Don Davies

[Petitions, March 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the government to work in partnership with the provinces and municipalities to create better cycling infrastructure in this country, something that not only helps the environment but would also help keep Canadians healthier and fight the epidemic of obesity in this country.

[Petitions, March 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present three petitions today.

The first petition is from hundreds of concerned Canadians who are raising the issue of rail tankers and crude oil. They call on the House to pass regulations that would enhance tank car standards for the transportation of hazardous goods, reverse cuts, strengthen rail safety rules and regulations, and require rail companies to carry sufficient insurance to cover the damage that may be caused by accidents, spills, or derailments.

[International Trade, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, if the goal is to substantively improve the health of Canadians, then the Minister of Health must become an advocate for health in all policies.

Major health organizations, like the Canadian Medical Association, have endorsed the view that health outcomes are primarily social in origin. Income, housing, job security, access to education, and social inclusion all fundamentally impact the health and well-being of individual Canadians.

New Democrats believe it is time for the federal government to put the social determinants of health at the core of all policies in this country. This means making a commitment to end poverty in Canada and to provide quality affordable housing for all Canadians. This means making improvements to the quality of public education, and it means affordable universal child care, and greater protections for minorities suffering from discrimination. This means providing resources for mental health services for Canadians seeking help, and efforts to reduce stigma.

In this Parliament, New Democrats will work hard towards these goals and be a willing partner with the government toward them.

[International Trade, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Health on February 4 addressed the potential rise in pharmaceutical costs in Canada as a result of the signing of the trans-Pacific partnership, and in fact other trade deals. As I stated in my question, a recent study has put that figure at around $600 million annually. This is particularly concerning, because over the last 20 years pharmaceuticals have been the fastest-growing cost to Canada's health care system. Only in recent years has the pace of growth in drug costs in Canada subsided somewhat. However, Canadians still pay the second-highest prescription drug prices in the world, second only to the United States.

The growing costs for prescription medications in our public health care system and for individual Canadians is unsustainable. With the coming tidal wave of baby boomers reaching their elder years, sky-high medication prices are even more concerning for the fiscal sustainability of our health care system.

Most observers and stakeholders of Canada's medicare system agree that federal, provincial, and territorial governments must begin ambitious work to overhaul health care delivery in Canada. We need new ideas, new plans, and innovative approaches to find savings, provide better care, and improve access to health care.

Providing universal coverage to all Canadians for prescription medications is one of the most practical and achievable short-term reforms that could be undertaken by the government.

It is practical because the cost of maintaining the status quo is too high for public health and for the public purse. Recent research indicates that a shocking one in four Canadian households reports that family members neglect to fill prescriptions because of cost. This is unacceptable in a country that purports to have universal health care. This epidemic of cost-related non-adherence to prescriptions means more Canadians become sicker and more Canadians end up in hospital. This costs our health care system avoidable billions every year.

Pharmacare is also achievable because the payoff from national universal coverage for medications outweighs the investment. Canada's leading health economists have conducted groundbreaking research demonstrating that upfront government investments of between $3 billion and $5 billion would result in savings of between $4 billion and $11 billion per year. Better yet, most of these savings would go straight to the pocketbooks of Canadians and the budget lines of businesses.

Pharmacare is a silver bullet for many of the troubles facing Canada's public health care system. New Democrats strongly urge the health minister to make national pharmacare a priority issue over the coming years.

Addressing costs, improving care, and strengthening and growing public coverage of health services will be the number one challenge for the new health minister. This goes beyond just the issue of prescription drug costs. New Democrats are calling on the health minister to conclude negotiations for a new health accord with stable funding between the federal government and the provinces and territories. Our party echoes the calls by many in the health care community for an increase in Ottawa's contribution to at least 25% by 2025 at the latest.

A new health accord must also include strong strings attached. Provinces must be compelled to roll back harmful privatization in the delivery of health care services and crack down on user fees and unfair barriers. Adherence to the principles of the Canada Health Act must be non-negotiable. Canada's public medicare system must be strengthened, not weakened.

Finally, it is also long past time for federal government leadership in community and home care. All major health care stakeholders agree that health care must move into communities and closer to Canadians through multidisciplinary health care clinics and quality home care services. It is time we improved care for Canadians while reducing costs.

[Blood Supply, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, on February 18, a private, paid-donor, for-profit blood plasma collection clinic opened in Saskatoon after receiving an operating licence from the current government.

After the tragedy of the tainted blood scandal, which saw 30,000 Canadians receive diseased blood, Canada learned a clear lesson: blood is a public resource and profits must never be permitted to compete with safety. Justice Krever, commissioner for the inquiry into the tainted blood scandal, understood this. The governments of Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba understand this today.

A prominent Canadian recently expressed it this way: “For whatever reason, it’s taking...governments a long time to make up their minds. It shouldn’t. The integrity of the blood supply, and our continuing resolve to keep a strong volunteer base, should make the answer simple: no to 'pay for blood or plasma'. Period.” Who said this? It was former Liberal leader Bob Rae in 2014.

We urge—

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is unhelpful in this place is the practice of wedge politics, where the purpose of the legislative initiative is not to advance dialogue or make better policy for this country, but rather to embarrass or wedge people into positions that are simplistic. We have seen the Conservatives do that repeatedly for 10 years. My hon. colleague on the other side has seen that as well.

I remember the Conservative minister of public safety who said we were either with the Conservatives on their crime agenda or we stood “with the child pornographers”. This was an approach to government that I think Canadians soundly rejected in 2015. They want people in the House to put forth thoughtful policy that will advance the interests of Canada and Canadians.

Instead of a very controversial motion that seeks to condemn and separate Canadians, saying we are either racist or we are not, would the member not agree that it would be productive for his government to put forward a plan before the House to show how we can assist the Israeli government and the Palestinian government to get back to a table and negotiate a resolution, so that there is no more blood spilt in that region and those people can live in peace and security in the years ahead?

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsor of the motion, and I appreciate that one of the essences of the debate that has arisen today is that it allows us to focus on the issue of racism. That is something that every member in the House, from all parties, of course, deplores. One of the essences of racism is stereotyping. It is that whenever we adopt a position that attempts to brand a group of people with a certain conclusion, without any regard for the individuality or individual expression within that group, that is an essence of racism.

I am troubled by the element of that which is present in the motion, when it says “the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel...” We attempt to say that every proponent, every Canadian, who might have a position on BDS and Israel is automatically branded and stereotyped as someone advocating the delegitimization and dehumanization of Israel.

I happen to know that it is not case. There are people who hold the belief. It is not one that I share, because I am not a proponent of the BDS movement. However, there could be a person, in good faith, who thinks that advocating economic sanctions against the Government of Israel as a means of pressuring it to take different foreign policy decisions, particularly in the occupied territories, may be a legitimate political action. It may not be that they are trying to dehumanize or delegitimize Israel; they are trying to pressure it—

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I often like to say that all people are democrats when they win, but the true test of democrats is how they act when they lose. It is easy to support free speech with which we agree, but the true test of whether we actually believe in the right to free speech is how we act and react to speech with which we disagree.

I am listening to this argument that says this is just a motion to have the government condemn a belief or expression of a Canadian and we are not actually doing anything. The road to erosion of rights always begins with a wedge in the door. It first is about condemning; next, it is about restricting; then it becomes about punishing; then it becomes about banning. It is always a slippery slope. I reject this notion that by just having the government condemn something, we do not start down a road where the government, as is called for by this motion, starts to tell Canadians what they can and cannot agree with.

I would like to ask my friend this. Does he agree with the positions expressed by some members of the House that merely having the government condemn things is a harmless act of government?

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's passionate expression of his opinion, and I fully respect that opinion.

There are many people on this side of the House and in our party who share his view that BDS is not an appropriate response to Israel's activities in the Middle East. However, I must say that the issue, from my point of view, is that not everybody shares that position.

My friend says that when we look at this motion we substitute the word “anti-Semitism” for those who advocate a BDS approach as a way of influencing Israel's behaviour in the occupied territories, as an example. I would remind the member that it is the official position of Canada that Israel's occupation of territories after 1967 are a violation of international law, and that everybody in this House does call on Israel to withdraw from those territories in a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians and we support that.

No doubt there are some people who espouse BDS who may have anti-Semitic feelings, but I also happen to know that there are those who do not have any anti-Semitism in them whatsoever, who do espouse BDS as an approach to put pressure on the Government of Israel. While I do not share that approach, I do respect their right to hold that opinion. Does the member not feel that in Canada, a nation founded on the rule of law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where we have freedom of expression and opinion in this country, that this House should not condemn people for holding a political belief honestly held about a particular political issue that he may respectfully disagree with, but that both can hold in good faith?

[Health, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister supports the Canada Health Act, she should enforce it.

The tainted blood scandal of the 1980s affected 30,000 Canadians and infected them with HIV and hepatitis. It cost billions in compensation. The Krever inquiry found that for-profit, paid blood collection puts the safety of Canadians at risk, yet today, a private for-profit plasma clinic is opening in Saskatchewan, directly contrary to the Krever findings.

Will the minister stand up for safety in Canada's blood supply system and close this clinic, or does she disagree with Justice Krever?