Don Davies

[Housing, January 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, last week I met a constituent, a single mother who has raised her son by working two jobs to make ends meet. She sacrificed everything so that her son could go to university. She has had to move four times because of rent eviction and lives in constant fear that she will lose her current home. She has been on the housing wait-list for four years and has no idea where she will go next.

How can the Prime Minister hear these stories and not understand the urgency of the housing crisis? Why is he patting himself on the back but making my constituent wait?

[Pharmacare, January 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Canadians are choosing between medicine and their rent. The Liberals promised these reforms in 2016 and said they would be in place last year. This is a straight betrayal of a clear promise. The Liberals also said these changes were essential to bring in universal pharmacare and that we could not have it until prices were reduced. That is not happening.

With Eric Hoskins soon to release his study on pharmacare, can Canadians expect to see the Liberals once again cave in to the drug lobby and refuse to bring in universal, comprehensive and public pharmacare?

[Pharmacare, January 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we are in year four since the Prime Minister issued a mandate letter to the health minister directing her to lower prescription drug prices for Canadians. This was important because Canadians pay among the highest drug prices in the world and millions cannot afford their medicine.

Now officials at the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board admit that they have abandoned their plan to reduce the prices that drug companies can charge Canadians.

Will the Liberals admit that they have folded and betrayed Canadian patients because of pressure from the pharmaceutical industry?

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, January 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very long and very loud speech. He touched on a number of things but two of the most important to Canadians are the economy and the environment.

We all just returned from break and I want to share some of the feedback that I received from my constituents. I think many other members in the chamber have heard the same thing and some alarming facts.

Just last week it was reported that 46% of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency. That does not sound like an economy that is working well for a lot of people. My hon. colleague talked about the middle class. I have not ever heard the Liberals talk about the working class. There are millions of Canadians in this country that are not doing well.

The member quoted the same figures that the Conservatives used to quote, those large macro numbers about how well Canada is doing compared to the G7. It reminds me of the phrase that when Bill Gates walks into a bar everybody is a millionaire, on average. That is not the reality here in this country. There are gaping holes between the wealthy and the poor and between the working class in this country.

I want for a moment to turn to the issue of the environment. Nobody is opposed to natural resources or the oil industry. People are concerned about climate change and carbon emissions. With the alarming report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change telling us we have 11 years to make a 45% reduction over 2010 levels, we do not have time to waste. Expanding fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when we have to be reducing carbon emissions is something that many Canadians, me included, have a hard time understanding.

What does my hon. colleague have to say to those almost one in two Canadians who are $200 away from going bankrupt? What does he have to say to the younger generation that is concerned about—

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS), broken down by fiscal year 2016-17 and 2017-18: (a) what was the budget for the FTCS; (b) how much of that budget was spent within the fiscal year; (c) how much was spent on each component of the FTCS, specifically, (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Indigenous Canadians; (d) were any other activities not listed in (c) funded by the FTCS and, if so, how much was spent on each of these activities; and (e) was part of the budget reallocated for purposes other than tobacco control and, if so, how much was reallocated?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's May 14, 2018, decision to suspend the processing of permanent resident visas for adoptive children from Japan: (a) who made the decision; (b) what was the rationale for the decision; (c) what evidence was provided to support the decision; (d) have officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada communicated with the State Department of the United States with respect to the decision; (e) have officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada communicated with the British Columbia Director of Adoption with respect to the decision; (f) why did Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada approve visas for the Japan-born adoptive children of five families from British Columbia in June 2018 despite the suspension on adoptions from Japan; (g) what are the specific questions on which Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is seeking clarification from the government of Japan; (h) what were the responses, if any, that the government received from Japan; (i) what concerns, if any, does the government have with the Japan adoption program; and (j) has there been a change in policy with regard to adoption from non-Hague countries?

[Standing Committee on Health, December 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand on behalf of the health committee as the New Democrat critic for health and lay out our party's position on this subject.

This motion instructs the Standing Committee on Health to undertake a study on the level of fitness and physical activity of youth in Canada and provide recommendations. Unfortunately, this motion, in our respectful submission, is a redundant exercise proposing that the health committee replicate a comprehensive and collaborative report just produced by the federal, provincial and territorial governments earlier this year, some five months ago in June of 2018.

In addition, this motion violates the health committee's independence by attempting to dictate its agenda from this chamber without a pressing justification. This would be the third such study imposed on the health committee this Parliament. The first two proposals were accepted by this chamber. At this point, I say that as parliamentarians we need to defend the independence and integrity of the committee structure, which is supposed to be a master of its own agenda.

We have some 17 weeks of sitting left before this House will be dissolved before the next election. Let me tell colleagues what is on the agenda right now before the health committee.

We still have to review and finalize an in-depth report studying diabetes in this country.

We have to review and finalize a report on organ donation that is the culmination of a long study that we have undertaken.

We are presently two meetings into a multiple-meeting study on methamphetamine use and the committee plans on picking this back up in February and travelling, if we can, to Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver and Montreal, in order to visit stakeholders on the ground.

We have an LGBTQ2 health study, which is a major undertaking by the health committee. We are just today submitting our list of witnesses who will have to be scheduled for in the new year.

We have the issue of forced sterilization where we are calling the members of the health ministry to come before committee and begin the process of trying to get a handle on that appalling situation of women, particularly indigenous women, being sterilized against their will in this country as late as last year.

We have an outstanding motion of two years before the committee that would study community care. Anybody who is following the health portfolio knows that it is an absolute comprehensive structural issue in our health care system as we move from the acute care model into a community care model, based in our communities.

We have 17 weeks left to deal with all of those things and my hon. colleague would like to compel the committee to move to study this issue on a subject that has just been the subject of intense in-depth examination by the federal government, by provincial governments, by territorial governments, by indigenous governments and by a whole host of NGOs and stakeholders across this country.

New Democrats do believe that urgent action is needed to promote physical activity and reduce sedentary living in Canada among all age groups, and notably among children and youth. Just as the Liberals have done with pharmacare, they seem intent on studying an issue rather than taking concrete action for Canadians.

On this subject here, the questions set forth by this motion were addressed comprehensively in a May 31, 2018, report produced collaboratively, as I have said, by the different ministers titled, “A Common Vision for increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary living in Canada: Let’s Get Moving.” It deals squarely with the very issues contained in the motion before this House. It was informed and inspired by indigenous perspectives and input from many organizations and leaders. The common vision is the first ever call to action of its kind in Canada. Never before has Canada had a singular policy focused on physical activity and its relationship to sport, recreation, health, as well as other relevant policy areas.

The Common Vision responds to the call by the World Health Organization for Member States to develop national policies in keeping with the WHO Global Action Plan for Physical Activity released at the 71st World Health Assembly, held May 23, 2018, in Geneva, Switzerland.

What does that report do? It includes a pan-Canadian framework, from coast to coast to coast, with 46 strategic imperatives for action. Federal officials have pledged to work with NGOs, academia, provincial and territorial health officials, indigenous organizations and others to establish a committee to oversee, monitor and report on the implementation of the common vision.

The next meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers is scheduled to take place in Red Deer, Alberta, on February 14, 2019, just two months from now, on the occasion of the 2019 Canada Winter Games.

The NDP believes that the federal government should work with provinces, territories and all stakeholders and take immediate action to ensure that every child can develop the foundation for a healthy and active lifestyle. The way to do that is to implement the 46 recommendations that are sitting in a report, with the ink not yet dry, rather than undertaking yet another study to till the exact same ground that has just been comprehensively tilled by officials across this country, including the member's own government.

New Democrats also object to the frequency with which private members' business is being used to dictate the agenda and timelines of the health committee's work. The health committee has independently determined its priorities for the coming months, and the House should not disrupt this agenda without a pressing or urgent justification.

If we were dealing with the opioid crisis, or if we were dealing with the matter of forced sterilization of women or another pressing, urgent matter, I would feel differently, but this motion wants the health committee to take its valuable time to study an issue that has just been studied and is waiting to be implemented. That is not respecting the independence of the health committee's agenda.

I am going to tell the House what groups have said about the study that was just done by the federal government.

Participaction said:

Common Vision is Canada's first ever singular policy focused on physical activity and was developed with perspectives from multiple sectors, such as parents, non-governmental organizations and indigenous communities.

The Canadian Parks and Recreation Association said:

CPRA is pleased to support the recently released “Common Vision for increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary living in Canada: Let’s Get Moving!” The Common Vision was developed by federal-provincial-territorial governments as a guide to addressing physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour among Canadians of all ages and abilities.

The Canadian Kinesiology Alliance said:

[It] salutes the Let's Get Moving report, the latest initiative from the Government of Canada to create a common vision where all Canadians move more and sit less, more often. [It] agrees that it is only through the collaboration of the community, the government and private and public sectors, that physical activity will be increased and sedentary living reduced across all generations.

Finally, the Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health said:

the Common Vision was recently released on May 31, 2018 and is another example of the collective momentum to address physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour for all Canadians.

The exact same subject of this motion was just studied by the federal government. When I put this question to the hon. member, he suggested that his motion deals specifically with youth. That subject was squarely addressed, the issue of youth, and all generations, in the report just issued in May of this year.

New Democrats absolutely support any initiative that would get young people, toddlers, infants, youth, teenagers and adults of all ages more active and more healthy, and the way to do that is for the Liberal government and the member to not waste the time of the health committee in a redundant study. Rather the member should press his own government to implement the 46 recommendations that really would achieve those objectives, that really would result in Canadians living healthier, more active lives.

No study; action. It is time. New Democrats will work for action.

[Standing Committee on Health, December 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that action is needed urgently to promote physical activity and to reduce sedentary living in Canada for all citizens, particularly young people. I am wondering if my hon. colleague is aware that the very questions set out in his motion were recently addressed comprehensively in a May 31, 2018 report, just six months ago, produced collaboratively by the federal government working with the provincial and territorial ministers. The report is entitled “A Common Vision for Increasing Physical Activity and Reducing Sedentary Living in Canada: Let's Get Moving”. It contains 46 comprehensive strategic comparatives for action.

I am wondering if he is aware that the content of his motion that calls for action has been exactly covered by a report just issued by the government six months ago. Would he not think it would be better instead of taking up the health committee's time, to press his own government to actually implement the 46 recommendations that his own government just signed onto?

[Health, December 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the number of Canadian lives lost to the opioid epidemic is sobering, staggering and growing. New Democrats have offered five positive proposals to tackle this escalating crisis: declare a national public health emergency, fund overdose prevention sites, invest more in treatment, decriminalize and medically regulate supply, and hold opioid manufacturers to account.

Given that opioid deaths have risen every single year of the government's term, why will Liberals not act on these proposals to save lives?

[Opioid Crisis in Canada, December 10th, 2018]

Mr. Chair, I am very surprised to hear that any province or territory in the country would leave federal dollars on the table for treatment.

However, I know my hon. colleague is a physician and is committed to an evidence-based and scientific approach to this. I sit on the health committee and I moved the motion at committee to study the opioid crisis. We have heard from stakeholders across the board. Police, firefighters, nurses, physicians, addiction specialists and psychologists have all come to the same conclusion, and that is the same conclusion the member came to, which is we must put ideology aside and base our position on evidence. Their conclusion is that decriminalization and regulation of drugs is the answer to at least stopping the tainted street supply.

The member commented upon the very successful approach to supervised injection sites when we had the tainted heroin supply 20 or 25 years ago. We see patterns and waves of tainted drugs, but what is foundational is the fact that as long as we have a criminalized drug culture in the country, we drive people underground, drug addicts get their drugs on the street and we have deaths.

Does the member not agree with the president of the Canadian Medical Association, the chiefs of police and every medical professional whom I have heard at the health committee, that it is time for the government to put ideology aside and look seriously at decriminalization and regulation of drugs? Does she agree with that?