Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to speak after everyone else. I will be repeating things that others have already said. At least it shows that we are sometimes capable of sharing the same vision and seeing eye to eye—no pun intended.

Every time a bill introduced in the House of Commons has any direct or indirect bearing on health, we are forced to point out that health is the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and that Quebec already has a number of programs specifically addressing eye health. My colleague from Terrebonne discussed this matter at length just now. I will use different words, but essentially, we are saying the same thing. Naturally, there is always room for improvement.

All we can do is once again point out that the funding from Ottawa is not meeting the needs and that the health care transfer agreement that was signed in March 2023 was very far from meeting the real needs of our health care systems. That is an obvious sign that the provinces were forced to sign the transfer agreement. The federal government twisted their arm to get them to sign it. It is so easy for the federal government to achieve its ends, given the ongoing fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provinces. That is exactly what my colleague from Terrebonne was saying.

I would like to remind the House of certain facts. This is too good an opportunity to pass up. Ottawa offered only one-sixth of what the provinces were calling for, or $46.2 billion over 10 years. In Quebec, three ministers pointed out that the federal funding was far below what Quebeckers expected.

Let us not forget that the federal government continues to withhold Quebec's share of the $25 billion that it had promised in the bilateral health agreements. Again, instead of sending that money to Quebec, which already knows its needs in health, the federal government is withholding the money to try to impose its priorities. I want to take advantage of the time I have left to call on the federal government to sign an agreement with Quebec that recognizes asymmetrical federalism and respects Quebec's jurisdictions.

That being said, I will come back to Bill C‑284, which seeks to raise public awareness of eye disease and its treatment, as well as prevention, in order to improve health outcomes for Canadians. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the bill at second reading and we will also vote to pass the bill at third reading. Amendments were made that confirm our position.

In its initial version, the bill called for the Canadian strategy to impose clinical practice guidelines on the provinces. Here again, the federal government wants to lecture us and argues that it can do better. However, it is the professional associations that govern these professions, and they fall under provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec, the Ordre des optométristes du Québec was established under the province's professional code and the Optometry Act. In addition to regulating the profession, the order ensures the quality, practice and continuing education of its members. It stands to reason that clinical practice guidelines cannot be imposed by the federal government. The government acknowledged its mistake and removed that aspect from the bill, thus limiting its jurisdictional encroachments.

The fact remains that item (a) of the content of the strategy remains an irritant, because, as mentioned, training and guidance do not fall under its jurisdiction. I would remind the House of the wording of item (a):

(a) identify the needs of health care professionals for training and guidance on the prevention and treatment of eye disease [including clinical practice guidelines].

This is another attempt to intrude. The training of health care professionals is a matter for Quebec and the provinces. Despite that, and since the term “identify” is not prescriptive and the bill contains some good elements, such as improving the examination of drugs and devices related to eye disease, as well as developing research, we will vote in favour of the bill.

I would like to highlight an important beneficial element of the bill. Point (b) of the eye care strategy mentions promoting research. Quebec is actively involved in ophthalmology research through its universities and hospital network. For example, the Vision Health Research Network, which brings together the Maisonneuve‑Rosemont hospital research centre, the Université de Montréal hospital research centre, as well as seven Quebec universities and several integrated health and social services centres, conducts basic, evaluative and clinical research on eye health.

I am pleased to hear that the strategy will aim to enhance research ecosystems and that Quebec will be able to contribute its talents to tomorrow's advances in eye health, because research is definitely expensive.

In his speech, my colleague from Mirabel talked about how important eye health is. According to the statistics that he quoted from 2019, 1.2 million Canadians suffer from diseases that could lead to vision loss, and 4.1% of those people could become blind. He also pointed out that eight million Canadians suffer from an eye disease that may lead to blindness, and that, for some of these diseases, blindness is preventable. What is more, the health care costs related to these diseases can reach up to $9.5 billion. Let us not forget the social and human costs, either. I could once again talk about the importance of increasing health transfers, but my colleague from Terrebonne gave such a good speech about that and I already spoke about it briefly.

The federal government has a role to play in funding research and approving drugs and devices, for instance. The bill is now generally more respectful of the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

I salute my colleague from Humber River—Black Creek and congratulate her on her bill, because eye care is never a priority. Because it is never a priority, people lose their eyesight. Highlighting this neglected health issue is a major part of this bill and is part of the reason it is so relevant. We have to keep talking about it. As my Conservative colleague mentioned earlier, we live in the screen age. In Quebec, a coalition of experts that created an initiative called Pause Your Screen explains the following on its website:

Prolonged screen use can cause dry eyes (because we blink five times less when looking at a screen), eye strain, blurred vision, headaches, burning, itchy eyes as well as a loss of attention or focus. In the long term, screen use can lead to ocular dryness, fluctuating vision, and photophobia (extreme sensitivity to light), cause or aggravate eye coordination problems, and foster the progression of near-sightedness.

That is a serious problem.

We will now turn our attention to pollution and its effects on eye health. I like to make the necessary connections between pollution and health. A 2021 study reported that researchers had conducted a large-scale project to better understand the development of eye diseases. They found that air pollution can have serious consequences for eye health, especially in terms of age-related macular degeneration. The study was published in the British Journal of Ophthalmology. With tens of thousands of study subjects, it showed that people with higher exposure to air pollution presented higher rates of age-related macular degeneration. We know that air pollution has a significant impact on health. This is yet another reason to reduce CO2 levels and transition to renewable energy sources as quickly as possible.

The bill also designates February as age-related macular degeneration awareness month. That is the name of the disease. As the population ages, the frequency of this disease will increase. Now, we also know that high levels of air pollution will also increase the frequency of this disease.

I will close by saying that if some people remain blind to environmental problems and pollution, then there is a good chance that they will go blind from the CO2 pollution in the air.

Monique Pauzé

$512,513.00