis and are chronic users of THC, research has shown that they may have elevated levels of THC in their saliva but not be impaired.

Does my hon. colleague have any comments on how the legislation may deal with those challenges?

[Petitions, May 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by residents from all over British Columbia. They call on the government not to adopt the Emerson report on the Canadian Transportation Act, which would dismantle the established rules governing cabotage in Canada.

The petitioners point out that dismantling cabotage would allow the shipping industry to hire cheaper, perhaps vulnerable foreign seafarers without knowledge of the local waters they sail, endangering marine safety, good Canadian jobs, and result in the unemployment of many Canadian workers in this very important industry who are able to sustain their families with good jobs.

[Petitions, May 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to introduce today.

First, as health critic, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce e-petition 733.

Citizens all across the country signed the petition, noting that Canadians should have the right to know how much sugar is added to their food. They point out that there is strong evidence that an intake of free sugars less than 10% of total daily energy intake reduces the risk of being overweight, obesity, and tooth decay. They believe Canadians should be provided with adequate information to follow through on WHO recommendations to reduce the harmful health effects of sugar.

The petitioners call on the Minister of Health to readdress the minister's choice of not having added sugars on the nutrient panel of food labels to support and empower Canadians to make better food choices.

[Framework on Palliative Care in Canada Act, May 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-277, an act providing for the development of a framework on palliative care in Canada.

The legislation would require the Minister of Health to develop and implement a framework designed to give all Canadians access to palliative care provided through hospitals, home care, long-term care facilities, and residential hospices. The bill would also require the health minister to convene a conference within six months of the act coming into force, with provincial and territorial governments and palliative care providers, in order to develop a framework on palliative care in Canada. Finally, the bill would require the Minister of Health to table the framework in Parliament within a year and post the framework online within 10 days of tabling it.

New Democrats will be supporting the legislation because we believe that palliative care is a vital part of comprehensive health care provision, and we believe that every Canadian has a right to high-quality end-of-life care. New Democrats have a long history of strong advocacy for better palliative care services for Canadians. We are proud of the New Democrat motion adopted in the last Parliament with all-party support, which laid out a pan-Canadian strategy for palliative and end-of-life care. Launched October 31, 2013, my colleague the member for Timmins—James Bay's Motion No. 456 called for the establishment of a pan-Canadian palliative and end-of-life care strategy in conjunction with provinces and territories on a flexible and integrated model of palliative care. It passed with almost unanimous support on May 28, 2014.

At present, only 16% to 30% of Canadians have access to formalized palliative or end-of-life care services. Even fewer receive grief or bereavement services. With the subsequent legalization of physician-assisted dying, the provision of high-quality palliative care services has now become more important than ever, since it provides meaningful options for end-of-life decisions. It is well past time for the federal government to act.

Palliative care is the health discipline focused on improving the quality of life for people living with life-threatening illness. The World Health Organization defines it as follows:

Palliative care is an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problem associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification and impeccable assessment and treatment of pain and other problems, physical, psychosocial and spiritual. Palliative care:

provides relief from pain and other distressing symptoms;

affirms life and regards dying as a normal process;

intends neither to hasten or postpone death;

integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of patient care;

offers a support system to help patients live as actively as possible until death;

offers a support system to help the family cope during the patients illness and in their own bereavement;

uses a team approach to address the needs of patients and their families, including bereavement counselling, if indicated;

will enhance quality of life, and may also positively influence the course of illness;

is applicable early in the course of illness, in conjunction with other therapies that are intended to prolong life, such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy, and includes those investigations needed to better understand and manage distressing clinical complications.

There is consensus among academics, health professionals, and the public that improvements in the palliative care system in Canada are desperately needed. Without clear national standards, individual jurisdictions are left to develop their own policies, programs, and approaches, resulting in inconsistent and inadequate access across the country. In Ontario, for instance, 40% of cancer patients do not receive a palliative assessment in their last year of life. In some regions of Atlantic and western Canada, data shows that less than half of people who die in a hospital receive palliative care.

The number of individuals actively caring for a friend or family member is expected to increase as Canada's population ages. On average, Canadians estimate that they would have to spend 54 hours per week to care for a dying loved one at home, and two-thirds say they could not devote the time needed for this care. Currently, family caregivers provide more than 80% of care needed by individuals with long-term conditions at home, in long-term care facilities, and in hospital. Replacing family caregivers with a paid workforce at current market rates and usual employee benefits has been estimated to cost about $25 billion.

Furthermore, according to a synthesis of the empirical literature, palliative family caregiving for older adults is gendered. When acting as caregivers, women experience a greater degree of mental and physical strain than their male counterparts. This is linked to the societal expectation that women should provide a greater degree of care at the end of life for family members.

Remarkably, there are many jurisdictions across the country where we do not even know how many Canadians receive quality palliative care. We lack consistent and ongoing data collection at a systemic level, which leaves us unable to effectively hold our health care systems accountable.

Indicators such as location of death, use of acute care before death, and referrals to formal palliative care show that there is significant room for improvement. Many Canadians who require palliative care receive it in acute and emergency care, if they receive it at all. Not only are acute care settings more costly than dedicated palliative care, but they are also not as well equipped to provide the most appropriate treatment and care for patients and their families.

It is vital that any national palliative care strategy take into account the geographic, regional, and cultural diversity of urban and rural Canada. It must also respect the cultural, spiritual, and familial needs of Canada's first nations, Inuit, and Métis people. According to Dr. Mary Lou Kelley, research chair in palliative care at Lakehead University, the federal health care dollars that would help indigenous people receive end-of-life care at home have not kept up with the increasing demand. Health care for first nations is the responsibility of the federal government, of course, and it does provide some home care services, but the system was never designed to provide complex health care to people with chronic or advanced terminal diseases.

Finally, I would be remiss if I failed to note that, although the bill is sponsored by a Conservative member, the previous government eliminated the federally funded national secretariat on palliative and end-of-life care when it first took office in 2006. If it had not been for this cut, we would have developed a palliative care framework a decade ago.

From 2001-06 the federal government funded the secretariat through Health Canada with an annual budget ranging from $1 million to $1.5 million, virtually nothing in terms of the federal budget. However, when the Conservative government disbanded the end-of-life care secretariat, it stopped working on a national palliative and end-of-life care strategy.

In 2011, the Conservative government made a one-time commitment of $3 million to fund the study and framework creation of community integrative models of hospice palliative care. This initiative was led by the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association, but according to Dr. Greg Marchildon, Ontario research chair in health policy and system design at the University of Toronto:

There is no national policy on palliative care in Canada. Instead, there are national guidelines developed by community-based palliative care organizations operating at arm's length from government.

Although Conservative support for palliative care had previously been absent, it is certainly better late than never. That is why New Democrats reached across the aisle at the health committee to successfully move an amendment to the bill requiring the federal government to evaluate the advisability of re-establishing Health Canada's secretariat on palliative and end-of-life care.

I will give credit where credit is due. The member for Sarnia—Lambton responded to our proposal thoughtfully, saying: “I'm a fan of doing that. As I said, I was not here during the Harper regime, so I can't fix the past. I can only improve the future.”

New Democrats, in keeping with that sentiment, will work together to improve the future. I will conclude my remarks by reiterating the NDP's support for this vital initiative and affirming that all Canadians deserve to live their final days in dignity and comfort. We look forward to contributing to the framework development process and sincerely hope that it will provide the strongest possible palliative care strategy for every Canadian from coast to coast to coast.

[Income Tax Act, May 30th, 2017]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-356, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (donations to food banks).

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise to introduce an important bill to Canadians. This legislation would reduce food waste and hunger in our communities by creating a tax incentive to encourage food producers, suppliers, and retailers to donate food to charities. I would like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for seconding this bill.

This bill is a result of the vision of two thoughtful high school students from my riding of Vancouver Kingsway, Gaelan Emo and June Lam from Windermere Secondary. June and Gaelan are this year's winners of my annual Create your Canada contest held in high schools across Vancouver Kingsway. They identified the need to reduce the 31 million pounds of food wasted in Canada every year and lend a hand to the 13% of Canadians who live in food insecurity. This is a smart economic policy and a progressive social initiative.

I hope that all parliamentarians will help them realize their vision for a better Canada and support this excellent bill.

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

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot in that question, but I will start with this.

It was the Government of Canada that in July 2015 supported the launch of the Canadian autism partnership project, which was tasked with developing a national autism spectrum disorder working group as well as a self-advocacy advisory group. This group was tasked with developing a plan and presenting it to the federal government. That was an important process because it engaged stakeholders on the ground in developing the plan. It presented its plan to the Liberal government in November of last year and it included $19 million. The Liberal government made a grave error in not accepting that.

The hon. member pointed out other sources of funding in the broad health envelope that have been dedicated by the government. That is true, but what the member is essentially saying is that enough money has already been spent. Well, this motion calls on the government to spend a bit more.

Canadians will be the judges about what a member's vote in the House means. Canadians will judge whether it was appropriate for a member to stand in the House and vote for or against a motion that calls for an additional $19 million over five years to help put into reality a plan that was developed by stakeholders across the country to help families and individuals deal with autism. If I were the member, I would contemplate that vote very carefully. I would suggest that he vote in favour of the motion if he believes this extra money is needed. I think it is.

On the one hand, we can say that the government expends money in health care and some of that goes toward autism and other important health issues. However, this is a segregated motion calling for a specific allocation of funding for a specific, well-thought out plan. Every member should look at this carefully and support it. I will. The New Democrats will. I hope Liberal members will as well.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could have simply said no.

I am pleased to be splitting my time with my hon. colleague the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

I am privileged and proud to stand in this House to support this incredibly important motion from my hon. colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin on a number of fronts. Professionally, I am the health critic for the New Democratic Party and I think I have acquired some understanding of both autism spectrum disorder and the needs of people and their families across this country who are touched by it, and I am the father of a child who has a different kind of global developmental delay. It is not autism but it is similar. Through her experiences, and as the parent of a special needs child, I have been exposed to the wonderful world of developmentally challenged children, teenagers, and adults. I have been fortunate enough to meet these fabulous, wonderful Canadians who are touched by a number of different afflictions, including autism spectrum disorder, Down syndrome, different forms of developmental delays, Tourette's syndrome, anxiety disorders, and cognitive impediments. However, I can tell members that I have never met Canadians who are more generous, more kind, more co-operative, or who more enjoy life, love their families, participate with gusto in our communities in every facet, and contribute to Canada in profoundly important ways.

I can count myself privileged to be friends with people with autism spectrum disorder of many ages. The first point I want to make is that it is not a disability but a health challenge, but with an investment of resources and funds, we can make a significant difference in their lives, no different from what we do for many Canadians who are afflicted with any number of different health conditions.

I want to review a couple of facts that put this motion into perspective. We know that one in 68 children are currently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. We know that the prevalence of ASD has increased over 100% in the last 10 years. We know that autism is the fastest growing and most commonly diagnosed neurological disorder in Canada. We are not sure how it is caused, but we believe it is linked to a number of genetic and environmental influences. We also know that autism is an equal-opportunity condition as it occurs in all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. We know that autism is a lifelong spectrum disorder. We know that early intervention can make a lifetime of difference. We know that mental health concerns such as anxiety and depression are common in individuals with ASD. We know that the unemployment rate for adult individuals with ASD is a shocking 80%. However, we also know that, with the right supports, all individuals with ASD can thrive and meet their potential.

This is not necessarily cheap. We know that treatments for those on the autism spectrum can cost between $50,000 and $100,000 per year. We also know that early intervention is critical, that parents with a child born with autism spectrum disorder need a quick diagnosis and access to every kind of modality and treatment that exists, as we know that can make a tremendous difference in their lives.

We know that ASD is a family condition, that moms, dads, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, and relatives are all touched in some way by autism. We know that, depending on their place of residence, not all affected Canadians have access to the same quality of care. We know that provincial health plans do not provide equal levels of coverage. We know that wait lists across this country are far too long for just about every family with a member suffering from ASD.

We know that there has been some progress over the last few years. In November 2016, the Canadian autism advisory group presented a final report to the health minister. It contained a proposed business plan for a Canadian autism partnership and a request for $19 million over five years, which is the genesis of the motion before the House today. However, unfortunately, the Liberal government decided against funding this partnership model, and in response, advocates have taken to social media to flood the minister and the Liberal government with over 3,000 tweets calling for full funding for this partnership.

What we need and what the motion calls for is the development and implementation of a plan that represents a comprehensive approach that would address both systemic issues and the complexities of individuals on the autism spectrum. This plan would create opportunities for many autistic individuals, along with their families and caregivers, to benefit from the efforts of decision-makers to enhance coordinated and timely support. We need to reduce the frustration and isolation that often accompanies their search for appropriate and effective intervention and care.

The motion before us and the $19 million it calls for would create many efficiencies. The plan would create a national platform for multisectoral collaboration and innovation to drive systemic change. It would foster focused, robust, and accessible knowledge translation and exchange, promoting greater efficiency of effort and resources. It would provide an authoritative access point for reliable data to inform policy development, funding decisions, and service delivery. It would increase collaboration among all segments of the autism sector, promoting broader influence on the research agenda in Canada and accelerating the time from research to implementation.

It would initiate a unique indigenous engagement strategy that would reflect the cultural values of Canada's indigenous communities and address their specific needs. It would build the capacity of northern and remote communities by providing a hub for shared information, policy, and research, as well as collaboration with more well-resourced parts of the country. It would forge effective partnerships to enable the pooling of resources and it would achieve greater equity across all provinces and territories. The motion before us is something that every member of the House should probably stand in their place and support.

I know that we are always calling for government to spend more money, but the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin put it very well the other day when he said we are talking about 10¢ per Canadian per year. That is how much it would cost for us to make a profound difference in thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of Canadians' lives.

I want to conclude by talking about some very important people in my province of British Columbia.

I am fortunate to count as a friend Abbe Gates and her son Lucas Gates. They both have recently been hired by the Pacific Autism Family Network, and the amount of work that they have done in bringing individuals of all ages and degrees out of their isolation and in developing programs that are helping these people achieve their potential is unbelievable.

Abbe Gates is a prime mover behind creating Friday Night Friends, a group at the Hillcrest Centre, where young adults with all sorts of differences come together and socialize, including many people with autism spectrum disorder.

After having her daughter refused in her attempt to join a typical kids' soccer team, she started the Blazin' Soccer Dogs, which is a children's soccer league in Vancouver that is open to every child, of every ability, with every kind of challenge.

People in Canada with developmental disabilities are some of our most cherished people. They all are worthy of support, and I want to make a plug also for the House not to forget the many Canadians who have some form of developmental delay and not forget that these people need resources and funding as well.

We can start by voting for this motion and starting to devote more resources in this country to help Canadians reach their potential. Let us shift money to make sure every Canadian can be as healthy as he or she can be.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, former U.S. vice-president Joe Biden used to say, “Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.” I think that is an appropriate concept to bring up here today because all day long we have been hearing some very heartfelt speeches from members on the government side about the absolute need of the autism spectrum disorder community across Canada and how they understand the needs, how they empathize with the needs, how they understand that steps have to be taken. However, I have yet to hear a single Liberal member of the government say that they will commit in the budget to giving a very small amount, $19 million over five years, to actually address that problem.

Will the member stand in the House and vote in favour of this motion to actually provide $19 million for autism in this country, yes or no?

[Health, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the government convened a panel to revise Canada's guidelines on opioid prescription. This is an important step to address the overdose crisis.

However, now we learn that one of the members of that panel was a paid adviser for pharmaceutical companies, including Purdue, a major opioid producer.

Given the record of misrepresentation by the drug industry that fed this crisis, how did the government allow an individual with a clear conflict of interest to help draft new prescription guidelines?