House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 31% of the vote.
National Defence November 26th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, Canada's military ombudsman is the latest on a long list of watchdogs who the Conservatives are blocking from doing their jobs. The ombudsman apparently had the audacity to request documents while investigating care for reservists, documents for an investigation. The Conservatives said no. The excuse was cabinet confidentiality.
We are talking about the care provided to men and women who offer to serve our country, so why not co-operate?
National Defence November 22nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the only thing less convincing than that worn-out response is the silence of the Minister of National Defence on this question. It is, after all, his department that is conducting this so-called options analysis.
The minister will know that the Conservative whitewash of a report did not even deal with the Auditor General's finding that the statement of requirements had been wired to select the F-35. He will know, as we all do, that this options analysis cannot be real unless those requirements have been amended.
Could the minister assure us that the requirements to replace the CF-18 have been changed?
Committees of the House November 21st, 2012
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my colleague's comments.
The fundamental root cause of the issue here is that the government disavows any responsibility for health care in this country. It is right there in the second paragraph of the report. It reads:
In undertaking this study, the Committee recognized that the administration and delivery of health care services is the responsibility of each province or territory. Guided by the provisions of the Canada Health Act, the provinces and territories fund these services with assistance from the federal government in the form of fiscal transfers.
The government limits its responsibility for health care to the issue of fiscal transfers. However, the issue of chronic disease in Canada is a national issue that requires a national response. As I said in my speech, it has been tagged by the Public Health Agency of Canada as a $190 billion health care problem for Canada. It is incumbent upon our federal government to show leadership on this issue in supporting treatment and preventive means to limit chronic disease in Canada.
Committees of the House November 21st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I think the record will show that it was in hesitation that my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour actually voted against me.
Yes, the government will take about $31 billion to $36 billion out of health care transfers beginning in 2016, which is contrary to its pre-election promise of a 6% escalator in health care.
I have seen studies on the issue of chronic disease coming out of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia, like a number of other jurisdictions in Canada, has studied this issue and its estimates of the cost to the health care system in terms of direct costs for treatment, as well as costs to the economic productivity of that jurisdiction, are in line with all the other estimates that other jurisdictions in Canada, and, frankly, in North America, have performed. I anticipate that Nova Scotia, like other jurisdictions in Canada, will have problems providing health care to its citizens.
Committees of the House November 21st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the results of that vote confirm the wisdom of my colleagues.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I am happy to stand and support the motion. One cannot underestimate the timeliness of the subject matter before us. The study that was before the committee was long overdue. The solutions that the issue demands are also long overdue. This was crystal clear from the attention this issue received in Canada and internationally and it was confirmed beyond a doubt by the evidence received at health committee. I confess I was not there to hear all the evidence in person, having only been assigned to the health committee in time for the drafting of the report. That process did afford me the opportunity to familiarize myself with the evidence that came before committee.
The evidence was quite stunning. It opened up not only to me but to all members of committee the scope of the challenges we faced with the issue of chronic disease. It opened up as well the opportunities that were before us for tackling these challenges. We need to ensure that the response we make to these challenges is commensurate with those challenges.
Unfortunately that is not the case before us today in the report. We heard the evidence and we could not reconcile that with the recommendations in the body of the report. This is why the House will find attached to the report a dissenting opinion from the NDP members of the standing committee.
Before getting to the issue of the recommendations, let me take a moment to scope out the issue of chronic diseases.
Let me begin with the fact that this is not just a Canadian problem. It is international in scope and it is a problem of such importance and scale that it caused the United Nations to convene a “high level meeting” of the General Assembly in an effort to shake the international agenda on this issue. This was only the second time in the history of the UN that the General Assembly met on a health issue, the other one being the issue of AIDS. According to the World Health Organization, the purpose of this high level meeting was for “countries to adopt a concise, action-oriented outcome document that will shape the global agendas for generations to come”.
I would like to quote from the declaration that emerged from that high level meeting in September 2011. It said:
We, Heads of State and Government and representatives of States and Governments, assembled at the United Nations on 19 and 20 September 2011, to address the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases worldwide, with a particular focus on developmental and other challenges and social and economic impacts, particularly for developing countries...
This includes Canada as well.
It goes on to describe the issue as “A challenge of epidemic proportions in its socio-economic and developmental impacts”.
It notes:
—with profound concern that according the WHO in 2008, an estimated 36 million of the 57 million global deaths were due to non-communicable diseases, principally: cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory diseases and diabetes, including about 9 million deaths before the age of 60, and that Nearly 80 per cent of these deaths occurred in developing countries.
To be clear, this is not an issue that is just recognized by the World Health Organization and it is not just an issue of developing countries. This issue is recognized by countries and political jurisdictions around the world.
What one notes from the evidence and research available to the public on this issue is that there is considerable discussion on the incidence of chronic disease both related to the issue of aging but also across the population in general.
A central preoccupation of the evidence before the committee and in the public realm is the fiscal and economic burden of chronic disease. Going outside of Canada, the Centres for Disease Control in the United States estimates that 75% of health care costs in the U.S. are related to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis and obesity. The Canadian Medical Association told us at the committee that there was no reason to believe Canada was any different.
In fact, we heard at committee from the Public Health Agency of Canada that cost to Canada of chronic disease related to aging but also across the population was $190 billion, $90 billion for the treatment of those diseases and another $100 billion incurred in economic costs to Canada in the form of lost productivity. The Public Health Agency's estimates that is equivalent to 67% of all direct health care costs in Canada.
It should be noted that numerous studies within provincial jurisdictions come up with numbers of the same order. That is to say that chronic disease is responsible for a very high percentage of very high costs.
According to the UN declaration, and all sorts of evidence before the committee as well as research in the public realm, and I quote from the UN declaration, that “with profound concern, non-communicable diseases are among the leading causes of preventable morbidity and of related disability”.
I want to focus on the word “preventable”. The common risk factors are well known and controllable. Tobacco use, harmful use of alcohol, unhealthy diet and lack of physical exercise rank among the top of these.
However, the report further recognizes the role that social determinants play with these diseases, such as the conditions in which people live and their lifestyles. These are also contributing factors to the rising incidence and prevalence of these diseases. For example, poverty, uneven distribution of wealth, lack of education and a number of factors that go into these social determinants are known as “contributing factors”.
I will cite some of the evidence that made it into the report. Right upfront, there was a lot of discussion about healthy eating, obesity and physical activity levels. The committee heard that the burden of chronic disease was related to dietary patterns as well as rates of overweight and obesity and the level of physical activity of Canadians.
Witnesses stated that healthy eating reduced the risk of developing chronic diseases. It was suggested that 90% of type 2 diabetes, 80% of coronary heart disease and one-third of cancers could be prevented by healthy eating, regular exercise and by not smoking. Members were also told that as many as 48,000 deaths per year in Canada were related to poor nutrition.
Of particular concern is the issue of childhood obesity. These rates have quadrupled in the past three decades.
There is much more to discuss about this. I think the numbers that I have shown tell us that this is an issue of great importance and scope and that this report deserves further study in particular, as well as the government's response, the minister's response and the dissenting report of the NDP members of the committee.
Pursuant to Standing Order 60, I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Committees of the House November 21st, 2012
Mr. Speaker—
National Defence November 19th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Defence offered us an explanation for his repetitive non-answers to these questions. He said that it was the secretariat that was looking in detail at the military's needs. Perhaps the Minister of National Defence does not know the answers or perhaps he is having a tough time with the details, so I have a proposition.
The Danes, a JSF partner just like Canada, has resumed its competitive process for replacing its fighter jets. Why will the minister not do the same? That way, he will not have to worry himself with the details.
National Defence November 7th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the whole world knows that the latest estimate is $130 million each, and rising. Like the Australians, the Conservatives have had this data since last May.
We may now know why the F-35 is so expensive. These planes are magic. We are being told that they will get stealthier as they get older. We thought they were being built by engineers in Texas, but apparently it is wizards in hogwarts. Is that why they will not consider other options, because the Conservatives' secret requirements include magic?
Nuclear Terrorism Act November 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, my response is a bit of a continuation of the response I gave to the last question in that what is happening is that Canada is failing to take its full place in the international community and show leadership on such issues. It seems to me that it was the urging of the international community at both the Washington nuclear security summit in 2010 and the Seoul nuclear security summit in 2012 that seems to have prompted the government to finally take action and put together a bill that would see the criminal codification of offences under those respective conventions put into place in Canada. It is interesting to read the Seoul communiqué that came out of the summit in 2012 and the very stark terms it spoke about of the urgency for countries around the world to ratify these agreements.
Nuclear Terrorism Act November 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have noted that Canada is falling behind both in its international reputation and participation in multilateral efforts to curb the proliferation of weapons. It is happening at a time of tremendous importance for countries like Canada to do the opposite and show international leadership on these matters. There are states around the world that are failing. Many of these states have a great deal of weaponry and those weapons are falling into the hands of people who should not have weapons. That is great cause for concern for the safety and security of folks around the world, including Canadians.