Libby Davies

[Health, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, desperate Canadians are heading overseas to buy organs on the black market only to see these organs fail when they come back home. They end up in hospital and tragically some have died. As we have debated in the House, unfortunately this is not a new situation.

After seven years in power, why is the government still dragging its feet on the critical need for a national registry for organ transplants?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 31st, 2013]

With regard to government funding, what is the total amount of government funding allocated within the constituency of Vancouver East during the fiscal year 2012-2013, broken down by: (a) department or agency; and (b) for each body mentioned in (a), by initiative or project?

[41st General Election, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want the Conservatives to come clean on this whole sordid affair.

We now have another federal judge slamming the behaviour of the Conservatives. In his judgment on electoral fraud, Justice Mosley writes:

Despite the obvious public interest in getting to the bottom of the allegations, the [Conservatives] made little effort to assist with the investigation at the outset despite early requests.

Will the Conservatives continue to claim they fully co-operated when the court has now said the exact opposite is true?

[Ethics, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let us continue with the story. The senator told The Globe, “...we had a political problem.” He then goes on to confess he consulted Nigel Wright on the rewriting of the report into Senator Duffy's expense claims.

Will the Conservatives now tell us what documents they have given to the RCMP or the ethics officers regarding this arrangement involving Mr. Wright, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Tkachuk?

[Ethics, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, senior Conservative senator David Tkachuk made it clear the PMO was directly involved in the Senate report whitewash. According to the senator, Nigel Wright would “want to know things, like ‘When is it going to be done? When is this thing over with?'”

The PMO had a hand in rewriting the report. Conservatives only owned up to the whitewash after it hit the front pages.

Senators cannot be trusted to investigate themselves, so why do the Conservatives continue to call this committee independent?

[Anaphylaxis, May 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to speak to Motion No. 230, which has been put forward by the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook, and I thank him for that.

I know the member had a similar motion in the last Parliament, but it did not go further because of the federal election, and so we are debating the issue again. It is always good to see members continue to press on with their issues.

Unfortunately, the vote we just had on sodium reduction was lost, but I am very committed to working with the 50-plus organizations across the country that supported the bill. Even though the vote was lost, we will continue to press very hard because sodium reduction in our country is a major public health issue.

As the health critic for the NDP, I am pleased to speak in support of the motion before us.

The question of anaphylaxis is a very critical issue. It affects about 500,000 Canadians and 50% of Canadians know of someone who has at least one food allergy. In our own personal experiences we can all think of someone we know who has a serious allergy and who has to be very careful of where and what that person eats.

The motion before us begins to address the issue anaphylaxis, which affects a growing number of Canadians. The NDP is supportive of the motion, but we will demand an accounting from the Conservative government on its health care track record.

The motion asks the House to recognize the importance of taking steps to ensure that Canadians with anaphylaxis have a certain quality of life. However, as we have seen with a number of these motions, this motion is very general and does not go further into precise measures. Therefore, while we support the motion, in as far as it goes, this is an opportunity for us to debate the issue and to keep pressing the government for much better accountability on health care generally and on something like this that does affect so many people.

One of the issues with anaphylaxis is that even the purchasing of the auto-injectors is an added cost for many families, and there are families that cannot afford this kind of injector. However, I find it curious that in the budget bill, which was approved at second reading and which was rushed through the House under another time allocation motion, and will be rushed through the finance committee in five meetings, one of the provisions is taxing hospital parking lots.

I do not know if anybody listened to the CBC story recently. In fact a couple of stories have been done. One of the biggest responses is from people who feel outraged that when they go to a hospital to visit a friend or family member who is sick, they get hit with exorbitant parking fees. Now, to add insult to injury, this budget, the latest omnibus bill from the Conservative government, will add taxes on to hospital parking.

Why I am raising this issue now in this debate on the private member's motion? It is because, while on the one hand we see these sort of window-dressing kinds of motions coming through from the Conservatives, and I appreciate their intent, the fact is there are so many significant issues that are going unaddressed in our health care system. The government has fallen down on or simply retreated from its role on health care. I wanted to get that bit about the hospital parking tax in there because it is something that really grates. The Conservatives have the gall to talk about being the government of tax reduction and yet on something that is as basic as hospital parking, where people are basically a captive audience and have no choice but to pay these exorbitant cost, they will now be hit with a tax. Why would the Conservatives do that? It seems unconscionable.

While I am happy to be debating this motion, as far as it goes, I do want to shed light and illuminate the bigger picture around health care in our country.

Unfortunately, we have seen the federal government basically walk away from the table. The Conservatives made a unilateral decision about health care funding that has now left the provinces and territories about $36 billion short over the longer term. The government has failed to implement the health accords. Therefore, while we support the motion, we have to look at it in the context of the bigger picture. The government has a miserable failing record, an F, on health care.

As the health critic for the official opposition, the NDP, I do a lot of work with organizations across the country. People are just chomping at the bit. They want to see a stronger federal role or any federal role in health care.

In the House, we have had issues around drug safety and drug shortages. We have seen the abysmal health status of aboriginal people and cuts in Health Canada. The list is enormous. We need to put this on the record and hold the government to account. While I am sure the Conservative members in the House will support the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook, which is good, they need to question themselves on what is happening to our health care overall.

Why have not made any progress on a national pharmacare program? Why have not made any progress on a home care and long-term program?

All these issues were discussed in 2004 and supported by the federal government and the premiers across the country. We believed, and Canadians believed, that we would see some way forward and that we would see some progress on these issues. However, nothing has happened, and not only has the status quo remained, even worse, the government disbanded the Health Council of Canada, which was the body that monitored the progress and implementation of the health accord.

It is a pretty dismal picture, which I am sure we can all appreciate. I really want to draw it to the attention of members in the House.

I encourage Conservative members that when they bring forward a private member's motion, such as the one we are debating today, they need to link it to the broader health issue. They need to think about what about the public health interest. It is very disappointing that they chose to defeat the bill on sodium reduction, which had incredible support across the country, yet I am sure this motion will go through.

At the health committee, we have had a number of these such bills and I have supported them. That is fine, but we in the NDP do have a plan for health care. We want to see our health care system improve its accessibility. We want to see the kinds of things that people need, like pharmacare, home care and long-term care. We want to see progress made on those very critical health issues.

We are very determined, as we move toward 2015, that there is an alternative on health care that we can present to the Canadian people. If the people want medicare 2.0, we know what that is. We are actually out there, consulting with Canadians on that on a daily basis.

I know many of my colleagues get emails and work with local constituents. We know health care is really the number one issue about which Canadians are concerned. On any poll that is done, health care is always at the top of the list.

I thank the member for presenting the motion. It is very important to draw awareness to this issue, which affects about 500,000 Canadians, and what it means to face a severe allergy.

Let us recognize that we need a federal government that will be responsive to the health care needs of Canadians and willing to be at the table with the provinces, territories and first nations. We need a federal government that is committed to implementing the accords that were signed in 2004 and to bringing in new accords and a new vision for medicare that is based on the Canada Health Act, accessibility, portability, public administration and universality.

We in the NDP are committed to that. We stand for that. We are the party of medicare. We are proud of the work that we have done and the work we continue to do.

While we support the motion, we know that it is just a bit of the big job that needs to be taken on. We are taking on that job.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is also a budget that would have hundreds of tax hikes on everything from hospital parking to credit unions and safety deposit boxes. These hikes would cost Canadians nearly $8 billion over five years. I want to ask the member about the hospital parking. I am sure he knows that there is a huge constituency out there of people who are hopping mad about how they get caught by hospital parking. It is very high. Now to know that there would be a tax on top of that from the current federal government would really add insult to injury.

How can the member, after giving that speech, defend that kind of proposition where people would get taxed even on hospital parking?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, not only are the Conservatives not doing anything concrete for jobs, but they are doing very concrete things in terms of tax hikes. In fact, there are hundreds of tax hikes on hospital parking, credit unions and safety deposit boxes, and the list goes on and on. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

I know the feedback I get is that people are always pretty outraged at the incredible cost of parking at hospitals. We are kind of a captive audience since there is nothing we can do, yet the bill would permit increased taxes for people who have to go to hospitals and pay for parking. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, not only are the Conservatives cutting millions from infrastructure and other programs, but they are also sneaking in fee increases and tax increases.

One of the ones included in Bill C-60 has to do with immigration, including visitors visas, work permits, study permits and visa and permit extensions. It would mean that under the budget the government would be able to increase fees without tabling a proposal in Parliament and without being transparent about how much revenue the fees would bring in.

Could the member comment on the impact that would have on the many people who sometimes find it very difficult to pay those fees anyway, and who would now be facing possible increases?

[Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada Act, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today at the end of the second hour of debate on Bill C-460 to have the last five minutes to respond to the debate.

First, I would like to thank all of the members on all sides of the House who have participated in this debate. Many members have participated with great passion and vigour, and certainly the issue before us is a very important one. In fact, I would argue that this is probably the most critical public issue that is facing us today.

It is very interesting to note that there has been an incredible amount of media attention on the need for sodium reduction. There are major articles in the press every day. It is something that is of great concern to many people in Canada.

I am looking at a recent article in The Globe and Mail, which says, “Health Canada's voluntary, unsupervised guidelines for the food industry aren't adequate to the task, say health experts and advocates”.

The article quotes Kevin Willis, the director of partnerships at the Canadian Stroke Network, who said:

We don't have data available in a transparent way that we can monitor that these changes are actually occurring. Government could require companies to make that information available so it can be verified. It's all part of the transparent monitoring process.

I have to say that in the development of this bill there has been an incredible amount of support across the country, and some of the organizations have been mentioned here in the debate today. I particularly want to thank Dr. Norm Campbell, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada CIHR chair in hypertension prevention and control, and Bill Jeffery, national coordinator for the Centre for Science in the Public Interest. These two individuals have been just incredible, both here on the Hill and in providing information, education and awareness. I think they have spoken volumes about the critical need to have this bill move forward at second reading.

I have listened to the arguments from the Conservative members, and I want to reiterate that this is actually a very straightforward bill. Again, this bill would implement the sodium reduction strategy that was developed not by me or by any member in this House, but by an expert working group in 2010. The purpose of this bill is to make sure that the guidelines and strategy that were devised are actually followed through.

As we have heard from many members in this House, the non-action, the pathetic lack of leadership from the government on the sodium reduction strategy and its disbanding of the sodium working group have really been quite shocking. As many people I have spoken to in the community and some organizations have told me, at one point Canada was the leader in the world, and other countries looked to Canada to take leadership. However, that situation has now been completely reversed. We are so far behind on this issue and on many other public health issues that it really is very disturbing.

In arguments we have heard today, in fact, we have heard members who wanted to ridicule the bill and make fun of it and come up with jokes. That was very perplexing. It makes me wonder if they know of the major organizations in support of this bill. They have done the research, they are the experts, and they believe this bill is sound. Do the Conservatives not understand that the Canadian public want to see the Canadian government take leadership?

Some members referred to a survey that was done. A very recent survey was done by the University of Toronto in March of this year. It tells us that 78% of Canadians support setting maximum sodium levels in food sold in grocery stores and that 76% agreed that warning labels and statements should be displayed so that people have the information they need.

I want to end by saying that other countries are doing what needs to be done. Recently South Africa announced that it is now going to require regulations for sodium reduction that have to be met by June 2016. Many other countries have taken much more significant action than Canada has.

At the end of the day, I think we have to ask ourselves a question: are we committed to the health of Canadians and to preventing the deaths that are now taking place? Will we ensure the health of Canadians in the future? If so, then this bill is one concrete measure that would allow that to happen.

I urge all members of the House to read the bill properly, to look at who is supporting it and to support it at second reading so that we can look at it in committee, where we can address any issues or concerns that may exist. I urge members to vote to support the bill in principle.