House of Commons Hansard #236 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was status.
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
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.
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
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.
The House resumed from September 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑284, An Act to establish a national strategy for eye care, be read the third time and passed.
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
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.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
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.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-284. I will only take a few minutes to express my support for it.
I want to congratulate the member for Humber River—Black Creek for bringing the bill forward. She has championed it at every stage. I know she has been here in the House to listen to the debate and has heard what members have had to say as it made its way through committee and back to us now for its final hour of debate.
I thought it would be important to point out some striking statistics that relate to the eye health of Canadians. In 2019, the year for which we have data, $38.2 billion was lost in the Canadian economy, 1.2 million Canadians were blind or partially sighted, eight million Canadians were at risk of blindness and 1,292 deaths were associated with vision loss.
About 75% of individuals can be prevented from going blind if diagnosed early. Unfortunately, we all take our eyesight for granted until it is often too late. Bill C-284 attempts to raise awareness of the impacts of vision loss and blindness, improve eye health care and support, and foster innovative research to advance new therapies for vision loss.
It is important to try to put ourselves in the shoes of others. A close friend of mine, whom of course I will not name as I do not want to embarrass him, is slowly starting to lose his vision as a result of a genetic problem with his eyes. He is an individual who works in a technical field that requires him to always look at what he is doing and use his hands, sometimes on very small instruments. I think quite often about what will happen when he gets to the point his father did and he does not have the vision he requires to do his job.
Let us for a second think of the impact that has on people, not just from an economic perspective, because obviously they would be at a disadvantage, but also from the perspective of how it affects them psychologically. Having a strategy for how we will address issues like this, how we will support Canadians like this and how we can do more research and education around strategies related to the vision of individuals and the deterioration of it is incredibly important.
I want to again congratulate the member for Humber River—Black Creek for bringing forward this very important piece of legislation. I express my support for it and have heard around the House of others who support it. I really hope it will pass and make its way over to the Senate, where it can be adopted and then become law.
Gerald Soroka Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on an important matter, the future of eye care in Canada, Bill C-284, which was presented by the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek and addresses a matter of national concern and would ensure Canadians have access to a coordinated and comprehensive eye care response.
I thank the member opposite for bringing this bill forward. I am happy we have had some productive discussions over its content. One of my first concerns when I heard about the bill was the possible overreaching of power between the federal and the provincial government, because this does end up in the hands of health care, which is the responsibility of provinces, but I am so glad this bill would not do this. It is more about collaboration and what we can do to make sure we have national eye care and health for all Canadians.
I am surprised by one of the statistics I found, which is that 75% of Canadians have some type of vision loss or eye impediment. I am a prime example; I wear glasses. It is no surprise that a lot of us, as we get a bit more mature, start having eye difficulties. The other side of this is the fact there are a lot of diseases, such as macular degeneration, which are very hard to deal with. Any time one has loss of vision, it becomes quite incapacitating.
I will go off topic a little. I was at a conference a couple of years ago, and one of the guest speakers was a motivational speaker. He was a thalidomide baby and was born without arms. He said that every time he went to a classroom, the first question people always asked was how he lived without arms and whether he missed them. He would reply that he never had them so never missed them.
For most Canadians, it is the exact opposite when it comes to eyesight. Most of us are born with healthy eyesight and we take for granted the fact that we have good eyesight and we never think about losing it. We do not wake up and say, “Wow, I can see this morning.” It is not until one has a disease or injury and loses their eyesight, or until one has an impediment to their eyesight, that people think about it.
I think it is very important we bring recognition to this. We also want to make sure there is a good strategy in place for Canadians and that we do not go after any vulnerable or marginalized communities. We need to ensure every Canadian, regardless of their social or economic background, has equal access to quality eye care. One's eyesight is very important. It is the number one sense that people are most afraid of losing. However, like I say, every day we take it for granted.
My grandfather had macular degeneration, and he told me an interesting story. He was not fully blind, but he was legally blind, and he could still see out of the corners of his eyes. He was legally blind and hard of hearing in his early 90s, and he said it made for a very long day. He still lived on a farm and he looked forward to cutting the grass in the summer, but he would cut the grass every day. I asked him how he saw to cut the grass, and he said that he could still see out of the corners of his eyes. He figured that if he cut it every day, he would cut every piece of grass at least once in a week, because he did not think he would miss the exact same piece of grass seven days in a row. This was something he did to keep his mind active and keep busy throughout the whole summer. This was one of the things he lived for. Unfortunately, he passed away a number of years ago, but that is life. At least he tried to live his life as best as he could with the impairment he had.
The big challenge when one has an eye impacted, whether it is through disease or injury, is to try to make the best of the situation. It is so easy to get down and ask what we can do now and think that because we cannot see then we cannot do anything. However, as we have seen through many different types of programs for Canadians, such as service dogs for the blind, Canadians can lead a functioning life.
We know that on every street corner, there are beepers to make sure they know when to cross the street. There are many things we try to do, but the main thing is hoping that Canadians do not have to go through this type of situation of losing their vision. A very important thing about this situation is that we want to make sure Canadians have a great eye care service.
Something else I found out are the studies on exposure to blue light. One might think, “What is a blue light?” Every one of us looks at our cell phone at least once or twice a day, or we look at computer screens. This is actually starting to have an impact on our vision. It is quite a horrible thing, when we start thinking that it could cause earlier macular degeneration in our children or our young adults. We need to start looking at what kinds of opportunities there are so we do not have these kinds of things affecting our eyesight.
For myself, the glasses I have right now do have a blue light filter on them so that it is not as hard for me to look at computer screens. People are already starting to use technology in place to offset some of the things that are affecting our eyesight.
I have to admit that, even growing up, I was one of those people who probably did not take care of my eyes as well as I could have, because, being on a farm, it is quite easy to be in dusty conditions. When someone is using a grinder and not using goggles, they might even get a bit of a grinding file in their eyes. I have experienced a few horrible situations, yet one does not think about it and how it could impact one's life later on. As with any injury, all of the issues that could potentially happen seem to materialize the most later in one's life.
The thing with vision loss is that it is not just about how it impedes a person's life. It is also about their abilities, their mental health and the social integration and productivity they have. I talked about how one can have service dogs for the blind. Someone can have a cane to monitor where they are, but we want to make sure that people do not get to that stage. That is the one thing about this whole bill: making sure we have a structure in place between national and provincial jurisdictions to make sure that Canadians are taken care of the best they can be.
I did talk a little bit about how modern technology, such as the blue light filter, can help with eyesight, but there is also laser eye surgery. I know that the first time I heard about this, I was quite young, and I was wondering why anyone would want to cut the cornea of their eye to shape it so that they do not have to wear glasses. However, if someone wore glasses with very thick lenses, it was actually quite liberating to not have a heavy pair of glasses on their eyes. People were always concerned, wondering whether the scar tissue would be as strong as the original skin cells themselves. I think, as time has progressed, laser surgery has really materialized into a safe procedure.
Another thing is cataracts. People did not think about them. In the past, cataracts would go across one's eyes, basically like wax paper, and there was not much that could be done. Now, however, not only can doctors reverse that process, but they can also actually, when the lens is changed, get people back to 20/20 eyesight.
There are a lot of technologies out there that are helping with eye research and how it can advance Canadians, to make sure that they do not lose their vision. Technology is one of the biggest ways through which I am hoping we can solve a lot of our problems around the world, but more so with eye care, so it is very important that we have brought this forward.
In many cases, we can talk about how good technology is. At the same time, there are always limitations. One of the limitations I learned about regarding macular degeneration is that there is some new technology that was proposed that it is still in the final testing phases with Health Canada. How can that be rectified? I think, bureaucratically, there are some opportunities that need to be looked at so we can address that. That is something we need to start looking forward to. What kind of new technologies are out there that can save our vision?
I think it is very good that the member did bring this bill forward. Hopefully, we can actually get a better case for our health care for our eyes, and in the future, work collaboratively with the Government of Canada as well as with all the provinces.
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to speak after everyone else. I will be repeating things that others have already said. At least it shows that we are sometimes capable of sharing the same vision and seeing eye to eye—no pun intended.
Every time a bill introduced in the House of Commons has any direct or indirect bearing on health, we are forced to point out that health is the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and that Quebec already has a number of programs specifically addressing eye health. My colleague from Terrebonne discussed this matter at length just now. I will use different words, but essentially, we are saying the same thing. Naturally, there is always room for improvement.
All we can do is once again point out that the funding from Ottawa is not meeting the needs and that the health care transfer agreement that was signed in March 2023 was very far from meeting the real needs of our health care systems. That is an obvious sign that the provinces were forced to sign the transfer agreement. The federal government twisted their arm to get them to sign it. It is so easy for the federal government to achieve its ends, given the ongoing fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provinces. That is exactly what my colleague from Terrebonne was saying.
I would like to remind the House of certain facts. This is too good an opportunity to pass up. Ottawa offered only one-sixth of what the provinces were calling for, or $46.2 billion over 10 years. In Quebec, three ministers pointed out that the federal funding was far below what Quebeckers expected.
Let us not forget that the federal government continues to withhold Quebec's share of the $25 billion that it had promised in the bilateral health agreements. Again, instead of sending that money to Quebec, which already knows its needs in health, the federal government is withholding the money to try to impose its priorities. I want to take advantage of the time I have left to call on the federal government to sign an agreement with Quebec that recognizes asymmetrical federalism and respects Quebec's jurisdictions.
That being said, I will come back to Bill C‑284, which seeks to raise public awareness of eye disease and its treatment, as well as prevention, in order to improve health outcomes for Canadians. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the bill at second reading and we will also vote to pass the bill at third reading. Amendments were made that confirm our position.
In its initial version, the bill called for the Canadian strategy to impose clinical practice guidelines on the provinces. Here again, the federal government wants to lecture us and argues that it can do better. However, it is the professional associations that govern these professions, and they fall under provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec, the Ordre des optométristes du Québec was established under the province's professional code and the Optometry Act. In addition to regulating the profession, the order ensures the quality, practice and continuing education of its members. It stands to reason that clinical practice guidelines cannot be imposed by the federal government. The government acknowledged its mistake and removed that aspect from the bill, thus limiting its jurisdictional encroachments.
The fact remains that item (a) of the content of the strategy remains an irritant, because, as mentioned, training and guidance do not fall under its jurisdiction. I would remind the House of the wording of item (a):
(a) identify the needs of health care professionals for training and guidance on the prevention and treatment of eye disease [including clinical practice guidelines].
This is another attempt to intrude. The training of health care professionals is a matter for Quebec and the provinces. Despite that, and since the term “identify” is not prescriptive and the bill contains some good elements, such as improving the examination of drugs and devices related to eye disease, as well as developing research, we will vote in favour of the bill.
I would like to highlight an important beneficial element of the bill. Point (b) of the eye care strategy mentions promoting research. Quebec is actively involved in ophthalmology research through its universities and hospital network. For example, the Vision Health Research Network, which brings together the Maisonneuve‑Rosemont hospital research centre, the Université de Montréal hospital research centre, as well as seven Quebec universities and several integrated health and social services centres, conducts basic, evaluative and clinical research on eye health.
I am pleased to hear that the strategy will aim to enhance research ecosystems and that Quebec will be able to contribute its talents to tomorrow's advances in eye health, because research is definitely expensive.
In his speech, my colleague from Mirabel talked about how important eye health is. According to the statistics that he quoted from 2019, 1.2 million Canadians suffer from diseases that could lead to vision loss, and 4.1% of those people could become blind. He also pointed out that eight million Canadians suffer from an eye disease that may lead to blindness, and that, for some of these diseases, blindness is preventable. What is more, the health care costs related to these diseases can reach up to $9.5 billion. Let us not forget the social and human costs, either. I could once again talk about the importance of increasing health transfers, but my colleague from Terrebonne gave such a good speech about that and I already spoke about it briefly.
The federal government has a role to play in funding research and approving drugs and devices, for instance. The bill is now generally more respectful of the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.
I salute my colleague from Humber River—Black Creek and congratulate her on her bill, because eye care is never a priority. Because it is never a priority, people lose their eyesight. Highlighting this neglected health issue is a major part of this bill and is part of the reason it is so relevant. We have to keep talking about it. As my Conservative colleague mentioned earlier, we live in the screen age. In Quebec, a coalition of experts that created an initiative called Pause Your Screen explains the following on its website:
Prolonged screen use can cause dry eyes (because we blink five times less when looking at a screen), eye strain, blurred vision, headaches, burning, itchy eyes as well as a loss of attention or focus. In the long term, screen use can lead to ocular dryness, fluctuating vision, and photophobia (extreme sensitivity to light), cause or aggravate eye coordination problems, and foster the progression of near-sightedness.
That is a serious problem.
We will now turn our attention to pollution and its effects on eye health. I like to make the necessary connections between pollution and health. A 2021 study reported that researchers had conducted a large-scale project to better understand the development of eye diseases. They found that air pollution can have serious consequences for eye health, especially in terms of age-related macular degeneration. The study was published in the British Journal of Ophthalmology. With tens of thousands of study subjects, it showed that people with higher exposure to air pollution presented higher rates of age-related macular degeneration. We know that air pollution has a significant impact on health. This is yet another reason to reduce CO2 levels and transition to renewable energy sources as quickly as possible.
The bill also designates February as age-related macular degeneration awareness month. That is the name of the disease. As the population ages, the frequency of this disease will increase. Now, we also know that high levels of air pollution will also increase the frequency of this disease.
I will close by saying that if some people remain blind to environmental problems and pollution, then there is a good chance that they will go blind from the CO2 pollution in the air.
National Strategy for Eye Care ActPrivate Members' Business
Judy Sgro Liberal Humber River—Black Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is an exciting day for me, as the presenter for this bill. From the beginning, I dedicated this bill to my grandmother, who was blind when she passed away; to my aunt, who had macular degeneration and was blind when she passed away a few weeks ago; and to my mentor, Paul Valenti. All suffered from blindness through various diseases.
As we celebrate October as Vision Month and Children's Vision Month, I am honoured that I got our bill moved forward this fast, even though it seemed like ages to me. However, at least it moved forward and is here at the last hour. I want to thank my fellow MPs for their support, especially the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay; the member for Scarborough North; and the Assistant Deputy Speaker, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. All were very helpful in helping to trade up the system that we work in, in order to get this moved forward with their additional support. I also want to thank the Hon. Don Boudria, a former colleague whom we all know and a good friend to many of us in the House, for his continued support and invaluable advice at each stage of this bill as to how one gets a private member's bill through the system faster than the regular system.
I thank the countless organizations that have been calling for an eye strategy for Canada since 2003, including the Canadian Council of the Blind and Michael Bergeron, Dr. Keith Gordon and Jim Tokos; Fighting Blindness Canada and Dr. Marie Simonese; the CNIB and Thomas Simpson; Canadian Association of Optometrists and Laura Laurin and François Couillard; the Canadian Ophthalmological Society and Dr. Phil Hooper; and the University of Waterloo, with Dr. Stan Woo. There were so many who were helpful in moving this forward.
Members have heard from many of my colleagues that probably one in five Canadians has an eye disease, and some of them are unaware of that. A big part of what I want the eye strategy to do is to raise that awareness of how important one's eyes are. There are many children under 18 and seniors over 65 who are still not getting eye exams. By the time they get an eye exam, especially for a senior, they may quite possibly have developed glaucoma, retinopathy or many of these other eye diseases.
Seventy-five per cent of eye diseases are preventable, but in order to prevent them, people have to know they have the problem. We all neglect it, me included, usually until it is too late. We have an aging population. The pandemic also delayed paying attention to what was happening among a lot of people.
I am pleased to see that we have gotten this far on the bill. I look forward to working with the Senate as soon as possible. The Senate is very aware that the bill is coming, and senators have been asking when the bill would finally get through the House. I will now turn my time and effort over to working with the Senate to get it through as quickly as possible.
Canada has waited for a long time. The vision community has been waiting for years for us to live up to a commitment that not only our government but also other governments have made. We have made a commitment to the United Nations as well that we would have an eye strategy. As a result of the upcoming vote, hopefully this coming Wednesday, we will get a vote from the House of Commons and move the bill off to finalize the work in the Senate.
Again, I thank all my colleagues for their encouragement and support. I look forward to next Wednesday, having this vote here in the House and really moving it forward. I thank everyone who is here in the House very much.
National Strategy for Eye Care ActPrivate Members' Business
National Strategy for Eye Care ActPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker Greg Fergus
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
National Strategy for Eye Care ActPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker Greg Fergus
Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
It being 2:16 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:16 p.m.)