- Member of Parliament
- Member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
- NDP
- Vancouver Kingsway
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 59%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $153,893.57
- Government Page
- May/9/24 5:22:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yes, I do.
My hon. colleague's words were kind. It was a privilege for me as well to serve with her on the health committee.
I do not ever agree that anybody should be held until treatment is available, but I think what we share is that nobody should have to be held until treatment. The short answer to her question is, absolutely, every community in this country should have detoxification facilities so that when a person is ready and willing to seek help, they could go immediately and access the help they need.
Then there should be myriad treatment options available to them, because no one system works for everybody. Sometimes it is a 12-step program. Sometimes is an abstinence-based program, and sometimes it is not. There should be programs for women and for indigenous people, and programs depending on the substance, whether it is opioids, cannabis or alcohol. All of those options should be available, and right now in this country they are not, unless someone has money. There is a two-tiered system in this country for access to treatment. It is wrong and we should change it.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 2:32:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian should have access to the health care they need when they need it, but a new survey reveals that over six million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor. The Liberals promised to hire 7,500 doctors and nurses in the last election, but they have not delivered. While Liberals delay, Conservatives want to cut the health care people depend on.
When will the Liberals act to ensure that more doctors and nurses are hired so everyone can get high-quality and timely health care?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 5:05:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as we near the end of this debate, a couple of things have been made clear to me.
One of them is that I have not once heard the Liberals stand up in this House and say they agree with the New Democrats that additional federal public dollars must go to public health care. They claim to support public health care. They claim to support the Canada Health Act. However, they will not say those words.
The result is that the extra $46 billion that will be delivered to the provinces will be allowed to be diverted to private, for-profit care. The problem is that this care is more expensive, it is more inequitable and it will lead to a drain on the public system. That is the crux of the policy discussion we are having here today. It is not that it does or does not violate the Canada Health Act. It is that it is bad public policy that would result in longer wait lines for Canadians in the public system and additional pressures on already burnt out working groups in the health care sector of this country.
Has my hon. colleague heard anything from the Liberals today that would tell her they understand the gravity of the situation? What needs to be done to protect public health care?
224 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 12:34:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I note that the Bloc Québécois voted against dental care and now it seems it will vote against the NDP motion to ensure we have a strong, publicly funded system. I do not think that is what Quebeckers want.
However, my question is not really about the Canada Health Act today; it is about policy. It is about whether we are going to allow public dollars to be diverted to private-for-profit care when we know that it is more expensive and that it is going to drain workers from our public health care system. That conforms to the Canada Health Act. The question is whether the government is going to attach conditions to its health care transfers to the provinces to prevent it.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 12:02:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I say this with the greatest of respect, but there is a profound error in my colleague's comment, when he asserts over and over again that health care is a provincial responsibility in jurisdiction only. That is just incorrect. The Supreme Court of Canada said, “'Health' is not a matter which is subject to specific constitutional assignment but instead is an amorphous topic which can be addressed by valid federal or provincial legislation...”.
We know there are conditions attached because the Canada Health Act establishes them. When Quebec or any other province gets money, they agree to take that money on the basis of respecting five conditions of the Canada Health Act.
Is the Bloc Québécois in favour of two-tier private access to care? He says he is going to vote against our motion. Does that mean the Bloc Québécois is in favour of two-tier private care in our country, because that is what this motion is about today?
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and support this bill at second reading, Bill C-252, which would amend the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit marketing foods and beverages that contribute to excess sugar, saturated fats or sodium in children's diets in a manner that is directed primarily at persons who are under 13 years of age.
Poor nutrition and unhealthy food and beverages are key contributors to poor health in children. Good eating habits and avoiding unhealthy food are key preventative elements of health policy, not only for our children but for generations to come. New Democrats have been calling for a ban on junk food advertising targeted at children for many years. We believe that it is wrong to let wealthy corporations manipulate our children's eating habits, particularly to the detriment of their health.
New Democrats want every child in Canada to develop a healthy relationship to nutrition and the foods they consume. We are calling for the establishment of a national school nutrition program to give every student access to healthy, nutritious food and to make healthy eating a daily lesson for our kids.
The data is clear. Numerous studies have found strong associations between increases in advertising of non-nutritious foods and rates of childhood obesity. One study by Yale University found that children exposed to junk food advertising ate 45% more junk food than children not exposed to such advertisements. In Canada, as much as 90% of the food marketed to children and youth on TV and online is unhealthy.
By way of background, there is strong agreement among leading Canadian pediatric and allied health organizations that the impact of food and beverage marketing is real, significant and harmful to children's development. Marketing to children has changed dramatically in the last 10 to 15 years as well. Today, it is a seamless, sophisticated and often interactive process. The line between ads and children's entertainment has blurred with marketing messages being inserted into the places that children play and learn. Three-quarters of children in Canada are exposed to food marketing while using their favourite social media applications.
Canadians are the second-largest buyers of ultraprocessed foods and drinks in the world, second only to, of course, the Americans. To give members an idea of how epidemic this problem is, nearly one in three Canadian children is overweight or obese. The rise in childhood obesity in recent decades is linked to changes in our eating habits. Overweight children are more likely to develop health problems later in life, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure.
Canada's New Democrats, as I have said, have advocated for a ban on unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children for a long time. In 2012, my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby introduced legislation to expressly prohibit advertising and promotion for commercial purposes of products, food, drugs, cosmetics or devices directed to children under 13 years of age. As members can see, this is a much broader prohibition that would protect our children not only from unhealthy food but from being preyed upon by multinational corporations who would take advantage of their youth.
Quebec has prohibited commercial advertising that targets children under the age of 13 since 1980. Other jurisdictions have since adopted similar legislation, including Norway, United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden. Quebec's restrictions on advertising to children have been shown to have a positive impact on nutrition by reducing fast food consumption by 13%. This translates to 16.8 million fewer fast food meals sold in that province and an estimated 13.4 million fewer fast food calories consumed per year. Quebec also has the lowest rates of obesity among five- to 17-year-olds as well as the highest rates of vegetable and fruit consumption in Canada.
In 2016, Senator Nancy Greene Raine introduced the child health protection act that was S-228. That legislation would have banned the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages in a manner that is primarily directed at children under 17 years of age, a higher age than this bill would set. At the House Standing Committee on Health, the Liberals amended Bill S-228 to reduce the age limit from under 17 years old to under 13 years old and they added a five-year legislative review.
Although Bill S-228 passed third reading in both the House and the Senate, unfortunately that bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved for the 2019 federal election. Again, Bill C-252 is similar to that Senate bill, with the following key differences. Again, the current bill would set the age that would prohibit advertising at under 13 years of age, where the Senate bill was under 17 years of age. There is also a change in definition. The current bill says, “no person shall advertise foods and beverages that contribute to excess sugar, saturated fats or sodium in children’s diets in a manner that is directed primarily at persons who are under 13 years of age.” The Senate bill just said, “no person shall advertise unhealthy food in a manner that is directed primarily at children.”
Finally, of course, this bill before us today has, once again, a five-year review that would focus on whether, after this bill became law, there was an increase in the advertising of foods and beverages that contribute to excess sugar, saturated fats or sodium in children's diets in a manner that is directed primarily at persons who are 13 to 16 years of age.
I want to pause for a moment there and make a comment on that. There is a healthy debate on this bill about what the proper age should be set at. Again, the Senate bill was more ambitious and said not to let advertisers advertise to children under 17. This is under 13, and one of the concerns, of course, is that advertisers, who are extraordinarily sophisticated as we are talking about large multinational multi-billion dollar conglomerates that make a lot of money peddling chocolate, sugary beverages, etc., to children, will instead shift and focus their advertising on 14- to 17-year olds. I think this is a healthy way to compromise, by having a study that would monitor it carefully to see if, in fact, that does happen, because if it does then this House could then adjust our legislation in five years on an empirical basis to cure that mischief.
The previous health minister's mandate letter did direct her to “introduce new restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children”. The current health minister's 2021 mandate letter instructed him as well to support “restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children.” The Liberal 2021 platform pledged to “Introduce new restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children and establish new front-of-package labelling to promote healthy food choices.”
We are happy, then, to see this legislation before the House. Unfortunately, it is done through private members' legislation and not, as stated repeatedly in the mandate letters and in the Liberal platform, by the government itself. No matter; as long as it passes, that is what is important. However, it is curious that the current LIberal government has not kept its word in its mandate letters and in its platform, and introduced legislation itself.
Industry organizations, including the Association of Canadian Advertisers, the Canadian Beverage Association, Food and Consumer Products of Canada and Restaurants Canada, have called legislation like this a “significant overreach”. They claim that legislation like this would lead to serious consequences for the economy. On the other side of the coin, Canadian pediatric, child advocacy and other health experts are strong supporters of this bill.
New Democrats want to stand unambiguously on the side of child health and welfare, not corporate profits. We want children to develop a healthy relationship to nutrition and the foods they consume, rather than being manipulated by sophisticated marketing campaigns, especially when it would affect their health.
Over 120 organizations and children's health advocates across Canada have called on the current government to restrict food and beverage marketing to kids. The Stop Marketing to Kids Coalition is governed by 12 steering committee member organizations. They range from the Heart and Stroke Foundation to the Childhood Obesity Foundation, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, Diabetes Canada and Dieticians of Canada.
The pervasive marketing of unhealthy foods is a contributing factor to the growth of childhood and adolescent disease. Sex and gender differences come into play in the design of and responses to these marketing strategies, contributing to the perpetuation of stereotyped behaviour and generating disparities in food choices and health. This particularly hurts girls.
Studies have demonstrated that this intervention, as is presented in this bill, would result in both overall cost savings and improved long-term health outcomes, with the greatest benefits of all to the most socio-economically disadvantaged.
Let us do this for our children.
1529 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/22 3:12:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not getting the care they need in our health care system. This is not surprising. The government has failed to offer real solutions to fix what the Canadian Medical Association is calling an “unprecedented health crisis”. This failure of leadership is paving the way for the Conservatives, who want to privatize health care, putting profits over patients.
Health care workers and Canadians are counting on the federal government to protect their public health care system. When will the Liberals act to rebuild health care in Canada?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 2:49:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, health experts are raising the alarm. According to the Canadian Medical Association, our health care system is collapsing around us. Health care workers are dealing with severe burnout and leaving the profession. Patients are being treated in cars. They wait months for diagnosis and are suffering without care. Despite this, the Liberals are missing in action.
Will the government call an immediate meeting with provinces and territories to address the health care staffing crisis and provide significant, stable and long-term federal funding for health care to Canadians?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 12:28:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to also say what a pleasure it is to sit on the health committee with my hon. colleague from Montcalm. I appreciate his contributions there and in the House.
I absolutely agree with the need to recognize the horrific impact that COVID has had on the Canadian economy and, in particular, industries such as tourism and hospitality. I get letters about that constantly, and I think we absolutely have to have effective measures that are based on public health and only based on rational data and science.
I do agree—
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 12:24:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a very poignant and, I think, foundational point, which is that, when we engage in breaking new ground and experiencing something as unprecedented as a global pandemic, it will raise very difficult public policy issues concerning the rights of individuals versus the protection of public health.
That is why playing politics with a pandemic is so harmful and dangerous. Seeking to exploit an individual sense of grievance and frustration at the risk of public health absolutely ought to be rejected by any right-thinking person in the House and in Canada. We need to find that balance but, first and foremost, we have to always remember that public health rules are meant to protect the public, and we should only craft them, lift them, remove them or put them into place when the science and data supports that, not when politicians such as the Conservatives try to exploit people's frustrations.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 12:22:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree completely. There is really a number of fundamental flaws in this motion before the House today. Again, it assumes that politicians should be making public health policy. I personally do not agree with that. The Conservatives seem to think that should be the case.
Second of all, I believe that the decision should be data-driven and it should be accurate. Again, this motion, as I have pointed out, suffers from a number of inaccuracies, if not outright mistakes.
Finally, I would say that we have been through this before, where we get a temporary lull because of the public health measures and we get case counts coming down, so we prematurely move to relax public health measures. What have we seen? We see a flare-up again. I believe in the prudent, precautionary approach. I personally believe we should be moving very carefully and cautiously for the health of Canadians.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, a very common theme throughout my hon. colleague's speech was concern for seniors, particularly low-income seniors and seniors living in poverty. It is now widely regarded in Canadian society that one of the best ways to deal with poverty is with strong, universal programs, including our public health care system, which means everybody gets access to quality health care regardless of the size of their wallet.
I was quite disturbed to hear the hon. member, on February 7 in the emergency debate on COVID-19, endorse the concept of “opportunities for private delivery” in health care in this country. Does he not agree with me that the last thing anybody in this country needs, including poor seniors, is private health care, which would make health care dependent on the size of their wallet?
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:30:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree very much with my hon. colleague about the importance of the Canada Health Act and federal spending. I also worked for a union for 16 years, so I appreciate her contributions to working people.
However, I must take issue with the member's inaccurate statement that health care is provincial. I am going to read from the Library of Parliament paper on the jurisdiction. It states that “...the Constitution Act, 1867 does not expressly include “health” as a legislative power assigned either to Parliament...or to the provincial legislatures....” The Supreme Court of Canada has not interpreted section 92 as giving provincial legislatures exclusive jurisdiction over health care.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in Schneider v. The Queen, stated:
...“health” is not a matter which is subject to specific constitutional assignment but instead is an amorphous topic which can be addressed by valid federal or provincial legislation, depending in the circumstances of each case on the nature or scope of the health problem in question.
The Schneider decision also says that the national concern doctrine is a basis for a federal health jurisdiction, saying:
...federal legislation in relation to "health" can be supported where the dimension of the problem is national rather than local in nature....
Therefore, when my hon. colleague says that it is not the federal government's business to be in health care, she is constitutionally wrong. Is the member aware that the phrase “health care” does not occur in the Constitution and that the Supreme Court of Canada has said that health care is federal—
272 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises something very important, which is that health policy in this country should and must be driven by data, science and evidence. It should not be driven by political interests or wedge issues. I was very disappointed to see members of the Liberal caucus stand up and accuse the Prime Minister of using the COVID pandemic as a partisan wedge issue. I think members of the Conservative Party, who are flirting with insurrectionists in this country, are also engaging in politicizing this pandemic. Canadians can see that, and this should have nothing to do with how we deal with it.
We need data, and I want to point out, as I said in my speech, that when we do not have enough tests, we do not get an accurate view of how many people are testing positive or negative. When we do not have that data, we cannot create the kinds of public health responses we need, or target them in the right regions or areas, to respond appropriately.
We need to get this legislation passed right away. We need to get testing and every other public health tool into the hands of Canadians as soon as possible.
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
