Debates of May 31st, 2023

Motions for Papers

[An hon. member]

Nay.

The House resumed from April 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Business Corporations Act

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, to create a beneficial ownership registry to combat money laundering.

I have the honour today of sharing my time with my friend and colleague, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

Canada has a big problem with money laundering, and nowhere is that more evident than in metro Vancouver where my community of Langley—Aldergrove is located. Now, this is well known around the world. People have given Canada's very accessible money laundering streams a special name. They call it “snow washing”.

Generally speaking, Canada is known to have a stable government and economy, and to be a safe place to invest, so honest people make assumptions that money coming from or going to Canadian-registered corporations must be legitimate, but sadly that is not always the case. We need to work hard to maintain that favourable impression that the world has of us. It is easy to ruin one's reputation. That is sadly what is happening.

According to a 2017 analysis by Transparency International, Canada is tied with South Korea for the weakest corporate transparency rules among G20 nations. That is why I welcome this legislation, Bill C-42, which is going to create a beneficial shareholder register so that crooks cannot hide behind a veil of secrecy, complexity and confusion. We want things to be transparent. We want to know who owns what.

B.C. has been taking the lead in building transparency rules to combat money laundering. In March 2019, in a report entitled “Combatting Money Laundering in BC Real Estate”, an expert panel appointed by the B.C. government had this to say about the problem of money laundering. It focuses on British Columbia, but of course it applies right across the country. It reads:

Money laundering significantly damages our society and causes ongoing harm, not limited to the real estate sector or other economic sectors. Money laundering is a contagious, corrupting influence on society...It facilitates other criminal activities, contributing in particular to drug trafficking and the violent crime and opioid deaths that result, as is sadly so evident in [British Columbia].

The report goes on to say that, given the secret nature of money laundering, it is very difficult to estimate how much damage it is doing to our economy, but they do estimate that somewhere around $50 billion in dirty money is pumped into our national economy every year. This activity is estimated at 5% of real estate prices in British Columbia, feeding into the housing unaffordability crisis.

The expert panel recommended several anti-money laundering tools, starting with implementing a land ownership transparency register, which is in effect at the moment in British Columbia. They were of the opinion that transparency in real estate would be the single most effective tool in the anti-money laundering arsenal, but they also acknowledge that money laundering touches on more than just real estate transactions.

I think it is informative to understand what money laundering is. It is effectively the process of making illegally gained proceeds appear to be legitimate. These proceeds can come from monstrous activities like fentanyl trafficking, for example, but sometimes it is much less nefarious than that. For example, it could be legally earned and obtained money which has been brought illegally into Canada by evading the originating country's arbitrary capital controls.

All of this activity is illegal. Actors become very creative in hiding their trails by creating layers of complexity, but it all follows the same basic process. It is usually done in three phases: first of all, placement; second, layering and third, integration.

Placement is the introduction of cash into the legitimate payment system. Layering is conducting multiple levels of complexity for no purpose other than to hide the paper trail. Integration is working the money back into the legal system. Money properly laundered, and I use the term loosely, can be very difficult to trace.

One of the layering tools that professionals like to use is secret trusts. This is where somebody owns something, but that is the front person. They are the registered owner, but they are not the real owner. They are holding it in trust for somebody who is working in the shadows. The real owner is invisible to law enforcement agencies.

Today we are talking about amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act to create a share ownership transparency register to eliminate this layering tool that professionals like to use. How can this be beneficial? Let us take a look at what some provinces have done.

British Columbia is really taking the lead. It bears to note that every province in Canada has its own corporate registry, as there is a federal registry, so it is very important that the provinces and the federal government work together. There needs to be a pan-Canadian approach. Otherwise, we would be encouraging forum shopping among professional crooks. They are going to go to the province with the most relaxed and most permissive laws. I am happy to say that Bill C-42 at least attempts to tackle that.

British Columbia has implemented a requirement that all British Columbia-registered companies keep a beneficial owners register at their corporate records office. This is an early version of a beneficial shareholder register and it is a good start, but it is not enough, and that is recognized. It is not a very useful tool for law enforcement because it does not allow law enforcement agencies to work undercover. The register is not free. It is not publicly accessible. It is not centralized, and it is too bureaucratic. It is also too difficult for law enforcement agencies to use and therefore it needs to be amended.

I am happy to say that is in the works. By 2025, there should be a centralized register in British Columbia that is readily searchable by law enforcement agents without the police coming to the registered office and saying they want to see their corporate records, which gives too much notice to the crooks. Quebec and Ontario are following a trajectory similar to British Columbia's.

The United Kingdom is really taking the lead with its people with significant control register for all registered companies in that country. It is free, and it is publicly accessible, but so far it is presenting only mixed results in being an effective tool for law enforcement. Bill C-42 needs to go past second reading to go to committee, where it needs to be studied in detail. I hope that we would have witnesses coming from United Kingdom to tell us what is good about their system and what is lacking so we can learn from their successes and their mistakes.

Bill C-42 is the federal government's attempt to tackle money laundering, tax evasion and other illegal activity. The minister, in his speech when he introduced this legislation, said, “Simply put, increasing beneficial ownership transparency will enhance Canada's good international reputation as a safe, fair and competitive place to do business and provide even greater legitimacy to law-abiding Canadian businesses.” Those are all very laudable objectives, which I support.

This bill should go to committee where it could be studied in detail. I will be looking there for efficiencies and effectiveness, and how adaptable it would be so that provinces can adopt it as well. As I said, the solution needs to be pan-Canadian.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, Carbon Pricing; and the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Democratic Institutions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the member in that there are a number of issues related to money laundering and the impact it has on Canadian society, in many different ways. One could talk about that very strong criminal element and how it gets into our communities. Therefore, it is an issue that needs to be dealt with. I am glad to hear that the member is anxious to see the bill go to committee.

Does the member or the Conservative Party already have a sense at this time of some amendments they would be proposing, or are they going to wait until committee stage?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, ultimately, we will be waiting to see what comes up at committee and what the study will be, but a couple of things come to mind.

One is that this system has to be efficient. It cannot be overly bureaucratic. Before I was elected to Parliament, I was practising corporate law. I was talking to my law partners the other day, and they were saying that the rules are just too complicated, making it time-consuming and expensive, as the costs are passed on to their clients, so I will be looking for efficiency.

Also, my understanding is that the threshold for having to register someone as a beneficial owner is 25%. I suspect that is too high. It probably has to be a lower number, like 10%.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑42 is unquestionably an important step forward in terms of greater transparency and in knowing who really owns businesses registered in Canada. However, there are limits to that. Perhaps my colleague could speak about that.

For instance, if a company registered in Barbados, in a tax haven or in any other country in which the laws do not require the same transparency around the beneficial ownership of businesses, transparency ends when there is no transparency. If the business is held in a location where there is no transparency, that ultimately limits the possibility of obtaining all the information.

Does my colleague have any ideas about what could be done to resolve this problem in the future?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question underlines how complicated it can be to tackle the problem of money laundering.

If I understand the question correctly, it relates to money coming into Canada from a foreign corporation that is registered, let us say, in Barbados, which maybe does not have the same transparency rules that we have. However, we have FINTRAC rules, so the money coming in would have to go into a bank, and if it were over a certain amount, the bank would be required to report it according to the FINTRAC rules. It is probably not enough, but we do have something, and this bill is another step in the right direction.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. The issue with money laundering is severe in Canada. There is an international expression called “snow washing” because Canada is known as a jurisdiction to dump dirty money from the drug cartels, terror gangs, and all kinds of illicit activity. It can be moved through casinos to be cleaned. It is also being used to purchase real estate.

This issue is concerning. We know that, in 2018, there was $47 billion of illicit money snow washed in Canada, and it could have been as high as $100 billion, which has an impact on affordability. People cannot afford to buy in the real estate markets of Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal because they are being used as safe zones to hold money.

Does my hon. colleague think we should look at the impact of snow washing and using Canadian real estate as a zone to clean money that should actually be exposed as dirty money, given the fact that people cannot even afford to live in the cities they love?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. It goes right to the very heart of what the problem is and what this bill is trying to tackle and remedy.

I agree with the member's analysis that snow washing and pumping money into the Canadian economy is forcing up real estate prices for the people who want to get into a home. We already have a housing affordability crisis. This is making it so much worse, and it needs to be tackled. It is a complex problem, and the solution will be multi-faceted. Bill C-42 is a step in the right direction. We need to deliver this for Canadians.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today as the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, one of the most beautiful areas in the world at any time of year, and especially as we turn from spring to summer.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts. I would like to thank the member for Langley—Aldergrove for splitting his time with me and for his thoughtful intervention.

The government has stated that the objective of Bill C-42 is to protect Canadians against money laundering and terrorist financing, deter tax evasion and tax avoidance, and make sure Canada is an attractive place to conduct business. One has to ask why the Liberal-NDP coalition has taken so long to act, when it has been evident for years that change is needed.

While I believe there is support for the concept of a national public registry of beneficial owners of companies, I also believe we may need to look at extending the transparency of beneficial ownership of other assets. For example, at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, or FOPO as it is known around Parliament Hill, we have been hearing testimony from witnesses who are extremely concerned about the purchase and control of fishing licences and quotas by foreign entities, and even unknown entities. That is right: unknown entities. Let me take us back in time to explain what I am referring to. In 2019, the FOPO committee tabled a report titled “West Coast Fisheries: Sharing Risks and Benefits”. This report was the result of a study initiated partly out of concern at that time, over four years ago, over the situation of local fish harvesters unable to compete with unknown entities bidding higher prices for access to Canada’s fisheries resources, a common property resource for the benefit of Canadians. Now, over four years later, can members guess what is being studied at FOPO, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans? It is foreign ownership and corporate concentration of fishing licences and quotas.

I will go back to my earlier question about why the Liberal-NDP coalition taken so long to act. Here we are; it is four years after that report, and even longer into the government’s mandate, since the concerns were first raised by stakeholders. Here we are, restudying almost the same issue, hearing that the same issues and concerns still exist, and the government has failed to take steps to ascertain that Canadians are the primary beneficiaries to access to Canada’s common property resource, Canada’s fisheries. It was somewhat shocking to hear testimony over four years ago, and now to hear similar testimony over recent weeks, that there is no real method of tracking beneficial ownership of fishing licenses, quotas and possibly vessels on Canada’s west coast. Although some have tried to track beneficial ownership, in some cases the web becomes so tangled that no one can clearly identify who owns what.

The 2019 report I referred to contained a number of recommendations to the government. In fact, there were 20. However, there were a few key recommendations related to foreign ownership that the government should have acted on, but it has been slowly dragging its feet, with almost no response. I will refer to some of the recommendations quickly, and talk about what should have been done and what has not been done.

Recommendation 2 from the report stated, “That based on the principle that fish in Canadian waters are a resource for Canadians (i.e. common property), no future sales of fishing quota and/or licences be to non-Canadian beneficial owners based on the consideration of issues of legal authority, and international agreement/trade impacts.” What has been done on this? Little to nothing has been done. There is nothing that the committee has been made aware of.

Recommendation 4 is somewhat similar. It states, “That, to increase the transparency of quota licence ownership and transactions, Fisheries and Oceans Canada determine and publish, in an easily accessible and readable format, a public online database that includes the following”. Has that been achieved? Certainly not.

Recommendation 5 states, “That Fisheries and Oceans Canada prioritize the collection of socio-economic data for past and future regulatory changes and make this information publicly available.” Again, there has been no action that the committee is aware of.

Recommendation 14 states, “That Fisheries and Oceans Canada develop a new policy framework through a process of authentic and transparent engagement with all key stakeholders". For example, some of the key stakeholders are:

Active fish harvesters (or where they exist, organizations that represent them) in all fisheries and fleets including owner-operators, non-owner-operators, and crew;

First Nations commercial fish harvesters (or where they exist, organizations that represent them);

Organizations representing licence and quota holders that are not active fish harvesters, including fish processing companies.

The last recommendation was a key one, and there has been very little action by the government that the committee restudying the same issue has been made aware of.

I am going to cut my time a little shorter today to make sure there are opportunities for other members to speak, but I will repeat what I said earlier. We have heard from some who are most impacted by the potential of foreign investment and foreign ownership of our common property resources here in Canada, yet there has been little or no action with respect to who the beneficial buyers and owners are.

I will close by saying that there is merit in a registry of individuals with significant control of corporations in Canada. If this is done, it must be done in ways that protect personal privacy and also protect the common resources for the benefit of Canadians.

I look forward to following the debate on Bill C-42 as it goes through the process, to see if it accomplishes the stated objectives without unintended consequences.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member, in his concluding remarks, talked about unintended consequences, and at the beginning of his speech, he said it has taken a number of years to get the bill to this stage. One of the reasons it has taken the time it has is so we could do the proper consultation necessary. We need to allow civil servants to do what they do best in terms of ensuring that we have something of substance, in good form, so it can go to a standing committee to see if there are ways we can improve upon it there. Issues such as individual privacy are of great concern; there is no doubt about that.

My question, as I posed to his colleague, is this: Does the member, having looked at the legislation, have any specifics about where he, personally, would like to see some changes?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as this bill works its way through the process, we may see amendments at committee stage. I look forward to possibly being able to participate.

The issue I raised is that it has taken over four years, and the government is eight years into its mandate. The issues I raised within the fisheries sector have been very clear, but there was little to no action until stakeholders really started pressing the government. We are finally starting to see some very slow, initial steps being taken, steps that should have been taken years ago.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my Conservative colleague. We sit on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans together. We work very well together. It is a pleasure to work with him. He is thorough, skilled and always diligent. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his work.

Time is money. Everyone knows that. My colleague mentioned the time it takes to get a reaction from the government. We are studying foreign investments in fisheries, and we hear that there are even people who are asking to testify in camera, which is very troubling.

I would like my colleague to talk about how effectively and quickly we need to act if we do not want to essentially lose ownership of our fishery resources.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the kind mention of my work at FOPO. We have heard from witnesses. Some have asked to appear in camera, with their names not divulged, because they were afraid of repercussions. We have heard of other harvesters who are concerned, but, out of fear of repercussions, simply will not testify. It is very concerning to us as members, and to me as a parliamentarian, to hear that there are those kinds of threats and concerns being brought. Sometimes, the only way people and their families feel safe is through back doors. I think it is a bigger issue that we as parliamentarians owe a duty to Canadians to fully investigate, to fully make sure we retain beneficial ownership of Canada's resources for Canadians.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I want to ask my colleague about. The bill would put the threshold for significant control at 25% or more of the company shares. For it to be truly effective, I think, and a lot of my Conservative colleagues would agree with me, the threshold would need to be lower, like, for example, what is used by the Ontario Securities Commission, which is 10%.

I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, the threshold of 25% seems to be quite high, especially when tracking of that foreign ownership may not be all that clear in other countries. That 25% threshold, I believe, should be lowered, and we may see that amendment at the committee stage.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to engage in this debate.

The reason I find this so important is that I am from the beautiful province of British Columbia and from the city of Abbotsford, which is nestled between majestic Mount Baker, at 10,500 feet high, and, on the other side, the mighty Fraser River. We live in a wonderful community in a wonderful region of the country. However, one of the challenges we have had over the years is that Canada, and more specifically British Columbia, has become the locus, the very heart, of money laundering in our country.

Just so Canadians understand what money laundering is, I will note that it is not benign activity engaged in by Canadians who want to avoid taxes or something like that. Money laundering is about taking the proceeds of crime, channelling them into what appears to be a legitimate business or a legitimate asset and trying to make those proceeds seem legitimate. It is a great way for criminals to hide the proceeds of crime. The last thing I believe Canadians want to do is aid and abet criminals to commit their crimes in our country, yet that is what has been happening for many years.

This legislation is not the be-all and end-all. Bill C-42 is simply a part of the solution. What it would do is establish a beneficial registry, an ownership registry, that would allow Canadians to see who actually owns the companies into which money might be directed from the proceeds of crime. This is not going to solve the whole problem of money laundering. Our police have their hands full in trying to track these criminals down, trying to identify the proceeds of crime and trying to get convictions.

Here is another problem. Money laundering has contributed significantly to the inflationary impacts on prices of land, real estate and homes that Canadians want to buy. These criminals know that if they can get money channelled into a house, it will be less likely for the police to identify that asset as being a proceed of crime. They also channel these proceeds of crime into legitimate businesses, like small and medium-sized enterprises. They channel this money into hard assets. They may be boats or expensive cars. At the end of the day, this costs Canadians big time.

There is another reason this is important to British Columbians. It was in British Columbia that the Cullen commission was established to investigate this very challenging problem to our criminal justice laws and to the broader issue of how much money laundering costs the average Canadian.

The Cullen commission made a long list of recommendations, most of which implicated the provincial government. It called upon the provincial government to act. However, there was one recommendation that stood out, which was that the federal government establish a pan-Canadian beneficial ownership registry for corporations. I believe Justice Cullen really intended for this to cover all companies in Canada. The problem is that the criminal justice law is federal law, so we as a Parliament have jurisdiction over it. Here is the problem: The large majority of Canadian companies are incorporated not at the federal level but at the provincial level, implicating every one of our 10 provinces and our territories.

How do we cobble together a pan-Canadian foreign ownership registry program with all of these different players at the table? The bill would, at least in the immediate term, establish a corporate beneficial ownership registry for federally incorporated companies, which is a good start. However, I believe the Cullen commission's intent was for the Liberal government to engage the provinces and territories to expand this to include the provincial regimes in federal legislation so that we can go after the money launderers in every corner of our country.

There is a reason this has come to our attention as lawmakers. Back in 2016, the Panama papers exposed how vulnerable Canada was to money laundering. Those papers made it clear that Canada was a laggard on the international stage when it came to addressing money laundering and interdicting the criminals who were taking proceeds of crime, filtering that money through legitimate enterprises and assets and then getting away with their crimes.

In 2017, it was the Liberal government's finance minister, Bill Morneau, who said we needed a beneficial registry to help combat money laundering in our market to determine the true source of funds and ownership in the acquisition of firms. He was right at that time, and that was 2017.

What happened in the intervening years? Nothing. From 2016 to 2023, we had eight years of inaction on the part of the Liberal government. This is pretty shocking, since the government, through its finance minister, at the very least had become aware that this was a very important issue for Canadians and nothing was done.

I will say that I am pleased that at least this has now come before us as Bill C-42, and it looks like we will see a beneficial ownership registry passed and implemented in our country. However, as the bill goes through committee review and comes back to the House, we are going to be asking a lot of questions. For example, how will this registry protect Canadians' privacy rights? We want to interdict criminals as they try to undertake their criminal enterprises, but we also want to make sure that the privacy of Canadians is protected.

I do not have great confidence that the government will actually protect our privacy, and here is why. We recently debated Bill C-27 in the House, which is all about privacy rights. We have been asking the government to actually include privacy as a fundamental right in Canada that Canadians can depend on. Sadly, Bill C-27 did not include that, so we have a right to be concerned.

We also want to ask who will have access to the information in the beneficial registry. Is it the police? Is it the ordinary citizen? It is business people? None of that is clarified in this legislation. We need to know that. Will the bill give law enforcement the necessary tools to combat money laundering and terrorist financing?

To conclude, I believe there is all-party agreement, so I am asking for unanimous consent to request a recorded vote on Bill C-42.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Thursday, June 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from April 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑284, An Act to establish a national strategy for eye care, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Strategy for Eye Care Act

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑284. As members know, this enactment provides for the development of a national strategy to support the prevention and treatment of eye disease to ensure better health outcomes for Canadians. It also designates the month of February as age-related macular degeneration month.

The preamble of Bill C‑284 reads as follows, and I quote:

Whereas vision loss in Canada is associated with a number of causes, including macular degeneration, cataracts, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy;

Whereas millions of [Quebeckers and] Canadians live with eye disease that could lead to vision loss or blindness if not treated;

Whereas it is estimated that vision loss costs [Quebeckers and] Canadians billions of dollars every year, both in financial costs and in loss of well-being;

Whereas the loss of central vision can severely impact a person's independence and quality of life;

Whereas coordination and information sharing between the federal and provincial governments is needed to ensure new treatments are made available, to prevent and treat eye disease and to prevent health inequities among people with vision loss;

It also states, and I quote:

And whereas Parliament considers that it is desirable to be proactive in the fight against vision loss and to implement a national strategy on eye care

In the same vein as many bills introduced over the past few Parliaments calling for autism, cancer or diabetes strategies, this bill calls for a strategy in the form of a report on eye health. Not surprisingly, the bill has the support of the Canadian Ophthalmological Society and the Canadian Association of Optometrists. In the wake of the introduction of the bill and World Sight Day on October 13, these groups published a survey that highlights the lack of understanding among Canadians about this important aspect of our health.

As we know, the strategy proposed in Bill C‑284 is built on four pillars:

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;

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

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

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

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the principle of the bill, because eye health is important for people's quality of life.

All in all, the bill itself does nothing. It only forces the government to produce a report that will establish a national strategy for eye care. Furthermore, designating the month of February as age-related macular degeneration month is a symbolic measure.

Although health services, including eye care services, are the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, this bill gives the federal government a role by funding research and approving medications or devices.

The bill overall respects Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports it. However, the Bloc will take the time to study the bill to ensure that the federal strategy is complete and complements the actions of the Quebec government.

In Quebec, optometry services are available to people under 18 or over 65, and emergency services are covered for everyone. There is also a visual aid program, which allows any individual with a permanent visual impairment who is covered under Quebec's health insurance plan to obtain visual aids such as magnifiers, an optical system, a calculator, a Braille typewriter, a white cane, an electronic obstacle detector, night vision goggles, and the list goes on.

The program also offers financial help to get a guide dog, as well as resources for students. Speaking of guide dogs, I am going to talk about a fantastic Quebec organization that does remarkable and indispensable work. I am talking about Mira.

In his childhood, founder Éric St-Pierre developed a passion for raising dogs. He trained dogs on the family farm, following his father's advice. His ease and natural talent with the animals led him to undergo professional training in order to have a career training guard dogs and sniffer dogs.

In 1975, Mr. St‑Pierre built a kennel in Sainte‑Madeleine. He spent most of his time training dogs. One day, a friend who worked as an orientation and mobility teacher at the Nazareth and Louis Braille Institute asked Mr. St‑Pierre for advice about the behaviour of a guide dog from the United States. Back then, there were no francophone guide dog schools in Canada. Éric St-Pierre quickly realized that these dogs were not raised or trained in conditions that worked in Quebec. He realized that there was also a language barrier limiting many people's access to the services of these dogs. He therefore promised the institute that he would train dogs for them, and that is how Mira came to be. It was the first francophone centre for guide dogs in Canada.

Mira was founded in 1981. It is a non-profit organization that provides free guide dogs and service dogs to people with visual or mobility impairments, as well as to young people with autism spectrum disorder.

All of Mira's services and activities are based on the principle of body equality, meaning that what is accessible to everyone must also be accessible to people with disabilities. Within this framework, the organization's mission has the following objectives: increase the autonomy and promote the social integration of people with disabilities through the use of guide dogs and service dogs; provide services freely to all beneficiaries, regardless of their income; improve the mobility and orientation of people with disabilities so that they can move about freely in their daily lives; create an individual intervention plan adapted for each beneficiary that takes into account the beneficiary's level of autonomy, social and professional context, and mobility needs; and promote the benefits of service dogs in public places, in schools and on public transport.

Mira is known for its innovative programs, dog training techniques and fundraising activities. Since it was created, Mira has provided more than 3,700 dogs free of charge to people living with one or more disabilities. Much of this success is due to public support and concern. Without this help, Mira would not be what it is today.

I am now going to talk about two people I knew well and who lost their sight because of macular degeneration and diabetes. When I was finishing high school, a friend of mine found out that in a few years she would lose her sight to a genetic disease, early-onset macular degeneration. Diane Lamarche had a bright future ahead of her. She was a serious student who got good grades in high school. She enjoyed walking, basketball and tennis. She was also an avid reader.

We got to know each other better when we worked together as playground monitors in Lebel‑sur‑Quévillon. In our senior year of high school, she told us that she was losing her sight and that she was already learning Braille. The news left us gutted. She was so young, and had such a promising life ahead of her as an adult.

Our eyes and vision are indispensable for acquiring information from our external environment. They make it possible to coordinate all our movements, in particular those of our hands. Vision has three roles: perceptual, sensory and cognitive.

Another person who was even closer to me, my uncle Germain Boyer, lost his vision in his 70th year because of his diabetes. I remember that he enjoyed Yule logs so much that he would stock up every year. He has since passed away, but I will always remember his kindness and cheerfulness. I want to send my love to my aunt Denise and my cousins Sylvain and Mélanie in memory of him.

Ultimately, prevention remains an effective way to avoid vision loss, unless it is caused by macular degeneration, poor health or genetics.

If passed, this bill will help ensure better eye health and better vision for Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

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.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-284, an act to establish a national strategy for eye care, presented by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek. I know this is something the member has been working on for quite some time and I would like to recognize her extensive work on this issue.

This piece of legislation would not only ensure better health outcomes for Canadians, but also recognize the month of February as Age-Related Macular Degeneration Awareness Month, bringing awareness to the leading cause of vision loss in people 50 years or older.

More than eight million Canadians are presently living with one of the four common eye diseases and more than one in 10 older adults have some degree of vision loss, which places them at serious risk of losing their vision. Vision loss can be harmful to many elements of daily life, impacting the way a person works, participates in activities and interacts with the world around them. That is why it is our duty to take proactive measures to prevent and treat these diseases effectively.

Routine vision care can help to reduce the risks of blindness and vision loss later in life and improve the outcomes associated with eye diseases like cataracts and glaucoma. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic worsened the issue of vision loss in Canada as eye surgeries were cancelled or delayed and wait times to see vision care providers also increased over the course of the pandemic. That is why a national strategy—