House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 435
CONTENTS
Monday, June 17, 2019
House of Commons Debates
VOLUME 148
NUMBER 435
1st SESSION
42nd PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Monday, June 17, 2019
Speaker: The Honourable Geoff Regan
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Diabetes Awareness Month
The House resumed from May 28 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to engage in this important discussion. In 2014, the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen, along with the University College in London and Novo Nordisk, created the cities changing diabetes program. Its aim is to address the social and cultural factors that increase type 2 diabetes vulnerability among certain people in urban centres. The program now includes partnerships with 20 cities around the world. I am proud to say that Vancouver was Canada's first and only city to become involved, and was one of the first 10 cities globally to join the program.
It is estimated that about 9.4% of Vancouverites are living with diabetes, which is comparable to national incidence rates. However, this overall rate hides who is being most impacted. Vancouver is one of Canada's most socially, ethnically and economically diverse cities, and not all groups are affected by diabetes at the same rates. In Vancouver's more affluent neighbourhoods, diabetes rates are as low as 5%, but in the Downtown Eastside, in my riding of Vancouver East, it is 8%. We also know that indigenous people and people of Chinese and South Asian descent are at a disproportionate risk of developing diabetes.
In December 2017, I wrote to the Minister of National Revenue to express my serious concerns over the Liberal government's mishandling of the disability tax credit. Constituents were dismayed that the Canada Revenue Agency was denying the tax credits to those with insulin-dependent type 1 diabetes. Type 1 diabetes requires ongoing, expensive treatments. It is not uncommon for an individual to be forced to spend upwards of $10,000 a year on various medical devices and insulin. Often, private insurance plans have gaps that lead to it not being covered, or restrictive caps that leave individuals paying large amounts out of pocket.
It is no wonder that the Canadian Diabetes Association found that 57% of Canadians with diabetes say they do not comply with their therapy because they cannot afford the costs of the supplies, devices and medications. The impacts of this are far reaching. Unable to comply with their therapy, it puts people at increased risk of serious health complications. In addition to the human impact, this adds strain to our health care system, as it must deal with completely avoidable emergency interventions. It does not need to be this way.
New Democrats, since the time we won the fight for medicare in this country under Tommy Douglas, believe that our work will not be done until we also have a universal public pharmacare plan. The health and financial impacts of not having a universal public pharmacare plan are as clear as day when we look at the impacts of diabetes in this country. We must also keep in mind that prevention is cheaper than intervention. We know that there are other social policies we can engage in to reduce the risk of people developing diabetes in the first place. These policies will keep Canadians healthier and save our health care system's valuable resources.
Due to the cost of diabetes therapies, it is without question that those unable to comply due to costs are less financially secure. In Vancouver, much of this has to do with the lack of affordable housing. Whether it is kicking the can down the road on funding the national affordable housing plan instead of breaking ground on projects, or avoiding any action on money-laundering schemes that inflate real estate prices, the Liberal government is failing to address the national housing crisis that is acutely severe in Vancouver and in my riding of Vancouver East. Too often, my constituents are forced to choose between paying rent and paying for insulin. This is wrong.
My colleagues, the member for North Island—Powell River and the member for Hochelaga, have tabled bills in this House to take real action to affirm housing as a human right. It is shameful that the Liberal government does not agree. We also know that diet has a significant impact on increasing the risk of developing diabetes and worsening the condition if one is already living with it. Once again, Canadians struggling to make ends meet find themselves less able to have a healthy, well-balanced diet. Food insecurity in low-income areas leave lower-income Canadians struggling to eat well. This creates a third difficult choice for too many residents of Vancouver East, having to choose rent, medicine or food. Again, it does not need to be this way.
My colleague, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, tabled a bill here to address food waste. Again, both the Liberals and Conservatives opposed our efforts. Another colleague, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, tabled a bill to recognize the importance of local food.
The NDP understands the vital role that food security plays in ensuring that Canadians are healthy and able to contribute to their fullest. We need to do more to both recognize and address the roles that housing and food security play in diabetes prevention and maintenance.
The Vancouver Second Mile Society provides health clinics each year which include diabetes testing. They also do great work with their health programs and preventing seniors from living in isolation and poverty. The Vancouver Native Health Society works to provide knowledge and support for food sustenance development and reducing barriers of access to the natural environment and nutritious traditional foods. They also run a medical clinic which offers a diabetes self-management program, a free learning program to help people with type 2 diabetes better manage their symptoms.
Then there is the Vancouver Chinese Diabetes Education Centre, which exists through partnerships with Vancouver Coastal Health and the Chinese Canadian Medical Society BC and is run out of S.U.C.C.E.S.S. The centre is a great resource for individuals with diabetes and their families to learn about diabetes management, its nature and causes, nutrition and meal planning, the role of exercise and medication and self-monitoring. There is also the kitchen program at the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre, and the Chinese Elders Community Kitchen with the Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood House.
REACH Community Health Centre uses a collaborative model that supports elder health and addresses social factors like loneliness and isolation, as these can be detrimental to overall health and wellness.
I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge the incredible work that the neighbourhood houses play, whether it is food programs, cooking clubs or community lunches at the Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House, or the Saige Food Bank and Community Kitchen at Kiwassa Neighbourhood House, to just name a few. Vancouver's neighbourhood houses are vital in efforts to improve the health and well-being of my constituents living with diabetes, and all of my constituents for that matter.
I am proud to stand in the House and support Motion No. 173. I also believe we need to act. We know many avenues where action can be taken; we just need the political will.
Diabetes impacts over three million Canadians every day. Its impacts are far-ranging, because of the range of factors that impact the disease itself. That is why I believe we need to be looking at diabetes through a holistic, intersectional lens. It is exercise, diet and food security, and it is housing security and affordability. It is access to health care, and it is access to affordable prescription drugs. So much of this ultimately comes back to income security and equality.
I think this provides a real launching point to examining big-picture changes to social policy and programming. The prevalence and impact of diabetes in our society is far reaching and requires far-reaching actions. One such action that I think we need to discuss is the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women's call to justice 4.5, which states, “We call upon all governments to establish a guaranteed annual livable income”.
Let us take the opportunity that Motion No. 173 provides us to recognize the interconnectedness of all of this, and let us think big about solutions.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have this opportunity today to rise and speak in favour of Motion No. 173 to create November as diabetes awareness month. People at home might be wondering why I have an opportunity to speak to this motion, given that it is close to the hearts of so many members of Parliament. I am sure they would be interested to know that my own private member's bill was preempted by work that was already being done by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
I have had the opportunity to share my private member's bill with a number of members in the House. The member for Surrey—Newton and I were able to work together to make sure that his Sikh Heritage Month bill made it to the Senate and was passed by both Houses in time for declaration prior to the rising of the House.
I was able to work with the member for Cumberland—Colchester, on a couple of occasions, to make sure that his private member's bill for the repatriation of indigenous artifacts was also able to get through the House and be called into law.
People might be aware that in the last few weeks, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was able to get Bill S-203, on preventing the captivity of whales and dolphins, through the House by my offering my slot to her on one occasion, and with one of the members from the New Democratic Party.
Therefore, when the member for Brampton South asked if I could help with providing an opportunity to get to second reading on her private member's bill, I was more than happy to help.
One of the reasons is that I have a close connection to diabetes in my family. Just over three years ago, my cousin Jimmy Grouchey passed away from complications of type 1 diabetes, alone in his home in Arizona. Both of my parents come from large post-World War II families. My mom had nine siblings growing up, and my dad had four siblings and two half siblings. The family we were closest to were the Groucheys, because we shared a summer home together. We would vacation together in the summertime, where Jimmy, Christina, David, Jennifer, Jon, Dan and I would have a really great time.
People with diabetes have to manage their disease, and certainly when they are living on their own, complications can result. Jimmy was always a go-getter, fun-loving and free-spirited. With the moratorium on the cod fishery, like many Newfoundlanders, he moved abroad to pursue his career. He had different careers, in sociology, as a patent agent, and in 2009, he became a nurse. He worked in North Carolina and then finally in Arizona.
Lack of awareness about this disease and the complications associated with it can be devastating for families. Jimmy passed away from that. He would have turned 50 on Monday of next week. I wanted an opportunity to tell Jimmy's story and share with the House that families can be affected by this. It is not just statistics; they are individuals and families like mine.
Our government recognizes the impact that diabetes has on roughly three million Canadians who live with it and the 200,000 new cases that are diagnosed each year. I would like to thank the member for Brampton South for her work in bringing this forward to the House. It is important to recognize and raise awareness about it.
By having awareness of diabetes front and centre, fewer people will succumb to the complications. Fewer people will allow themselves to get to the point where they develop type 2 diabetes. More people can have access to prevention methods. More people will have access to care. While friends may not be aware that they have type 1 or type 2 diabetes, the month itself will provide an opportunity to have that discussion, to let people know some of the symptoms of someone who might be in an insulin crisis and how to provide them with the help they need.
Our government has been supporting various measures. In 2016-17 alone, we invested $47 million in diabetes research. We recently announced a $30-million partnership with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. There are various members in the House who have helped to coordinate the multi-party caucus that led to this. It is not just those on this side of the House who are in favour of diabetes research.
When the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation comes to the Hill, members from all parties are present to listen to the stories of the ambassadors selected for their work in their cause across the country. It is great to meet those 10-year-olds, eight-year-olds, children of all ages who come from our ridings across the country to Parliament Hill to advocate for their cause. I am happy to participate with members on this side of the House, and I am sure that members from all sides of the House are happy to do so as well.
Also, in partnership with organizations in the private and non-profit sectors, as well as other levels of government, we are testing and scaling up interventions in communities across the country to prevent chronic disease, including diabetes. These interventions focus on common risk factors such as unhealthy eating and on physical activity.
Our government will continue to strongly support healthy living and diabetes prevention, including healthy eating, physical activity and smoking cessation. In thinking about my own health, I remember when the member for Brampton South had an opportunity to encourage some special medical testing on the Hill last year for members of Parliament, through the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.
I had the opportunity to go to this mobile trailer, which provided heart rate monitoring, blood glucose level monitoring and a survey questionnaire, and members of Parliament who had a chance to participate had a deep dive into their health. The results of that were very interesting, and I learned a lot about what I could do to make myself healthier, but also how I could help my kids lead healthier lives as well. They are both far fitter than I am, and when we go jogging they are often about a minute a kilometre ahead of me, but they get me out. We also try to make sure we maintain an appropriate balance of carbohydrates, fats and proteins in our diet. I would like to thank the member for Brampton South for the opportunity to have that extra teaching here on the Hill.
According to the Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System, supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada, over three million Canadians, or 8.6% of the population, have diagnosed diabetes. Diabetes is a chronic disease that occurs when the body loses its ability to produce or to properly use insulin, a hormone that controls blood glucose levels.
Canada is famous for its role in the early work on determining that lack of insulin is the cause of diabetes, as well as treatments to provide insulin to people who are suffering with diabetes so they can have that cure. Canada is the perfect place to recognize November as diabetes awareness month. It is probably long overdue; it probably should have happened at the same time when the cure was found.
I am thankful for the work of the member for Brampton South. I encourage all members of this House to support this private member's motion. It would provide Canada an opportunity to yet again raise public awareness, encourage additional research and funding for diabetes, and remember family members like Jimmy Grouchey, a family member of mine who passed away just over three years ago and who would be turning 50 next week.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 173, which seeks to declare November as diabetes awareness month.
Conservatives support the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Health that Canada implement a national strategy, like the diabetes 360° plan. The Liberals, on the other hand, have rejected the diabetes 360° plan put forward by Diabetes Canada. This is simply shameful. The Liberal government leaves the member's motion as nothing but another empty gesture. In just 10 years, this plan would have helped prevent more than one million cases of type 2 diabetes and saved Canada's health care system and economy billions of dollars.
Eleven million Canadians are currently living with or are at risk of diabetes and pre-diabetes. There are three types of diabetes: type 1, type 2 and gestational diabetes.
Type 1 diabetes is caused by an autoimmune reaction that causes the body to kill its insulin-producing cells. This variation of the disease is still not fully understood. People with type 1 diabetes produce very little or no insulin, causing an abnormal amount of glucose to accumulate in the blood. To keep glucose levels under control, people with type 1 diabetes must administer insulin daily and carefully monitor their lifestyle habits. If those with type 1 diabetes do not have access to insulin, they will die. Between 5% and 10% of people with diabetes possess the type 1 variation.
About 90% of people with diabetes have type 2 diabetes. It is most prevalent in adults, but alarmingly the incidence in children has been on the rise in recent years. Although individuals who develop type 2 diabetes are also genetically susceptible to this condition, it is largely the result of poor nutrition and a lack of physical activity, driven by environmental and socio-economic factors. Type 2 diabetes occurs when blood glucose levels increase because the body does not make enough insulin or cannot properly use the insulin that is produced. Type 2 diabetes can often be prevented by a high-quality diet and by regular physical activity. It can be treated with lifestyle measures with or without medications, including insulin.
Gestational diabetes is a temporary condition that occurs during pregnancy. It affects approximately 2% to 4% of all pregnancies in the non-indigenous population. It involves an increased risk of developing diabetes for both mother and child. Poorly managed gestational diabetes can mean serious health consequences, again for both mother and child.
Many patients take between three and 12 prescription medications and find the cost of equipment and supplies to be in excess of $15,000 a year. For those who require insulin pumps or continuous glucose monitoring, that cost runs to $15,000, in addition to the cost of medicine. Every day, more than 20 Canadians die of complications from diabetes, and 14 have lower limb amputations.
The World Health Organization has called for all countries to implement a national diabetes strategy. Despite having one of the highest diabetes rates in the world, Canada is still without a national strategy.
This motion being brought forward by the member is undercut by Liberal hypocrisy on this issue. Diabetes Canada came up with the diabetes 360° plan to achieve what the World Health Organization was calling for. That plan would have called for 90% of Canadians living in an environment that prevents diabetes; 90% would have been aware of their diabetes status; 90% would have been engaged in preventing complications from their diabetes; and 90% would have had a very strong possibility of achieving improved health outcomes.
Despite committing to support Diabetes Canada, the Liberals again came up short, and they come up short again today, showing just how out of touch they are on issues affecting the health and well-being of Canadians. Not only did the Liberals not support the diabetes 360° plan, but Diabetes Canada asked for $150 million and was left with zero dollars from the current government in budget 2019. We send billions of dollars abroad, yet we refuse to help our own people.
Another failure of the Liberal government on the diabetes file was the rejection of 80% of people living with type 2 diabetes from collecting the disability tax credit to help pay for these costs. When this first came to light, in May 2017, the government maintained that it had not changed the criteria or the process of approval. For months, it denied that anything had changed. However, evidence was finally produced that it had misrepresented the facts. The process had indeed been changed to discount the time spent preparing food. The 80% of individuals who were receiving the credit became the 80% denied.
After repeated Conservative challenges in question period, 58% were subsequently reapproved. However, 42% of them were later denied again, and without notice. The reason the Liberals were so keen to refuse people with diabetes from getting the disability tax credit was that one needs to qualify for the tax credit before one can access the disability pension. Of the folks with type 2 diabetes who were denied the DTC, many had $150,000 accumulated in their pension plan that the Liberals were attempting to claw back. This is unacceptable. The Liberals' out-of-control spending caused them to attempt to victimize the disabled. It is important to support people living with diabetes by making their lives more affordable.
While Conservatives support the proposal to make November diabetes awareness month, we know that Canadians need more than the Liberals' proposed lip service that “a month of recognition” would provide. Canadians living with diabetes need tangible solutions and plans for themselves, their families and loved ones who are suffering from the various variations of this disease. Canadians expect us to be a leader in diabetes awareness, but this will not happen through photo ops and self-congratulation; it will happen only when real solutions, like the diabetes 360° plan, are implemented.
The $150 million requested by Diabetes Canada will save $20 billion in prevention alone, with 770,000 fewer cases of type 2 diabetes, 245,000 fewer hospitalizations for diabetes and an estimated 34,000 fewer lower limb amputations because of this terrible disease. That is a real-world solution that makes common sense.
In conclusion, I believe it is time that the government step up and do what is right and fully implement the plan, as the health committee recommended. Canadians expect the current government to do better. While we will support the motion before us today, we call on the Liberal government to stand up and do the right thing for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians suffering from diabetes.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Motion No. 173 that calls on the government to declare November of each year diabetes awareness month. I will say off the top that I will be supporting this motion.
Most Canadians are unaware of the diabetes crisis facing our country. Raising awareness of this disease is not only important for the health of Canadians, it is important for the fiscal health of our medical system.
I would also like, off the top, to thank my friend Brian Symonds, who, in his retirement, has become a passionate advocate for diabetes issues and has provided me with much of the material I will speak about today.
I want to speak first about the diabetes crisis facing Canada, how we need to reduce the number of Canadians with diabetes and how we can help Canadians suffering from diabetes deal with their medical issues. In particular, I want to mention how a public pharmacare system would not only save Canadians money but save the lives of hundreds of Canadians with diabetes and other diseases who die needlessly every year because they do not have full access to the treatments for this very treatable, but deadly, disease.
As has been mentioned by others, Canada has a strong history in the world of diabetes. It is very much a good news/bad news story. We all know the story of Frederick Banting and Charles Best, who, with their colleagues James Collip and James Macleod, discovered insulin in a University of Toronto lab in 1921. That discovery revolutionized the treatment of diabetes worldwide and remains among the most celebrated medical discoveries in Canadian, or even world, history. Diabetes was formerly a death sentence for young people who developed the disease, but with insulin treatments, now they can look forward to long, normal and productive lives.
We are on the eve of the centenary of that discovery, and you would think that we would be able to celebrate that centenary with pride. Unfortunately, the scourge of diabetes is in many ways far worse than it was 100 years ago. The number of Canadians with diabetes has doubled in the last 20 years. Right now, one in three Canadians either has diabetes or has a high risk of developing it. It is an epidemic. If someone is 20 years old in Canada, the chance of developing diabetes in one's lifetime is 50%. For first nations people, that risk is 80%.
The health care costs for diabetes will top $40 billion by 2029. That is in 10 years. Thirty percent of strokes in Canada are the direct result of diabetes. It is the leading cause of blindness in Canada. Forty percent of heart attacks in Canada are a direct result of diabetes. Fifty percent of kidney failures, resulting in a lifetime of dialysis, are directly related to diabetes complications, as are 70% of foot and leg amputations.
Diabetes reduces the lifespan of people by five to 15 years. About 7,000 Canadians die each year as a direct result of diabetes. They die needlessly. We know how to cure this. We invented it. It is a highly treatable disease. A friend of mine, a young indigenous man, died in his twenties because of the complications of diabetes. This does not need to happen, so what do we have to do?
I think, first of all, as the member for Thornhill just stated, we have to listen to Diabetes Canada, the organization that promotes awareness and research on diabetes in this country. They have a well-researched, detailed plan called diabetes 360° that could dramatically reduce our rates of diabetes and reduce the significant impacts it has on the health of Canadians. It will cost money, but that investment will repay itself a hundred times over in savings to our health care system.
The goals of diabetes 360° are that 90% of Canadians live in an environment that preserves wellness and prevents the development of diabetes, 90% of Canadians are aware of their diabetes status, 90% of Canadians living with diabetes are engaged in appropriate intervention, and 90% of Canadians engaged in interventions are achieving improved health outcomes.
I want to pause here for a moment and talk about the medical nature of diabetes.
There are two main types of diabetes. Type 1 diabetes usually presents early in life. The pancreas stops producing insulin, and patients are unable to automatically manage the sugars in their system. With access to insulin and proper monitoring of blood sugar levels, patients can live normal, long, productive lives.
Type 2 diabetes usually presents later in life. It results from prolonged high blood sugar levels affecting the pancreas and suppressing the production of insulin. An individual who is overweight and has high blood pressure has an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes. It can often be treated effectively with better diet and more exercise, but it also requires careful monitoring of blood sugar levels and access to insulin.
Let me get back to what we can do. The obvious place to attack diabetes is to prevent people from getting type 2 diabetes. We need more community programs to coach Canadians to live healthier lives, to have healthy diets and to exercise regularly.
We also need to ensure that Canadians know their diabetes status. Many Canadians have diabetes today but do not know it. They are at a high risk of developing diabetes and do not know it. Early treatment, combined with a change in lifestyle, can prevent the medical complications of diabetes and allow many patients to control the condition without relying on insulin.
For those who need medication, we need to ensure that they have free access to insulin. As the member for Thornhill said, it costs thousands of dollars a year to access insulin.
Canadians need free access to the medical monitoring devices that help them manage their condition. That could prevent 35,000 hospitalizations each year in Canada. The truth is, many people simply cannot afford the ongoing monitoring costs faced by diabetics. Their doctors ask them to monitor their blood sugar levels twice a day, but their medical plan only covers one check a day, so they do only one check a day. That results in complications, medical problems and hospitalizations. That risk could see them falling unconscious due to low blood sugar. It could result in the loss of nerve function in their feet, or even amputation. They could lose their jobs. A friend of mine was an airline pilot, one of the most prestigious jobs in this country, and he lost that job for life when he developed type 2 diabetes.
Many other countries in the world have developed programs that tackle diabetes from all angles. They have been proven to be both medically effective and cost-effective. We could save lives and money at the same time.
That brings me to the issue of pharmacare: comprehensive, universal and public pharmacare.
The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions produced a report that found that 57% of diabetics reported failing to adhere to their prescribed therapies due to the fact that they just could not afford them.
According to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, 830 young and middle-aged diabetics in Ontario die each year because of poor access to insulin. That could dramatically change if all Canadians had access to the medicines they need, but they do not. Canada is the only country with a universal health care plan that does not include free access to prescribed medications. Ten to 20% of Canadians report not filling their prescriptions because they simply cannot afford the cost.
Canada should be proud of its history in the treatment of diabetes, with the discovery of insulin, but right now, we are at the bottom of the pack when it comes to prevention and treatment and are at the bottom when it comes to hospitalizations and needless deaths. We need to turn this trend around.
Simple awareness of the depth of the diabetes crisis is a start. I support this motion wholeheartedly, but we need real government leadership and investment in community health programs and public pharmacare to make a real difference in the health of Canadians. We need the government to listen to Diabetes Canada and to implement diabetes 360°. We can do this. We must do this.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to offer the government's support for Motion No. 173, brought forward by my colleague, the member for Brampton South. I would also like to commend the member for her dedicated work on this important public health issue. She has been a tireless advocate and has ensured that diabetes and the work that needs to be done remains top of mind for all of us. She introduced a motion at the Standing Committee on Health to study this issue, which resulted in a very substantial report from that committee, and now she has brought forward this motion.
Motion No. 173 would declare November of each year diabetes awareness month. This would be another example of Canada showing leadership in helping those with diabetes. This is leadership that dates back to the discovery of insulin almost 100 years ago by Dr. Frederick Banting, from my home town of London, Ontario, and Dr. Charles Best.
Support for Motion No. 173 would also complement the recognition of November 14 as World Diabetes Awareness Day, which already takes place in Canada. A diabetes awareness month would create more awareness and understanding among all Canadians about this disease, what it is, how is can be prevented and how it can be managed.
Diabetes is a serious chronic disease that can hamper a person's ability to fully participate in the economic and social life of Canada. If left uncontrolled, all three forms of diabetes can lead to serious complications, and for some, premature death.
There are three types of diabetes. Type 1 is not preventable. Gestational diabetes, which occurs in pregnant women, usually disappears after delivery, although it does lead to an increased risk of developing diabetes later in life.
Close to 90% of diabetes cases in Canada are type 2, which is preventable. It is why a diabetes awareness month could have a great impact from an awareness and education perspective. Through greater awareness, we could help stop type 2 in its tracks. This would include drawing greater attention to how Canadians can address the risk factors for diabetes, including physical activity, unhealthy eating, tobacco use and harmful use of alcohol.
It is important to recognize that it can be challenging for some to address these risk factors for diabetes. They are often tied to issues such as income, education and the social and physical environments in which a person lives. These issues can result in a person having more difficulty accessing and affording healthy foods or undertaking regular physical activity.
The government support for Motion No. 173 aligns with recommendations from Diabetes Canada's diabetes 360° plan to promote healthier environments. It also complements this recommendation put forth by my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Health:
explore options to improve public awareness and education on diabetes, particularly through community programming, including public awareness of the relationship between nutrition and diabetes
Over three million Canadians, or 8.6% of the population, have diagnosed diabetes. Some population groups have higher rates of diabetes than others, including men, first nations and Métis people, people of African and South Asian descent and people with lower income and education levels.
Healthy eating has a significant impact on the health of Canadians and on the health care system. It contributes to obesity and to the onset of chronic diseases like diabetes.
Also challenging is that Canada's food environment can make it difficult for some Canadians to make healthy eating the easy choice. Less than half our teenagers report eating enough fruits and vegetables. First nations children living off reserve and Inuit and Métis children experience higher levels of food insecurity than non-indigenous children. Preliminary studies are also starting to show that the risk of Inuit developing type 2 diabetes has increased significantly in recent years.
The Government of Canada has been taking action through our healthy eating strategy. Led by Health Canada, the government has strengthened nutrition labelling on food products and has eliminated industrial-produced trans fats in foods.
The launch of the new Canada food guide, which is based on scientific evidence and facts, not only proposes a wide range of nutritious foods for Canadians but emphasises that healthy eating is more than just the foods one eats. It promotes lifelong healthy eating habits by encouraging people to prepare healthy foods at home and to eat together and it offers creative resources to help Canadians do so.
The government is also investing in promising community-based partnerships through the Public Health Agency of Canada's program called promoting healthy living and preventing chronic disease through the multi-sectoral partnerships. Funding delivered through this program has leveraged additional investment from non-taxpayer resources, which has enabled the government to increase the reach and impact of its funding. Funded projects, such as farm to school: Canada digs in; kid food nation; and APPLE schools are helping Canadian youth and children to eat better by building their food literacy skills and to have fun while learning.
The government is also investing in FoodFit, which provides low-income adults with hands-on food skills, tips for preparing affordable and nutritious meals, group physical activity and goal-setting to help participants eat well and lead healthier lifestyles.
Finally, our food policy for Canada sets out a vision that will help Canadians and the communities in which they live access food that is healthy, affordable, culturally appropriate and locally produced. This includes support for food security in northern and indigenous communities and support to reduce food waste.
Diabetes awareness month would also be an excellent opportunity to promote and reinforce efforts to get Canadians to move more and sit less. While Canadian adults report being more active now than in the previous decade, we know Canadians still are not getting enough physical activity. Only 18% of Canadian adults are meeting the 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity guideline per week, or the equivalent to biking for a little over 20 minutes a day. As well, only 40% of children and youth are meeting their recommended 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day. Of them, girls are less active than boys.
The government recognizes that we cannot solve the issue of getting Canadians more physically active alone. In June 2018, the government joined the provinces and territories in releasing a report entitled “A Common Vision for Increasing Physical Activity and Reducing Sedentary Living in Canada: Let's Get Moving”. Federal, provincial and territorial governments and a wide range of organizations and partners worked together to develop this policy framework. The common vision is catalyzing efforts across Canada at national, provincial, territorial and local levels to put in place actions to help Canadians get more physically active.
Through budget 2018, $25 million over five years is being invested to support Participaction to increase participation in daily physical activity among Canadians through the Let's Get Moving initiative. Participaction is working with governments, communities and organizations from other sectors to change social norms through long-term and coordinated public education and engagement to increase physical activity. I recently participated in the community better challenge, run by Participaction, to identify Canada's most physically active community.
Another project funded through this program, which will help get Canadian girls moving more, is FitSpirit Healthy Lifestyles for Teen Girls. This eight eight-to-10-week training program for girls empowers them to adopt healthy lifestyle habits and to celebrate the completion of the program by collectively completing a five-kilometre running challenge.
In her 2017 report entitled “Designing Healthy Living”, the chief public health officer of Canada highlighted that how we design and build where we live, work, study and play is key to improving physical and mental health for all.
With this objective in mind, the Public Health Agency of Canada has invested in projects such as Housing for Health. Housing for Health will combine improvements to neighbourhoods in cities with health promotion programming and encourage community engagement to increase physical activity, healthy eating and social interaction among residents in their communities. This project is an excellent example of how partners from diverse sectors can work together to encourage active and healthy living.
In closing, the government believes that recognizing diabetes awareness month would benefit all Canadians. It would help to increase awareness about this chronic disease, which can help reduce the stigma attached to those living with it.
I would like to again thank the member for Brampton South for sponsoring the motion in the House, and I am thankful for the opportunity to show the government's support for it today.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today for the last time in the 42nd Parliament of Canada to speak to Motion No. 173, which was moved by my hon. colleague from Brampton South. The motion says that November should be diabetes awareness month. I would like to congratulate my colleague on her work.
Although Canada has always promoted health care and health care developments and worked hard to improve Canadians' health—which we are all proud of—there is still a lot of work to do. Diabetes is a chronic disease resulting from an individual's inability to produce enough insulin or use it properly. There is no known cure.
The two most common types of diabetes are type 1, which requires daily insulin injections, and type 2, which can be managed with proper diet, exercise and medication.
According to the International Diabetes Federation, 425 milion people around the world have diabetes. It is a veritable pandemic, as the incidence of the disease is increasing considerably. The World Health Organization estimates that 622 million people will have diabetes by 2040. In 2015, diabetes caused five million deaths worldwide. Furthermore, diabetes kills one person every six seconds globally, which is more than AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
The Public Health Agency of Canada has put out the following statistics: every eight minutes, someone in Canada is diagnosed with diabetes; one in four Canadians lives with diabetes or prediabetes; and 200,000 new cases are diagnosed every year. What is even more frightening about these statistics is the fact that diabetes can lead to other health-related complications including cardiovascular disease, kidney failure, nerve damage, vision loss and depression. These are all conditions that present challenges for those living with diabetes as well as their families, their communities and our health care system. On top of that, most Canadians who have diabetes have no idea they have it.
It is also important to note that Canada has the highest prevalence of diabetes in the world for reasons that are yet unknown. If current trends hold, one in three Canadians will have diabetes by 2020. Given the growing concern about health in Canada and my many years of experience working as a nurse, I share the hon. member's vision and understand the importance of having a diabetes awareness month. This month will have a significant impact. It will help in detecting the first signs of diabetes, preventing its onset for millions of Canadians and, most importantly, it will reaffirm Canada's commitment to fighting the prevalence of this increasingly common disease.
Canada has always been a leader in the fight against diabetes. However, despite our efforts, strategies and policies, the quality of data on diabetes monitoring in Canada clearly show that more effective approaches are essential and needed, now more than ever. The prevalence of diabetes has increased considerably over the past decade, which further increases the threat of this chronic disease.
At a time when rapid strides are being made in science, medicine and health care, Canada has the financial, scientific and technological resources to fund and develop new strategies and carry out research that will lead to groundbreaking discoveries. We have the means to make more of those discoveries.
I strongly believe that one of the key strategies for fighting this disease is prevention through education. In other words, we need to invest more in raising awareness of how serious this disease is and how it is linked to unhealthy lifestyles, reflecting strong support for government measures. This would stop diabetes from spreading further in Canada.
The president of the International Diabetes Federation, Professor Nam Cho, says that the most economical, effective and efficient way to solve diabetes-related problems, from prevention to intervention, morbidity and mortality, is through education.
That is exactly what creating a diabetes awareness month would do. It would be a great way to continue the discussion and would provide a tool for educating Canadians, promoting awareness, helping diabetics manage their own condition effectively and highlighting the message that every person with diabetes deserves the best information and the best care.
As a former nurse, I know how powerful health education can be, and I strongly believe that raising awareness of diabetes, enhancing education and improving knowledge on how to control and treat it will minimize the risk of complications. That will reduce morbidity and mortality among diabetics.
Secondly, establishing a diabetes awareness month would not just help Canadians; it would help us as well. It would enable the federal government to give more thought to the areas where increased efforts are required and to identify sectors for which we could provide more effective programs and policies.
Establishing a diabetes awareness month would encourage all levels of government to work together to ensure that Canadians get the care they need and can enjoy a better quality of life because of what we have done. That is why the following message regarding Motion No. 173 is so important: in partnership with private sector organizations, non-profits and other levels of government, we are testing and broadening the scope of the measures being taken in communities across the country to prevent chronic illnesses, including diabetes.
Listening to communities and working with other levels of government, partners and stakeholders will result in improved information and data quality as well as relevant and accessible programs. This will ultimately improve the health of all Canadians.
Diabetes is a disease that can affect anyone, and I am very concerned that some 44% of Canadians with diabetes do not even realize they have it. This chronic disease can cause alarming symptoms, which vary from person to person and should never be ignored. Symptoms include anxiety, confusion, concentration problems and visual field anomalies.
It is nevertheless important to recognize that although diabetes is incurable, it is treatable. We will save lives by educating Canadians about diabetes, disease prevention and healthy lifestyle choices and by providing further education on the symptoms and long-term complications of diabetes.
In closing, I want to express my strong support for this motion, because I know that promoting a diabetes awareness month will have a significant impact and will help us improve the lives and health of many Canadians.
[English]
Resuming debate. Accordingly, I invite the hon. member for Brampton South for her right of reply. The hon. member has up to five minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member from St. John's East for the support he has provided for this important motion, Motion No. 173. He is also a great advocate for this issue.
When I introduced Motion No. 173 to make November of every year diabetes awareness month, my goal was to raise national awareness of this disease and its complications as an important first step leading to its prevention and elimination.
I want to thank my hon. colleagues in the House for their support on this issue which affects so many Canadians. The numbers are staggering and I am saddened every time I repeat them, but it is important to summarize them.
Over 11 million Canadians live with diabetes or prediabetes. A new case is diagnosed every three minutes and 90% of these cases are type 2, which means it can be prevented through better awareness, education and lifestyle changes.
I know this first-hand from my many years as a health care professional before I got into politics in my hometown of Brampton, Ontario; from the many experts I have heard from in Parliament, serving on the Standing Committee on Health; and as a chair of the all-party diabetes caucus.
Diabetes is the cause of 30% of strokes, 40% of heart attacks, 50% of kidney failure requiring dialysis and 70% of non-traumatic lower-limb amputations. This is the harsh reality. In the Peel region alone, the rate of diabetes more than doubled between 1996 and 2015.
The general public remains unaware that elevated levels of blood glucose are associated with long-term damage to the body and the failure of various organs and tissues. Diabetes can result in short-term and long-term complications, many of which, if not prevented and left untreated, can be fatal. All have the potential to reduce the quality of life of people with diabetes and their families. This condition has a number of long-term complications that have serious consequences.
It is very possible to control certain risk factors for type 2 diabetes, including making healthy lifestyle choices like eating well, exercising and reaching and maintaining a healthy weight. For individuals with prediabetes, medication can also help prevent the development of type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications.
Maintaining a healthy lifestyle and a healthy weight, together with medication to control blood sugar levels and vascular risk factors, are common cornerstones of diabetes management. It is possible to reduce human suffering from this disease, such as amputation through prevention, aggressive management of existing diabetes and the provision of the right education for people with diabetes and health care professionals.
Diabetes awareness month in November would serve as an important reminder of the increasing national incidence of diabetes and the significant human, social and economic costs of billions of dollars that it brings. It would be a time to alert Canadians to the fact that diabetes is a serious condition that is presently underestimated with respect to its frequency, cost and impact on quality of life. That is why I am proposing Motion No. 173 to make November of every year diabetes awareness month.
In recent years, the OECD has ranked Canada 15th out of 17 peer countries on diabetes mortality. We can and must do better.
I have had the chance to visit Banting House, the former home of the great Canadian physician and researcher Sir Frederick Banting, whose discovery of insulin was a game-changer in the treatment of diabetes for patients in Canada and around the world. Outside of Banting House, there is a flame that burns in recognition of the ongoing challenges that face each one of us. Until this disease is defeated, the flame will not be extinguished.
I know this is possible only if we work together in a non-partisan manner. I respectfully ask each and every one of my hon. colleagues from all parties to support Motion No. 173 to help defeat diabetes through awareness.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 28, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 19, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
[English]
Corrections and Conditional Release Act
Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion
That, in relation to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the Senate amendments stage of the said bill; and
That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will be a 30-minute question period. I ask hon. members who wish to participate in the 30 minutes to rise so I can get an indication of how many want to speak.
As is the usual case, I ask hon. members to keep their interventions to approximately one minute. That will allow all members who wish to speak the opportunity to do so. Members can be recognized more than once. I remind hon. members that most of the question time in the 30 minutes is reserved for opposition members. However, members from the government side are certainly welcome to participate as well.
We will begin now with questions. The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Mr. Speaker, in 2015, the government said that it would do things differently, that it would respect Parliament and would move away from motions that did not allow appropriate time for debate.
I want to point out something very unique and interesting about this bill. It took you, Mr. Speaker, approximately 11 minutes to read the amendments to the bill. Within four minutes of debate, the government gave notice of a motion of closure. Not many speakers had the opportunity to debate the bill before that.
How is this consistent with the promises the minister made in 2015 to do things differently?
Mr. Speaker, we have arrived at the stage of debate where there is now an opportunity for the House to respond to the work that was done in relation to this legislation by the Senate. In other words, the bill has had a thorough debate in the House. It has passed through all the stages in the House. It has had extensive committee hearings. It has gone to the Senate and has been reviewed there. The Senate has considered the legislation, made a number of amendments and sent the bill back to the House with those amendments.
The point is that this is a very advanced stage of debate. We are not beginning with the bill in its raw form; we are beginning with the bill at a very advanced stage. Therefore, members have had extensive opportunity to debate, consider and in fact make amendments.
The point of contention between the House and the Senate is the independent review process that was crafted by the House. Therefore, we are defending the position that was taken by the House on the very important question of how there could be proper review and oversight of the correctional system.
Mr. Speaker, I am so saddened, as I think most Canadians are, that every day the Liberals continue to repudiate all the commitments they made back in 2015 to work with members of the House of Commons, to stop omnibus legislation and to stop the abuse of the use of closure.
As the House knows, the government has gone far beyond the previous government's abuse of closure by bringing in a new “gag” closure that allows only 20 minutes of discussion after it is moved and only one member of the government gets to speak. Members of the opposition do not get to ask questions, make comments or anything of that nature. It shows how toxic the government has become with respect to trying to move legislation through the House and get it improved so the legislation does what it purports to do.
In the case of Bill C-83, the NDP offered dozens of amendments, because the bill has been largely criticized by the Elizabeth Fry Societies and many other intervenors. We brought forward the witness testimony and said it would improve the bill. The government refused all of that.
Is that not the reason why the government is ramming it through today, because it is a controversial bill that has been much criticized and the government refused to listen to all the witnesses and members of the opposition who tried to make improvements?
Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I have to disagree with the hon. gentleman.
First, he was critical of omnibus legislation. This is not omnibus legislation. It is legislation pertaining specifically to the correctional service and is focused upon one piece of legislation, not a number of different bills.
Second, he was concerned about what he called a “gag” order or the closure procedure. This is not a closure procedure. This is time allocation, which is qualitatively different from what he was criticizing.
Third, I would point out that amendments to the legislation have been welcomed and accepted from all parties in the House and indeed by the Senate as well.
Therefore, this is not a peremptory approach. There has been a huge amount of debate and a lot of input. That input has been weighed very carefully and a great deal of it has been accepted.
Mr. Speaker, this morning proves that the Liberals will do anything and say anything to get elected. In the last election, they promised they were not going to use closure motions as often as we had in the last parliament. They are also saying that they are not going to raise taxes after the next election, even though their spending is way out of control.
There has only been four minutes of debate on this bill prior to this closure motion being moved. Does the minister think that is appropriate?
Mr. Speaker, there have been many hours and days of debate in consideration of the legislation through all the stages in the House of Commons and in the Senate. We are now at the point of responding to the Senate's recommendations. It is not as if the debate was just beginning today or four minutes ago. In fact, the motion that was moved by the House leader provided for five more hours of debate on the specific question of how the House would respond to the recommendations made by the Senate.
This is not a closure motion, it is time allocation and it follows the full length of parliamentary procedure through both the House of Commons and the Senate, where many worthy suggestions have been made, a lot of very well-informed debate has taken place and many amendments have been accepted. We are now into the final stages of that discussion where it is appropriate for the House to take a decision and to vote.
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a great deal of concern in regard to the process of things. We have seen member after member stand up on a wide variety of pieces of legislation. Even when I was in opposition, at times we need to use this tool in order to advance legislation. We could see opposition members debating things indefinitely, unless either the tool of time allocation is used or the opposition is prepared to allow the debate to come to an end.
I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the matter that time allocation is a tool that is necessary at times, that we have seen New Democrats and Conservatives support time allocation, and that this is not outside the norm.
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is quite right. There are occasions when such procedures are perfectly appropriate, and that is especially the case when we are into the final days of a Parliament. We all know what the parliamentary calendar is, and it is important for key measures to be approved by Parliament while the time remains for that work to get done.
I would point out that the matters at issue in this legislation are also before a number of courts in this country where the courts have set a deadline. They have indicated that Parliament has an obligation to take certain decisions one way or the other, to make up their minds and vote, so that certain situations pertaining in the correctional system can be corrected. If Parliament is not able to take those decisions in a timely way, that could in fact throw the system into chaos. Therefore, because of the court proceedings, it is also important for Parliament to be timely in bringing this legislation to a conclusion.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately here we go again. We see time allocation being moved by the current government. The Liberals have been lax throughout this Parliament. They are coming down to the last few days of Parliament and we see this modus operandi of the government to start pushing debates and halting debate to get this legislation through regardless.
Again, it is not simply that the Liberals are invoking this measure; this is the measure they said they would not be invoking. This is the measure on which the current Prime Minister stood and said it is the kind of thing that Canadians lose confidence in a government on, and that the Liberals would not do this kind of thing. It is exactly what we have seen more and more, especially in the last few weeks.
The parliamentary secretary said that this prevents a filibuster by the government, and debate and debate and debate. We have had four minutes at this stage to even talk about this. Canadians expect that when issues like this come through, good healthy debate takes place here and it has not. Neither has consultation. I have a penitentiary in my riding. Not only is it the well-being and safety of offenders that Canadians question, but also of the guards and the correctional officers.
There are two points. We have legislation that needs to be debated and we have another promise broken by the current government as to time allocation.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman brought up the issue of consultation because, as always, we try our very best to consult with all of those who have a stake in the decisions that are made with respect to our public safety systems in this country.
A couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to attend the triennial meeting of the major union that represents correctional officers who work at the various institutions across this country, including the one in the hon. gentleman's riding. That national meeting of the union was held in Calgary. It was very well attended by correctional officers all over the country. We had the opportunity to discuss this specific legislation. It was clear from that discussion that the union representatives were anxious to see legislation of this nature proceed because it is needed for the safety of the officers, the inmates and the other members of the public who attend from time to time within the correctional system. Indeed, that consultation has taken place.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the minister, I do understand the difference between a closure motion and time allocation. I realize that the government is allocating time for this.
The major issue, though, is the fact that on Friday Bill C-83 had proceeded with only four minutes of debate when the government House leader rose in the House to give notice that time allocation was going to be moved. I understand that this bill is at a relatively advanced stage, however, it is tradition that this House, the people's House, the representatives of each of these ridings get to have the time to carefully consider what the other place has done.
When I put what the government's actions are with respect to Bill C-83 within the context of what it did on Thursday with all of the other government bills, I think the pretense of any respect for Parliament has completely evaporated. Right now, the government is quite obvious. It has a week left, it has a checklist, and is it going to use its majority to simply ram through every piece of legislation, no matter what members of the opposition might have to say on it, despite the fact that on this side of the House, our parties, collectively, represent roughly 60% of the Canadian populace.
Mr. Speaker, once the discussion about time allocation has concluded, members will have five additional hours of debate to consider this stage, which is on top of all of the stages in the Senate, which was on top of all of the previous stages in the House of Commons.
There has been extensive opportunity to examine the details of this legislation. In particular, the portions of the legislation that are subject to the advice and recommendations coming from the Senate are the portions of the legislation which this House and the committee examined in detail, and made extensive changes and improvements to during the course of the parliamentary committee's work.
It is not as if this is a new subject that suddenly has been sprung upon the House of Commons or upon the public safety and national security committee of the House. The House examined this in detail, and in fact renovated these provisions in detail. It was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, who was not in that role at that time but who was a member of the public safety committee who moved those extensive amendments, which were then debated in the House and adopted in detail by the House.
There has been very careful, conscientious attention given to this issue by members of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It is over 100 times now that the government has used closure or has limited the amount of debate we can have any time on these bills.
This stands in stark contrast to what the minister used to say when he was in the third party. The member for Winnipeg North used to stand and holler every time there was a closure motion or anything to limit the debate we were having on any motions before the House.
We only had four minutes on Friday to start the debate on the amendments that were proposed by the Senate. I still have to go back and talk to my UCCO members who work at Stony Mountain Institution in my riding to ensure that the health and safety provisions that are in the bill are going to be properly enforced and how that is going to occur. They still have those questions.
However, because the Liberals are stifling debate here in the House, I will not have the time to go and consult, and discuss this with UCCO members and with penitentiary staff on how this will impact our riding and how it is going to impact the care and incarceration of those who are currently serving sentences.
There are still so many questions out there. The hypocrisy that we are seeing from the Liberals continues to amaze all of us, because when they were in the third party, they used to scream and holler at the top of their lungs every time the previous government tried to do this.
Mr. Speaker, while I may have spoken vigorously when I was a member of the opposition on issues of this kind, I do not think it is fair to describe it as screaming and hollering. It was passion.
In relation to this legislation and the important question the hon. gentleman makes with respect to the UCCO union, the point that they made was really twofold in the consultation. Number one, there needed to be a system whereby when it was necessary, inmates could be separated from one another in the interests of public safety. They wanted to ensure that that kind of a system would be available to maintain safety within the institution. This legislation does that.
Secondly, they wanted to be sure that the resources would be there for the mental health services and the other correctional services that would be necessary to make this legislation effective. I am pleased to confirm that the Minister of Finance has made that funding available in the last fall update and in the spring budget. A total of $450 million has been made available for the implementation of this legislation to meet what the UCCO union suggested was absolutely essential for success.
Mr. Speaker, I too am disturbed about the fact that the government is using this tactic bringing either time allocation or closure to this House on government bills. This would be the 76th time that the government has embarked on this since I have been here.
This is the end of our term but I am still a new member of Parliament. I still recall that in the 2015 election the Liberal members advocated for and promised Canadians that they would not embark on a process like the Harper government of shutting down debate in this House to put in time allocation or closure. Here we are, yet again, doing exactly that. Last week, the government moved a similar motion twice in one day on different bills.
I would say this to the minister. Will the Liberals not follow up on what they promised Canadians in the 2015 election and stand down on this motion?
Mr. Speaker, let me once again point out that what we are beginning here is not the end of the debate but another five hours of debate on this very topic. There will be five more hours of debate, in addition to all of the debate that has taken place in the Senate, in addition to all three stages that were dealt with earlier in the House, plus extensive committee hearings by both the Senate and the House of Commons.
The opportunity to discuss in detail has, in fact, been very considerable. I congratulate all members on this side, on the opposition side and in the other place, who have participated in this discussion about Bill C-83 in a very fulsome way.
I would also point out this timing consideration. As I said earlier, there are several outstanding court cases pertaining to the use of administrative segregation in the Canadian correctional system. Those court cases date back to 2015. They have come to decisions in the last number of months, which have imposed upon the government and Parliament an obligation to consider the matters and make decisions in a timely way. We are up against those deadlines now, so it is simply not possible and it certainly would not be responsible to ignore the deadlines that have been imposed by the courts. Otherwise, we are inviting chaos in the correctional system.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a couple of questions to the minister on this time allocation motion.
He has stated numerous times in the last few minutes of debate that there will be another five hours of debate.
I would like to ask the minister this. Has he confirmed with his government House leader that there will be no closure declared on that debate, similar to what the government did on Bill C-69 last week? It closed off debate on that. It closed off discussion on Bill C-69 at the committee stage when there were hundreds of amendments, hundreds even from their own Liberal Party on their own poorly drafted bill. The government closed off debate. It does it time and time again, because it simply does not want to hear the truth.
Will the minister confirm again that there will be no closure and there will be five hours of debate on this bill?
Mr. Speaker, those are indeed the terms of the motion put before the House by the government House leader, and as soon as we adopt that motion, the five hours are written into the procedures of the House.
Mr. Speaker, my question is with regard to the bill and its importance for the corrections system. We had rigorous debate during committee hearings. A number of significant, not minor, changes were made at committee. The Senate has also made some changes to it. My understanding is that the only thing we are debating when the bill comes back is the Senate amendments. We have had rigorous debate on the bill itself. It has received support from the parole officers union and from the correctional officers union, which recognize the importance of getting this legislation done due to court challenges.
Could the minister speak about the importance of this legislation and what we are actually debating here?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, as well as all members who served on SECU and all the senators in the other place who have been debating this legislation. It has been given very conscientious attention, amended many times and improved in the process. We are now in the final stages of sorting out the last of the amendments to finalize the bill.
The issue is simply this. When we abolish the long-standing practice of administrative segregation, as this legislation does, and replace that with specific units within the correctional system that can provide the capacity to separate people when necessary but ensure that their programming, mental health services, counselling and other treatments continue nonetheless, when we establish that new system to replace administrative segregation, the question is what kind of oversight we need to ensure that all the rules are being properly followed by the Correctional Service of Canada.
The Senate has made one set of proposals. The legislation includes a different set of proposals. Indeed, we believe that the procedures in the legislation, with proposals put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, are the correct ones. Our response to the Senate is to thank senators very much for their very hard work, but to defend the amendments that were made by the House.
Mr. Speaker, this is terminology that the hon. gentleman likes to use quite often in the House. I count eight substantive amendments that the government is accepting or has modified from the Senate. The minister said that the government has considered this and is satisfied with it, and therefore it is moving time allocation, which provides us with only five hours.
Several members who have penitentiaries in their ridings have risen on our side of the House. They would like to go back to their constituents and get their opinion on this, and I would like to go back to former prison guards who live in my riding. However, today we are being told there are five more hours and that is it.
The member for Peace River—Westlock mentioned this was four minutes at this stage of debate. How many members can speak in four minutes? Very few could provide substantive feedback. The time allocation being moved today by the government is shutting down debate. I have seen this time and again, both at standing committees of the House and on other legislation.
I spoke to Bill C-83 before and mentioned all my concerns and worries that constituents had explained to me over the distinct sections and technicalities of the bill. The issue now is that, with only five hours left, it gives us literally no time to return to our constituents to get their feedback on these eight substantive amendments.
Mr. Speaker, if this were a brand new topic that had never been introduced in the House before, it would present a challenge to deal with all of the detail within five hours, but this is a topic that has been amply debated in the House, in the Senate and now back in the House again.
It is time, in light of the very pressing court decisions that are outstanding, for the House to conclude the debate and take a final vote, knowing very clearly, already on the record, what the important views are, for example, of the correctional officers union, which has been very clear in its position, wanting to see Bill C-83 accepted by the government and by Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier and will say again, the government has repudiated all the promises it made back in 2015.
The minister was being a bit disingenuous a few minutes ago, when he said that this is not omnibus legislation. A point that opposition members have been making is that the government said it would end the practice of omnibus legislation, but instead it has accelerated it.
In terms of the gag closure, the government said that it would reduce the number of times it would impose closure, but instead it has accelerated it. The gag closure, which is a new measure, never before seen in Canadian history, eliminates the right of opposition members to even speak to a bill once closure is moved. The 20-minute government speech is all that is permitted on the floor of the House of Commons.
We have before us legislation that is deeply flawed, and, for the 76th time, the government is imposing closure. The nitpicking about it being a different category of closure, TA closure as opposed to standard closure or gag closure, does not make the harm that this does to Parliament any less. The Liberal government has used closure 76 times, proportionally more than the Harper government.
The bill itself is deeply flawed. There is no limit on the number of days that somebody can be put in solitary confinement. Is that not the reason why the government is trying to ram the bill through the House?
No, Mr. Speaker, and let me help the hon. gentleman with some further information.
All of his criticism in the statement he has just given is directed toward the procedure of closure. This is not closure. It is a different procedure under the House. I appreciate the passion with which he opposes closure, but he should direct that toward another target, because this is not closure.
The member is obviously very opposed to solitary confinement. So am I. That is why, in this legislation, we abolish it.
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 1360)
YEAS
Members
AldagAlghabra
Amos
Anandasangaree
Arya
Ayoub
Badawey
Bagnell
Baylis
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Boissonnault
Bossio
Bratina
Caesar-Chavannes
Carr
Casey (Cumberland—Colchester)
Casey (Charlottetown)
Chagger
Champagne
Cuzner
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeCourcey
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Drouin
Dubourg
Duguid
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Dzerowicz
Easter
Ehsassi
Ellis
Erskine-Smith
Eyking
Eyolfson
Fergus
Fillmore
Finnigan
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser (West Nova)
Fraser (Central Nova)
Freeland
Fuhr
Gerretsen
Goldsmith-Jones
Goodale
Gould
Graham
Hardie
Harvey
Hehr
Hogg
Holland
Housefather
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Joly
Jones
Jordan
Jowhari
Kang
Khalid
Khera
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation)
Lebouthillier
Lefebvre
Leslie
Levitt
Lightbound
Lockhart
Long
Longfield
Ludwig
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Massé (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia)
May (Cambridge)
McCrimmon
McDonald
McGuinty
McKay
McKenna
McLeod (Northwest Territories)
Mendès
Mendicino
Mihychuk
Monsef
Morneau
Morrissey
Murray
Nassif
Ng
O'Connell
Oliphant
Oliver
O'Regan
Ouellette
Paradis
Peschisolido
Peterson
Petitpas Taylor
Picard
Poissant
Qualtrough
Rioux
Robillard
Rogers
Romanado
Rudd
Ruimy
Rusnak
Sahota
Saini
Sajjan
Samson
Sangha
Sarai
Schiefke
Schulte
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simms
Sohi
Sorbara
Spengemann
Tabbara
Tassi
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Whalen
Wilkinson
Wrzesnewskyj
Young
Zahid
Total: -- 152
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAlbas
Albrecht
Alleslev
Allison
Anderson
Arnold
Barrett
Benson
Benzen
Bergen
Berthold
Bezan
Blaney (North Island—Powell River)
Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis)
Block
Boucher
Boutin-Sweet
Brosseau
Cannings
Caron
Carrie
Clarke
Clement
Deltell
Diotte
Dreeshen
Dusseault
Eglinski
Fortin
Gallant
Gill
Gladu
Gourde
Harder
Jeneroux
Johns
Jolibois
Julian
Kelly
Kent
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Laverdière
Liepert
Lloyd
Lukiwski
MacGregor
Maguire
Manly
Martel
Mathyssen
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McColeman
McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo)
Motz
Nantel
Nater
Nicholson
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Poilievre
Quach
Rankin
Rayes
Reid
Rempel
Sansoucy
Saroya
Schmale
Shields
Shipley
Sorenson
Stanton
Stetski
Strahl
Sweet
Thériault
Tilson
Trost
Trudel
Van Kesteren
Vecchio
Viersen
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Weir
Wong
Yurdiga
Total: -- 94
PAIRED
Members
BeaulieuLeBlanc
Total: -- 2
Oil Tanker Moratorium Act
The House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast.
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast, the House:
agrees with amendment 1 made by the Senate;
proposes that, as a consequence of Senate amendment 1, the following amendment be added:
“1. Clause 2, page 1: Add the following after line 15:
Indigenous peoples of Canada has the meaning assigned by the definition aboriginal peoples of Canada in subsection 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982. (peuples autochtones du Canada)”;
proposes that amendment 2 be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:
“32 (1) During the fifth year after the day on which this section comes into force, a review of the provisions and operation of this Act must be undertaken by any committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that is designated or established for that purpose, including a review of the impact of this Act on the environment, on social and economic conditions and on the Indigenous peoples of Canada.
(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) must submit a report of the results of the review to the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, on any of the first 15 days on which the Senate or the House of Commons, as the case may be, is sitting after the report is completed.”.
Mr. Speaker, on what is likely the last sitting week of the 42nd Parliament, I appreciate the opportunity to outline both the necessity and benefits of Bill C-48, otherwise known as the oil tanker moratorium act. Let me begin by reminding members that Bill C-48 is the fulfillment of an election promise made in 2015. It was later included in both the minister's mandate letter and the Speech from the Throne.
Bill C-48 would provide an unprecedented level of environmental protection for the northern coast of British Columbia and the adjoining Great Bear Rainforest, one of the most pristine and unspoiled places left in Canada, and indeed the world. The Great Bear Rainforest represents approximately one-quarter of the world's remaining temperate rainforest. It is an extraordinarily rich and productive ecosystem that is often described as one of the lungs of the world because of its high oxygen production. The forest is largely intact due to special measures taken by both the federal and provincial governments over many years and by the relentless efforts of local people, including indigenous communities, to protect this extremely valuable ecosystem.
Bill C-48 would be complementary to these efforts, as well as the long-standing and well-respected voluntary tanker exclusion zone agreement between Canada and the United States that keeps Alaskan tankers like the Exxon Valdez far from our coast. Bill C-48 would effectively formalize into legislation a long-standing federal policy dating back to at least the 1970s not to allow large tanker traffic off of the northern coast of British Columbia. In fact, on my first trip to Haidi Gwaii, as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of fisheries and oceans at the time, I procured three posters that were used as fundraisers to campaign for this initial tanker ban in the 1970s, one of which is hanging in my constituency office in Burnaby.
Speaking to local residents, they are concerned about their environment and their way of life. A 2012 study reviewing offshore oil and gas development in British Columbia estimates the total annual benefits of marine-dependent activities in the traditional territories of coastal first nations at more than $30 billion. Unlike other regions in Canada, this policy legacy ensures that there is no existing tanker traffic near this coast. This means that formalizing the moratorium will not disrupt any current jobs or economic activity in the region. In fact, it would help protect existing industries, including fisheries, aquaculture and ecotourism.
Bill C-48 would continue to allow for the shipment of non-persistent oils. What this means is that communities along the north coast of British Columbia would continue to be open to economic development opportunities, including the recently announced $40-billion infrastructure project in Kitimat, B.C. Bill C-48 would not affect the estimated 10,000 jobs that are attached to that particular project. Very importantly, Bill C-48 would help to preserve the cultural and spiritual way of life of coastal first nations. As such, it is part of the Government of Canada's larger commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples. As we know, this is something that our government and our Prime Minister consider to be of the highest priority.
Members will recall that Bill C-48 was debated and studied in the House in 2017 and 2018. It was ultimately passed by the elected members of the House of Commons in May 2018, by a vote of 204 to 85. With the support of the Liberal Party of Canada, the NDP, the Green Party and the Groupe parlementaire du Parti québécois, only the Conservatives voted against it.
I would like to take a moment to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, whose riding largely overlaps with the proposed moratorium zone and who has been a long-time advocate of formalizing the tanker ban into legislation. Along with our colleague from Vancouver Quadra, he has introduced private member's bills in previous Parliaments proposing a tanker ban, albeit through a different mechanism. He has been working with our government to secure support for this important bill in the other place, and his co-operation is greatly appreciated.
This bill was referred to the other place on May 9, 2018, and has been studied and debated there until just last week, more than a year before it was passed with an amendment and sent back to this chamber. I am grateful for the work undertaken in the other chamber, particularly during report stage and third reading. If colleagues have not had an opportunity to read or listen to some of these debates, I would encourage them to do so. They will be impressed by the high level and seriousness of the debate. Those debates ultimately led to the amendment that is before us today.
The Senate is proposing to modify Bill C-48 in a number of ways, most substantively by requiring a two-stage review. First would be a regional assessment that would be led by the Minister of Environment under authorities that would be established once Bill C-69 came into force.
The Minister of Environment would be required to invite the provincial governments of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, as well as indigenous communities in the moratorium area, to enter into an agreement or arrangement respecting the joint establishment of a committee to conduct the regional assessment and the manner in which the assessment is to be carried out. This body would then have up to four years after coming into force to complete the report.
This would then feed into the second stage, a parliamentary review, which would take place five years after coming into force, and which would consider evidence gathered by the regional assessment and conduct further study and hearings before presenting its report to Parliament.
Let me begin by first stating that we acknowledge that this is a thoughtful, creative and substantive amendment. We also recognize that the Senate's amendment, including the regional assessment component, is a well-intentioned and honourable attempt to find a compromise between supporters and opponents of the moratorium, as well as an attempt to depoliticize what has turned into a very contentious debate on this bill by requiring a more technical, evidence-based study.
In terms of the government's response, we support the Senate's call for a parliamentary review of Bill C-48 after five years. During report stage debate in the other place, Senator Sinclair remarked:
I too have concerns about the bill because it does constitute what appears to be an absolute ban on tanker traffic in an area, for good reason that might be applicable today, but I’m not so sure it will be applicable in the future.
He went on to state:
When it comes to how we can improve the bill, one of the options I want to talk to the chamber about is whether we might consider allowing for communities to change their minds at some point in the future and if they all agree that the ban should be lifted, then we would allow the bill to say so.
A parliamentary review after five years would allow such a conversation to take place. Committees could look at scientific evidence and new developments, hold meetings outside of Ottawa and provide an opportunity for all interested indigenous communities, provinces and other stakeholders to express their views.
However, for a number of reasons, we respectfully disagree with the Senate's recommendation to undertake a regional assessment. First, we feel this is unnecessary, given the requirement for a parliamentary review, as I just discussed. Second, there is consultation fatigue, particularly among communities living in northern B.C. and coastal first nations, after many years of reviews and studies.
A non-comprehensive list of these reviews includes the Senate transport committee study of Bill C-48 in 2019; Transport Canada consultations with communities and stakeholders held in 2016 and 2017, prior to the introduction of Bill C-48; the Canadian environmental assessment and National Energy Board review panel of Enbridge's northern gateway pipeline proposal, held between 2010 and 2012; the Natural Resources Canada public review panel on the Government of Canada moratorium on offshore oil and gas activities in the Queen Charlotte region of British Columbia in 2004; the B.C. scientific review of offshore oil and gas moratorium in 2002; the joint Canada-B.C. west coast offshore exploration environmental assessment panel” in 1986; the federal west coast oil ports inquiry in 1977; and, last but not least, the House of Commons Special Committee on Environmental Pollution in 1970-1971. I was almost tired going through the whole list, never mind the actual reports themselves.
It is important to note that many of the reviews I mentioned were led by regulators and bureaucrats, not politicians. They looked in detail at scientific evidence in a more technical way than parliamentary committees typically do. However, none of them led to a resolution of the fundamental political disagreements over this issue. At the end of the day, many of the scientific questions about whether or not it is safe or advisable to move crude oil in tankers off this particular coast are endlessly debatable. There is no reason to believe that yet another lengthy and expensive study would bridge these differences of opinion, especially one starting so soon after the coming into force of Bill C-48.
To be clear, the amendment proposes to start yet another review only 180 days after Bill C-48 comes into force. At some point, a decision needs to be made based on the best evidence available and using the best judgment of parliamentarians about what is fair and reasonable, taking into account the wider Government of Canada approach on energy and the environment and on reconciliation with first nations.
Furthermore, there is, in our view, a need for a cooling-off period and a break to allow passions to settle and to take a breath. Coastal first nations have been fighting for a bill like this for almost 50 years. They deserve a break and some peace of mind.
Finally, the proposed approach would result in a lack of clarity over whether the authority provided to the Minister of Environment in Bill C-48 would be inconsistent or in conflict with the authority provided to the Minister of Environment in Bill C-69.
For all these reasons, the government is proposing to accept the Senate amendment but in a modified form. We accept adding a parliamentary review five years after coming into force, but respectfully disagree with the requirement to hold a regional assessment. We feel this is a fair compromise with our colleagues in the other place and will allow them to achieve much, if not all, of what they intended, namely an opportunity to re-evaluate the law after a number of years.
Turning back to the bill itself, much of the debate on Bill C-48 so far has revolved around the question of why legislation is being proposed that effectively bans oil tankers from operating off the coast of northern British Columbia and not elsewhere in the country. Critics of the bill contend that this is arbitrary and unjustified, but I would argue that nothing could be further from the truth.
As the Minister of Transport explained when he appeared before the Senate transport committee, there are a number of factors that, when combined together, account for the uniqueness of the situation in northern British Columbia and the need for special measures to protect it.
The most obvious, unique attribute of British Columbia's pristine north coast is the ecological significance of the area. The coastline runs along one of the last temperate rainforests left in the world and, even more rare, one of the very few to remain largely intact. These kinds of forests are unusually productive and support an extraordinarily rich web of biodiversity. The interface between the marine, coastal and terrestrial environments in this part of B.C. is seamless.
The Senate transport committee heard from experts who testified both to the unusually pristine nature of this ecosystem and to its vulnerability to the effects of a major oil spill. Canada has a kind of jewel in the Great Bear Rainforest, which needs to be treasured and preserved for future generations. This is a responsibility we owe not only to ourselves but to the world. The precautionary principle, a principle I debated often within my previous role in Fisheries and Oceans, is fully justified in this case.
A second distinguishing factor is the long-standing policy legacy, at both the federal and provincial levels, of extending special protections to this part of the country. In essence, Bill C-48 would simply formalize an already well-established policy of barring oil tankers from this coast. As such, it would not be disruptive to any existing industries or employment, very much unlike the case if we were to propose such a moratorium off the coast of Newfoundland or Nova Scotia, or for the St. Lawrence, for example.
A third factor that differentiates the northern coast of British Columbia is its shear size and remoteness and the navigational hazards of operating in these waters.
Environment Canada classifies the Hecate Strait as the fourth most dangerous body of water in the world for shipping. Winds of 100 kilometres per hour and waves between eight and 10 metres are not uncommon in both the Hecate Strait and the Dixon Entrance. These combine to make spill response more challenging than in more populated, built-up areas like the south coast, the St. Lawrence or the east coast. Although our government is dramatically boosting our capacity to respond to accidents through our $1.5 billion oceans protection plan, resources cannot be unlimited. It will continue to be the case that northern B.C. will present special challenges, particularly during bad weather which is common on these seas.
Last, Bill C-48 is responding to a more than 40-year campaign by local people, and especially indigenous communities, who live along the coast to formalize the moratorium banning oil tankers. While it is true that opinion among indigenous communities is not universal, a clear majority of these communities that are situated in the proposed moratorium area want to pass this law. Most important, the communities that would be most vulnerable to the impacts of an oil spill, such as the Haida and the Heiltsuk, have campaigned persistently for this bill. As such, it is part of our government's larger commitment to reconciliation with the first nations.
While I am sympathetic to the voices of indigenous groups further inland, which might like to participate in the economic benefits of a future, yet highly notional, pipeline that would go to the northern coast of B.C., I cannot disregard what a major oil spill would mean economically, culturally and spiritually to those who would bear the brunt of its effects. They deserve the peace of mind that Bill C-48 would bring them.
I note as well that coastal first nations have been joined by their neighbours in communities such as the city of Prince Rupert, the village of Queen Charlotte, the district of Kitimat, the city of Terrace, the town of Smithers, and the Skeena-Queen Charlotte regional district, which have all passed resolutions or written letters in support of the moratorium. There is also support by the Province of British Columbia.
In the short time that I have been in the House, I have had the opportunity to work on the government's $1.5 billion oceans protection plan, revisions to the Oceans Act in Bill C-55, restoring protections and introducing modern safeguards to the Fisheries Act via Bill C-68 and working to restore our whale population with our $167 million action plan.
We have expanded our marine protected areas from less than 1% under the previous government to over 8%. At the same time, we have reduced unemployment to historic lows, lifted 825,000 Canadians from poverty and Canadians have created more than a million new jobs.
It is the responsibility of any government to work hard to protect and restore the environment while growing the economy and creating more opportunities for Canadians. To do this successfully, we must balance competing demands and constraints, and I believe Bill C-48 would help us accomplish this balance.
I would like to quote a colleague from the other place, Senator Harder, who recently remarked:
I hope that, one day, the people of the coast will tell the story of when their grandparents came to Ottawa to pass Bill C-48. I hope [we]...tell the story of how Canadians worked together to save the environment at this testing time.
It is time this bill was passed. I hope our colleagues in the other place will join our government in at long last making this a reality.
Mr. Speaker, I would note that this bill actually was created as a result of a directive that was given by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Transport through a mandate letter. When we were studying the bill in committee, to a witness, none of the witnesses were consulted when it came to it, especially when it came to first nations communities.
Would the member care to comment on why no first nations communities were consulted before the bill was introduced?
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to discussing, during this question and answer period, our government's approach to balancing the environment and the economy, versus the Conservatives' approach previously, and what is proposed for the future.
There were over 75 consultations with indigenous peoples with regard to the legislation. I listed an extensive number of consultations that happened in previous studies as well. We have studied this issue and this is the appropriate action to take. We hope everyone in the House will support us in passing this amendment and passing the overall legislation in Bill C-48.
I note there is a lot of people standing for questions and comments. I will ask members to keep their comments and input concise, so we can get to everyone who wishes to speak.
Mr. Speaker, we certainly welcome the legislation for a tanker ban on the north coast. However, we have concerns. There are enough loopholes in the bill that a tanker could drive through it. In fact, the one thing the government has not done is put forward an amendment to limit the minister's power. Right now, the minister could override this whole legislation and make an exemption for tanker traffic on the north coast.
We also wonder why the government did not listen to ENGOs and concerns raised in coastal British Columbia about the maximum fuel-carrying capacity, which they recommended to be between 2,000 and 3,000 tonnes, and the government set that measure at 12,500 tonnes.
Maybe the member could speak to those important concerns.
Mr. Speaker, Vancouver Island is my previous home town. My friend and I have had the opportunity to work on several pieces of legislation, including in my previous role in Fisheries.
It is important to note the extraordinary history that has led to the creation of Bill C-48. In 1971, a House committee suggested we oppose tanker traffic off the north coast of British Columbia. This was also backed by a unanimous motion by the B.C. legislature, also in 1971, opposing crude oil tankers on the north coast.
Some actions went all the way to 1985, when the first voluntary tanker exclusion zone was negotiated and then formalized in 1988. Of course, this happened just before the major incident in 1989 of the Exxon Valdez spill off the coast of Alaska, just showing how important this measure is.
With regard to the question of the limit of 12,500 metric tons, that was done in consultation with industry, environmental organizations, local governments and indigenous people. We think we got the number right.
Mr. Speaker, while this legislation has been making its way through Parliament to ban oil tankers on the north coast of B.C., the government has approved the LNG Canada project, which would entail a significant number of liquefied natural gas tankers on the north coast of B.C.
I congratulate the government for putting in place safeguards to ensure that liquefied natural gas tankers can safely navigate the north coast of B.C. However, I would ask the member for Burnaby North—Seymour this. Why does he not believe those safeguards that would be adequate for liquefied natural gas would not be adequate to enable oil tankers to safely navigate those same waters?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saskatchewan is my previous neighbour on the same floor in the Confederation Building. We have had many opportunities to talk about various issues.
With regard to the defining difference the member raised, we are looking at banning persistent oils under a definition that is internationally recognized. These oils, once they enter a marine or terrestrial environment, are very difficult to dissipate. With non-persistent oils, such as the natural gas he mentioned, if there is an incident there is a greater rate of evaporation, which makes it easier to minimize the environmental impacts in that type of operation.
As we do with all our legislation in the House, this balances the economic opportunities for the region with the environmental protections, which are also the backbone of the economic activities in the region today.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Guelph are concerned about the environmental impacts of oil shipments off our west coast and what Bill C-48 would do to try to mitigate some of those concerns. It is interesting to see the amendments coming back from the Senate, especially to see the independence of the Senate in doing its studies.
Could the hon. member comment on the five-year review process being recommended, that Parliament look at this again in five years to see how things are working, working with all stakeholders and people who have given us input, either through the other place or through the House of Commons, and to see how effective the legislation is?
Mr. Speaker, what is being proposed in the amendment is a two-stage approach, a regional assessment and a five-year parliamentary review. We are respectively opposing the regional assessment. However, the five-year review is a good opportunity to look at things that might have changed in either the biodiversity or the economic or political landscapes of the region.
Something that might be important to my colleague is to talk about just how important the ecological biodiversity is in this area. The Great Bear Rainforest is regularly describe as the “lungs of the planet”. Ninety-five per cent of the total breeding seabird populations breed in this area off the north coast of British Columbia. There are kelp forests 50 metres high that provide nourishment not just to the marine environment but produce oxygen to clean our atmosphere. Two-thirds of mammals and subspecies participate on the coast. Thirty-nine endangered or threatened species call this place home. It is a unique place in the world. It is our duty to protect it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary why his government has chosen to cause a division across the country. The bill does not ban the transit of tankers, as the government would like the headlines to read. It really just bans the loading and unloading of those tankers in Canadian waters, which limits our western oil producers from getting their product to market. It is basically regional discrimination against one region of the country over another. Why would his government choose to divide the country in the way it has?
Mr. Speaker, I completely reject the premise of that question. This type of legislation, along with our larger approach for environmental protections and growing the economy, is actually designed to help bring the country together.
The opposition has also failed with respect to the economy. The last two Conservative governments have accrued over 72% of the total debt of the entire history of the debt in Canada. We cannot afford to have those guys back in power again.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to the government's motion on the Senate amendments to Bill C-48. While I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion, what I do not appreciate, what millions of other Canadians do not appreciate, is that we have to respond to the bill at all.
I want to recap what the bill would do.
First, this legislation was created as a result of a directive in the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Transport dated November 2015.
If passed, this legislation would enact an oil tanker moratorium on B.C.'s northwest coast. The proposed moratorium would be in effect from the Canada-U.S. Alaska border to the northern tip of Vancouver Island.
The legislation would prohibit oil tankers carrying crude and persistent oil as cargo from stopping, loading and unloading at ports or marine installations in the moratorium area. Vessels carrying less than 12,500 metric tons of crude oil would be exempted from the moratorium.
I would suggest that this bill is an open, sneering attack on our oil and gas sector, an anti-pipeline bill poorly masquerading as an environment bill.
Environmental legislation is supposed to be based on science. Bill C-48 is not. It is not science but rather politics and ideology that inform this legislation: Liberal ideology that is as damaging to national unity as it is cynical.
Afer reviewing the bill, which included travelling across the country to hear from witnesses from coast to coast, the Senate transport committee recommended that it not proceed. While the Senate as a whole rescued Bill C-48, the Prime Minister should have taken the hint and withdrawn this anti-energy legislation.
Six premiers, including Premier Scott Moe from my province of Saskatchewan, wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister outlining their legitimate concerns about the anti-oil, anti-energy legislation pushed by the Liberal government here in Ottawa, in particular Bill C-69 and Bill C-48.
The premiers explained the damage that these two pieces of legislation would do to the economy, but more importantly, they warned of the damage this legislation has done and will continue to do to our national unity.
This was not a threat. This was not spiteful. These six premiers were pointing to a real and growing sense of alienation, alienation on a scale not seen since the Prime Minister's father was in office.
Rather than listening to their concerns, the Prime Minister lashed out at the premiers, calling them irresponsible and accusing them of threatening our national unity if they did not get their way.
The premiers are not threatening our national unity; it is in fact the Prime Minister's radical, anti-science, anti-energy agenda that is, but he is refusing to listen.
Since the Prime Minister is refusing to heed these warnings on Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, I am going to take this opportunity to read them into the record now:
Dear Prime Minister,
We are writing on behalf of the Governments of Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Northwest Territories. Collectively, our five provinces and territory represent 59 per cent of the Canadian population and 63 per cent of Canada's GDP. We are central to Canada's economy and prosperity, and it is of the utmost importance that you consider our concerns with bills C-69 and C-48.
Canadians across the country are unified in their concern about the economic impacts of the legislation such as it was proposed by the House of Commons. In this form, the damage it would do to the economy, jobs and investment will echo from one coast to the other. Provincial and territorial jurisdiction must be respected. Provinces and territories have clear and sole jurisdiction over the development of their non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources, and the generation and production of electricity. Bill C-69 upsets the balance struck by the constitutional division of powers by ignoring the exclusive provincial powers over projects relating to these resources. The federal government must recognize the exclusive role provinces and territories have over the management of our non-renewable natural resource development or risk creating a Constitutional crisis.
Bill C-69, as originally drafted, would make it virtually impossible to develop critical infrastructure, depriving Canada of much needed investment. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, between 2017 and 2018, the planned investment value of major resource sector projects in Canada plunged by $100 billion – an amount equivalent to 4.5 per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product. To protect Canada’s economic future, we, collectively, cannot afford to overlook the uncertainty and risk to future investment created by Bill C-69.
Our five provinces and territory stand united and strongly urge the government to accept Bill C69 as amended by the Senate, in order to minimize the damage to the Canadian economy. We would encourage the Government of Canada and all members of the House of Commons to accept the full slate of amendments to the bill. The Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment, and Natural Resources heard 38 days of testimony from 277 witnesses including indigenous communities, industry, Premiers, and independent experts. Based on that comprehensive testimony, the committee recommended significant amendments to the bill, which were accepted by the Senate as a whole. We urge you to respect that process, the committee’s expertise, and the Senate’s vote.
If the Senate’s amendments are not respected, the bill should be rejected, as it will present insurmountable roadblocks for major infrastructure projects across the country and will further jeopardize jobs, growth and investor confidence.
Similarly, Bill C-48 threatens investor confidence, and the tanker moratorium discriminates against western Canadian crude products. We were very disappointed that the Senate did not accept the recommendation to the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications that the bill not be reported. We would urge the government to stop pressing for the passage of this bill which will have detrimental effects on national unity and for the Canadian economy as a whole.
Our governments are deeply concerned with the federal government’s disregard, so far, of the concerns raised by our provinces and territory related to these bills. As it stands, the federal government appears indifferent to the economic hardships faced by provinces and territories. Immediate action to refine or eliminate these bills is needed to avoid further alienating provinces and territories and their citizens and focus on uniting the country in support of Canada’s economic prosperity.
Perhaps having heard the letter read aloud, the Prime Minister will acknowledge that it contains no threats, but rather it is an appeal from leaders who have listened to their constituents. The Prime Minister needs to understand that simply saying things louder is not going to make them go away. Shouting will not put food in the stomachs of the laid-off construction workers' children. Chanting talking points will not pay the gas bill in the middle of winter.
If this were the only piece of legislation that the government had introduced, one might argue that this is an overreaction, but it is not just one piece of legislation, it is a targeted, cynical, ongoing political attack of our resource sector. The Prime Minister has filled his cabinet with vocal opponents of the oil sands. In 2012, the now Minister of Democratic Institutions posted a tweet that read, “It's time to landlock Alberta's tar sands - call on BC Premier @christyclarkbc to reject the #Enbridge pipeline now!”
Then there is the President of the Treasury Board, who said publicly that the approval of the Trans Mountain extension was deeply disappointing and who celebrated when the Prime Minister killed the northern gateway pipeline project. Here I should pause and point out the ridiculous theatrics surrounding the TMX project.
In 2016, the government approved TMX, yet tomorrow, we are told, the government will decide on whether to approve the project all over again. It is like we are in a terrible remake of Groundhog Day. Meanwhile, not an inch of pipeline has been built since the government nationalized Trans Mountain.
However, it is not only the cabinet that the Prime Minister has filled with anti-oil activists, but senior staff positions as well. Here I quote an article from the March 14 edition of the Financial Post:
Prior to ascending to the most powerful post in the Prime Minister’s Office, from 2008 to 2012 Gerald Butts was president and CEO of World Wildlife Fund Canada...an important Tides campaign partner. Butts would use his new powerful position to bring other former campaigners with him: Marlo Reynolds, chief of staff to the Environment Minister...is past executive director of the Tides-backed Pembina Institute. Zoë Caron, chief of staff to Natural Resource Minister...is also a former WWF Canada official. Sarah Goodman, on the prime minister’s staff, is a former vice-president of Tides Canada. With these anti-oil activists at the epicentre of federal power, it’s no wonder the oil industry, and hundreds of thousands of workers, have plummeted into political and policy purgatory.
Why should we be surprised? The Prime Minister is no friend of the oil sands. The Prime Minister stated that he wants to phase out the oil sands and during the election loudly proclaimed, “If I am elected Prime Minister, the Northern Gateway Pipeline won't become a reality”.
The Prime Minister has spent his time in office attempting to do just that and he has been willing to trample on not only the rights of the provinces, but the rights of aboriginal peoples as well to get his way. When the Prime Minister used an order in council to cancel the northern gateway pipeline, he stole the future of 30 first nations that would have benefited enormously from it. This very bill is facing a lawsuit from Laxkw'alaams Indian band for unjustly infringing on their rights and titles.
Bill C-48 will prevent the proposed first nations-owned and operated Eagle Spirit pipeline project from being built as the proposed route to tidewater ends within the area wherein this bill bans tanker traffic. It was done without any consultation with first nations communities. Again, this should come as no surprise.
Just last week I spoke against another anti-energy bill, Bill C-88. As I said then, C-88 makes a mockery of the government's claim to seriously consult with indigenous and Inuit peoples. Without any consultation with Inuit peoples or the territorial governments, the Prime Minister unilaterally announced a five-year ban on offshore oil and gas development. Not only did the Prime Minister refuse to consult the premiers of the territories, he gave some of them less than an hour's notice that he would be making that announcement.
Does that sound like a Prime Minister who wants to listen, consult and work with aboriginal Canadians? Does it reflect the Prime Minister's declaration that his government's relationship with indigenous peoples is their most important relationship or does it sound like a Prime Minister who says what he believes people want to hear and then does the exact opposite by imposing his own will on them? If he had consulted, this is what he would have heard:
Minister Wally Schumann of the Northwest Territories, on how they found out about the ban and the impact it will have on our north, stated:
When it first came out, we never got very much notice on the whole issue of the moratorium and the potential that was in the Beaufort Sea. There were millions and millions, if not billions, of dollars in bid deposits and land leases up there. That took away any hope we had of developing the Beaufort Sea.
Councillor Jackie Jacobson of Tuktoyaktuk said:
It’s so easy to sit down here and make judgments on people and lives that are 3,500 klicks away, and make decisions on our behalf, especially with that moratorium on the Beaufort. That should be taken away, lifted, please and thank you. That is going to open up and give jobs to our people – training and all the stuff we’re wishing for.
Then premier of Nunavut, Peter Taptuna stated, “ We do want to be getting to a state where we can make our own determination of our priorities, and the way to do that is gain meaningful revenue from resource development.”
Mr. Speaker, I note that you are indicating that my time is up. I assume that I will be able to continue at another time.
I thank the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. The time signal is to signal that we are going to switch into another mode for Statements by Members. Indeed, she will be able to resume her remarks when the House next debates the question before the House.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Statements by Members]
[Translation]
Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' immigration policy is a complete failure.
After four years, hundreds of irregular migrants are still crossing the border into Quebec every day. No progress has been made at Roxham Road or in Ottawa on the processing of applications, and the Canada-U.S. safe third country agreement is still in force.
Our farmers are still concerned that they will lose their crops because their temporary foreign workers are not arriving in time. Applications have been stalled for months in Ottawa, and every summer the federal government seems somehow surprised when the problem comes up again.
Ottawa still wants to force Quebec to accept more refugees while it is deporting the Haitian refugees we want to keep. Ottawa is still opposed to requiring newcomers to demonstrate a sufficient knowledge of French before they can become Quebeckers.
The Liberals' record shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Quebec should handle its own immigration without Ottawa's involvement.
[English]
Guru Nanak Dev Ji
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to shed light on an important milestone for Sikhs around the world. This year, in November, marks the 550th birth anniversary of the founder of the Sikh faith, Guru Nanak Dev Ji.
The teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji are based on the fundamental beliefs of faith and meditation on the name of one creator and the divine unity and equality of all humankind. These are not only Sikh values; they are Canadian values.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all my constituents for the honour they have given me to serve my community of Brampton South. We know that there is more to be done, and when Canadians re-elect us in October, we will finish what we began.
Barrie—Springwater—Oro—Medonte
Mr. Speaker, after eight years on Barrie city council, a year of campaigning and a three-week re-count, I was afforded what will forever be one of the greatest honours of my life, being elected the member of Parliament for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.
I want to thank my staff; my wife, Erica; my children; all my extended family; supporters; and especially the incredible people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte for this incredible honour.
As a Conservative, I know that I have fought for freedom, hope and opportunity, and that will never ever cease. It is the reason, even after this election, we will continue to partner with PIE restaurant providing backpacks to children in central Ontario through PIE Education and with the newly announced Boots and Hearts Barn Burner hockey game on August 7 to raise money for the RVH and many other local charities.
I look forward to seeing everyone there, and I am so very thankful for the honour.
Labour
Mr. Speaker, unions built the middle class in Saint John—Rothesay, and today, unions like IBEW, CUPW, CUPE, PSAC, ILA, Unifor, IAFF, and SJPA, and union leaders like Darlene Bembridge, Duane Squires, Craig Melvin, Erin Howell-Sharpe, Tammy Nadeau, Pat Riley, Kevin Suttie, and Jean Marc Ringuette are pillars of my community.
In 2015, the people of Saint John—Rothesay sent me here to stand up for them. One of the ways I have done just that since taking office is by standing up for my constituents' collective bargaining rights, both in this House and at HUMA, where I was tremendously proud to stand up for Bill C-4 and Bill C-62 to repeal of Conservative anti-union legislation in both places.
I will always stand up for the rights of workers in my riding, and I will always stand up for good middle-class jobs for the people of Saint John—Rothesay.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, four years ago, people in our north held out hope when it came to the Liberal government's commitments with words like “reconciliation”, “nation-to-nation relationships”, “support for the middle class” and “champion on climate change”. However, fast forward four years, and the shine is off.
The housing crisis on first nations is worse than it was. Health care continues to be underfunded and inadequate, and when it comes to middle-class jobs, our north has lost hundreds of them, and the federal government has not lifted a finger.
As for climate change, not only has Canada failed, but first nations and northern communities are paying the price. The disappearing ice roads point to the urgent need for all-weather roads, and as wildlife is impacted, so are people. There must be immediate action.
Enough of the talk. First nations, Métis and northern people deserve a federal government on their side, one that works with them to take on climate change and crushing inequality. The Liberals are not the answer, and we cannot go back to the Conservatives. Only the NDP will fight for our north and our Canada.
Breast Cancer
Mr. Speaker, I rise for the final time in this session of Parliament to highlight a remarkable community leader. In 2007, Londoner Theresa Carriere was diagnosed with breast cancer. This was a battle she faced head on, beginning treatment almost immediately, which included having a double mastectomy. Theresa ultimately beat the disease and turned her personal ordeal into a public service.
This past Friday, Theresa embarked on her fifth ONERUN, a 100-kilometre run that took her from London to the nearly community of Strathroy and back again. Five times over the past nine years, Theresa has run 100 kilometres in a single day to support cancer care programs that assist patients and their families. Supporters were asked to run a single kilometre alongside her, and I was honoured to take part.
Since being established in 2010, ONERUN has raised more than $1 million. Theresa's strength, resilience and dedication to the cause is commendable. She is an outstanding Canadian, an example to all of us.
Member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa
Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a bittersweet moment as I rise to give the last member's statement of my political career as a member of Parliament for the great constituency of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. For three elections, the voters of this wonderful constituency have returned me to Ottawa to work on their behalf. The trust they have placed in me is truly humbling, and I hope that I have lived up to their expectations. My passion to do what I can to protect and defend our rural way of life remains undiminished.
I would be remiss if I did not mention my political idol, the great Duff Roblin, former premier of Manitoba. His achievements on behalf of all Manitobans have stood the test of time, and he inspired me with his vision and accomplishments. He proved to me that government can be a force for good.
To my beloved wife, Caroline, and my beautiful family, I thank them for the love, support and guidance over these years. All I can say is that I love them all. To my beautiful grandchildren, Eden, Esmee and Senon, who love nature, our farm and the outdoors as much as I do, all I can say is Papa's coming home.
Kayge Fowler
Mr. Speaker, just four months ago, I spoke in this House about little Kayge Fowler from Sault Ste. Marie. I spoke about his diagnosis of diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, or DIPG, a highly aggressive brain tumour, found in the brainstem, with a 0% survival rate.
It is with great sadness I share that little Kayge has passed away. Kayge died surrounded by loved ones. His last words were, “I love you, too.” His life was powerful, but short. His battle with DIPG has had a profound effect on the riding of Sault Ste. Marie. Our wonderful community rallied around his family with countless fundraising initiatives to assist with medical and transportation costs. Words of encouragement and support flooded the Superhero's Kayge Fighters Against DIPG Foundation on Facebook.
Today I will be tabling the petition his family created to establish May 25 of every year as national day for DIPG awareness, as May 25, 2018, was the date of Kayge's diagnosis.
This childhood cancer is the most fatal, and as such, we need to immensely increase awareness. Awareness is key for research and support, and research is desperately needed.
Community Volunteer
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to recognize an extraordinary woman who has been an incredible force in my community of Oakville. Fiona Fraser has been active throughout her life in charitable causes. She co-led a grassroots effort that saved the pediatrics department at her local hospital, served on the Bronte District Advisory Committee to shape the Bronte Outer Harbour, led Habitat for Humanity's campaign for property and has been an active member of the United Way for over a decade.
A member of the Oakville Federal Liberal Association, Fiona is a tireless fundraiser, events organizer and volunteer coordinator. She has directed successful campaigns municipally, provincially and federally. Fiona led the team through my nomination, was my campaign manager in 2015 and has served as my director of operations ever since.
I am so grateful for Fiona's incredible energy, huge support and wise counsel. I am delighted that Fiona has joined me in Ottawa today so I can thank her.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister pretends he has a plan for the environment. He says his carbon tax will achieve the carbon emissions reduction targets under the Paris accord. However, his own government figures confirm that this is simply not true.
Just last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a new report, which found that the Liberal carbon tax would have to increase to $102 per tonne to achieve Canada's Paris accord climate targets. That is five times more expensive than it is today. This means that Canadians would pay more for groceries and home heating, and it would add 23¢ per litre to the cost of gas.
Saying things louder about carbon tax does not make them true, despite what the Minister of Environment says. The fact is that the Liberal carbon tax is simply not a plan to lower emissions; it is just another cash grab that is hurting already overtaxed Canadians. Let us make no mistake: A Conservative government will scrap the carbon tax, leave more money in the pockets of Canadians and help all Canadians get ahead.
[Translation]
Vaudreuil—Soulanges
Mr. Speaker, not quite four years ago, the people of Vaudreuil—Soulanges chose to trust me to speak on their behalf here in Ottawa, where decisions are made. We have made a lot of progress, and we have done so by working together. That is why I wanted to thank all my community leaders for championing progress.
[English]
I am thankful for the ideas and suggestions from my youth council, seniors committee, environmental committee and countless engaged citizens. They allowed me to better represent our community's perspective on a wide range of issues here in Ottawa.
[Translation]
I would also like to thank my team— Jennifer, Ramy, Raphaël, Nina, Meet, Celine, Tamara, Patricia, Miled, Sarah, Lynda and Martin—as well as the volunteers and interns for their hard work in service of our community.
Lastly, I would like to thank the people of Vaudreuil—Soulanges for placing their trust in me. Serving them and working for them and their families has been a great honour.
Let's keep working together to build an even stronger Vaudreuil—Soulanges for us all.
[English]
Winnipeg General Strike
Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, the Winnipeg General Strike was the largest labour action ever seen, lasting six weeks as thousands walked off the job demanding better working conditions. Thirty thousand civilians left their jobs on May 15, including veterans who six months earlier had fought in World War I. First out were the 500 telephone operators known as the “Hello Girls”.
A courageous young woman named Helen Armstrong played a big role in the movement. She held soup kitchens for strikers and their families, free for women. For her involvement, she was imprisoned three times and called a female Bolshevik. In commemoration, we held a soup kitchen in the Ukrainian Labour Temple to honour the strong women and men who took part in fighting for workers' rights.
It is because of these courageous strikers that the next prime minister, a Liberal, brought in major labour reforms. One hundred years later, I am proud to stand here today to celebrate what they achieved for women and Canadian workers across the nation.
[Translation]
2019 General Election
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's plan for the environment is an unprecedented failure.
The Prime Minister claims to have a plan to combat climate change and that the carbon tax will allow us to meet our emission targets under the Paris Agreement, even though his government's own figures show that such is not the case.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the Liberal carbon tax would have to be $102 per tonne in every province and territory in order for Canada to meet the Paris targets. The carbon tax would have to be five times higher than it is now, which means that Canadians would have to pay more for groceries, transported goods and home heating and gas would cost them 23¢ more a litre.
On October 21, Canadians will choose the most credible, rational and achievable plan that will benefit everyone. They will vote for the Conservative Party.
Laurentides—Labelle
Mr. Speaker, after years of counterproductive efforts by political parties that only wanted to prove that federalism does not work, or that the federal government is the adversary, we have been an unrivalled federal partner in Laurentides—Labelle.
Half of the 43 municipalities will soon have access to modern high-speed Internet across their territory, and we are well on the way to getting full coverage throughout the riding. Les Pays-d'en-Haut, the only RCM in Quebec without an arena, will finally get its sports centre. Poverty and unemployment are declining. There are more opportunities for families to remain in the region.
In under four years, we have made a difference that has benefited the people of the Laurentians. This fall, we will have to decide whether the federal government is an adversary or a partner of our region. I believe the answer is clear. Together, we will succeed.
[English]
Cumberland Community Forest Society
Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Cumberland, B.C., are taking forest and watershed protection into their own hands, buying up lands from forest companies under the leadership of the Cumberland Community Forest Society.
This small community of less than 4,000 has already purchased over 275 acres and raised over $3 million to protect its forests for future generations. The whole community gets involved, from plant sales and trail runs to trivia nights and local arts events.
However, the stakes are getting higher. Climate change is impacting the Comox Lake watershed, and protection is increasingly critical to the whole Comox Valley. The Cumberland Community Forest Society is working hard to buy an entire creek system, Perseverance Creek, for $2.6 million.
The people of Cumberland are leading, and all levels of government need to follow.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals insist on making life more expensive for Canadians from coast to coast.
The PBO just confirmed that the carbon tax will need to be $102 per tonne in order to reach the Paris accord targets. Now, that is five times what the current carbon tax costs. This will increase the cost of groceries and the cost of home heating, and it will increase the cost of gasoline by 23¢ per litre. Canadians cannot afford this.
The Prime Minister makes the false claim that this is an environmental plan, but it has nothing to do with the environment. It has everything to do with lining his pockets. If it truly were an environmental plan, then he would go after the biggest emitters, but they get let off the hook. Meanwhile, soccer moms are left paying the bill.
British Columbia has the longest-standing carbon tax, and we see the amount of emission actually going up rather than coming down. The carbon tax will not reduce pollution, but it will certainly cost Canadians a whole lot of money.
It is time for a real environmental plan, and that environmental plan is on this side of the House. It will be announced on June 19. We look forward to bringing that—
The member for Spadina—Fort York.
Toronto Raptors
Mr. Speaker, bounce, bounce, bounce, bounce, game.
There were so many memorable moments as the Raptors won the historic championship they captured last week, and the riding I represent is quite literally today the absolute guaranteed centre of the universe, as millions of Toronto sports fans and sports fans across the country are celebrating.
The city is celebrating a team that means the world to us, but it is also a team that we can see the world in, and this is critical about this beautiful team that won. The six is sweet. Our city is not only where the best come to play; it is also a city where the best come to live, love, work, learn and invest.
The last names say it all: from Lin to Gasol, from Siakam to Leonard, from Nurse to Magloire and Masai, and of course Aubrey, Bhatia and Lowry, with those two beautiful kids.
Spicy P summed it up best when he said, “No French questions?”
Toronto's team is an international team because all the world has a home in TO. It is the Canadian way. Nous sommes le Nord. We the North. We won it all.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[English]
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to pipelines, four years have proven that no matter what side of the issue people are on, nobody can trust the Liberals.
We fully expect them to approve Trans Mountain later this week, just so they can say they did. Then we fully expect them to do absolutely nothing to get it built, because they do not want to upset voters in Burnaby.
Why will the Liberals not just admit that they do not want pipelines and that Trans Mountain will never actually get built under their watch?
Mr. Speaker, we have more confidence in Canada's energy sector than what is being portrayed by the members of the official opposition.
We gave approval to Enbridge Line 3, which is almost completed on the Canadian side. We are working with the U.S. on the Keystone XL pipeline. We are moving forward on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project in the right way, with meaningful consultation that has been concluded with indigenous communities.
We have full confidence in our energy sector.
Mr. Speaker, a year ago the Prime Minister promised that construction would start on TMX, and a year later not an ounce of dirt has been moved. The Prime Minister says one thing in one part of the country, and he says something completely different in another part, because, just like on everything else, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
The Prime Minister does not support pipelines and the jobs that come with them. Now he could try to prove us wrong, so will he tell us right now when construction on TMX will start in Burnaby?
Mr. Speaker, it is quite known to Canadians that when Stephen Harper got into office in 2006, 99% of the oil from Alberta was sold to only a single customer, which was the United States. When he left office in 2015, that was still the case 10 years later: 99% of oil was still being sold to the United States.
The Conservatives' plan failed to build a single pipeline to diversify our market to non-U.S. markets. We are changing that.
Mr. Speaker, four major pipelines were built under the Conservatives' watch, with not one dollar of taxpayers' money used.
Over the last four years, though, the Prime Minister has done everything in his power to destroy jobs in Canada's energy sectors. He is forcing through devastating bills, like Bill C-48 and the no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69. Right now, he is playing political games with the TMX pipeline.
Will the Prime Minister finally be honest with our energy workers and admit he has no intention for construction to start in Burnaby?
Mr. Speaker, if the members of the official opposition were really serious about moving forward with the process on TMX in the right way, they would not have voted to shut down and kill that process. That shows their lack of sincerity about getting our resources to non-U.S. markets.
We are doing the hard work to ensure that meaningful consultation is taking place with indigenous communities and that we are taking action on the environment with protection of the environment.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Trans Mountain project is essential to the economy of all Canadians, and above all, it is good for all of Canada. Unfortunately, since announcing the project a year ago, the Liberals have not done a single thing. Not a shovel has hit the ground. All they have done is take $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money and send it to Houston. They have also passed two bills, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, that fly in the face of the principle of sound energy development.
Could the Liberals finally do what is right for Canadians by approving this project tomorrow and, most importantly, by announcing when Trans Mountain will be built?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, once again, Conservatives are demonstrating that they have no confidence in Canada's energy sector.
We have been moving forward on this project from day one. When the Federal Court of Appeal made its decision cancelling the TMX project, one of the reasons that project was stalled was that, when the review process was started in 2013, under Stephen Harper's government, Conservatives failed to include the impact of marine shipping on the marine environment.
We are changing that. We are engaging with indigenous communities in the right way to move forward on the project, which will make—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Canadians all know full well whose side the Liberal Party is on. The Liberals have nothing but contempt for energy sector workers in western Canada. In fact, the is on the record as saying that he hopes to phase out oil and that high gas prices are exactly what he wants. What is worse, he has insulted pipeline workers. That is how the Liberal Party really thinks.
We, the Conservatives, are in favour of the Trans Mountain project because it is good for Canada and for all Canadians.
Could the Liberal government show the same respect for Canadians and tell us when it is going to build it?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, Conservative actions do not demonstrate their commitment to this project.
If they were really committed to getting this project right, then they would not have voted down the process we put in place for a meaningful consultation with indigenous communities to ensure that the impact of marine shipping on the marine environment was properly assessed, something that was excluded under Stephen Harper when their review took place.
We are changing the broken system.
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Liberals are planning to announce their rubber-stamped approval on Trans Mountain, after pouring $5 billion of taxpayers' money into it.
The project will need at least another $10 billion from taxpayers, and former Liberal minister David Anderson and so many others say that this project has no business case. The project is not in the interest of our coast, indigenous communities, our planet or everyday Canadians. It is in the interest of shareholders of big oil and gas companies.
Instead of another rubber-stamped approval, why will Liberals not side with Canadians tomorrow and cancel the Trans Mountain expansion project?
Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, we have Conservatives who do not get the environment. On the other hand, we have the New Democrats who do not get the economy.
We are moving forward, building a strong economy, creating jobs for the middle class, and at the same time taking action on climate, ensuring that we are putting a price on pollution, ensuring that we are taking action by phasing out coal and making sure that we meaningfully engage with indigenous communities.
Mr. Speaker, it is a former Liberal minister who is saying that there is no business case for this project.
[Translation]
People are right to be discouraged with this Liberal government. Even a former Liberal minister is finding it hard to believe that the Liberals are going to approve the Trans Mountain project tomorrow. His concerns are not about the environment or indigenous peoples. He is concerned about the economic viability of the project. He thinks it makes no sense to move forward with this project.
If the Liberals do not want to listen to the people living on our coasts or the many young people protesting in the streets, will they listen to a former Liberal minister and cancel this project once and for all?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we understand the diversity of opinions among indigenous communities on this project. We know that some do support this project and some do not support this project. It is our responsibility to engage with all of them, to listen to their concerns and then offer accommodations where accommodation is possible.
Also, we are taking unprecedented action to protect our coastal communities through the ambitious oceans protection plan we have put in place.
[Translation]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, will we really be surprised if tomorrow they put the interests of big oil ahead of the interests of Canadians? I do not think so.
Canada has never seen such a huge inequality. The Liberals brag about having lowered taxes for the middle class, but the wealthiest middle-class Canadians are the ones who benefit.
Yesterday our leader presented an ambitious plan to finally reduce inequality that would make the richest 1% pay a 1% wealth tax on wealth over $20 million. We would reinvest these billions of dollars in the services that people truly need.
When will the Liberals make ultra-rich Canadians pay their fair share?
Mr. Speaker, a fully functional tax system is very important.
We started by cutting taxes for the middle class. This was very important. At the same time, we changed the tax rates for the wealthiest Canadians.
What are we seeing now? Middle-class Canadians are better off, and for four years now, the average family has been pocketing $2,000 more.
We will continue to make life easier for the middle class in the future.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is the folks right behind the minister who gained the most from the Liberal tax cut, because people would have to earn an MP's salary in order to get the maximum benefit.
If we want to tackle inequalities in this country, we need to take bold action. We need to make the richest of the 1% of Canadians pay a 1% tax on their wealth above $20 million. That would mean we could invest in solutions that Canadians need, like pharmacare, dental care and an affordable place to call home.
When will the Liberals stop siding with the ultra-rich of our country and put everyday Canadians first for a change?
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite might not have been paying attention to what we really did.
It was the $45,000 to $90,000 tax bracket that we reduced by 7%. We also put in place the Canada child benefit, which was means-tested, which means significant benefits went to families at lower and middle income. It was means-tested after $150,000 of family income.
At the same time, though, we raised taxes on the top 1%. These measures together have led us to be in a very positive economic situation, with the lowest rate of unemployment in history in our country, which is a positive situation. We are going to keep working in the future for the middle class.
[Translation]
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed last week that the Liberal government's plan just does not cut it. He has proven that under their plan, the Liberals will have to increase fuel prices by more than 23¢ per litre, because of their carbon tax. Only the Liberals believe that raising taxes could be an effective plan.
My question for the Prime Minister is simple. Why do he and his colleagues here in the House want to increase fuel prices by 23¢ per litre on the backs of Canadians?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the question that the hon. member put on the floor of the House of Commons is grossly misleading. He knows that the PBO report presumes that no action will be taken beyond measures that are currently in place in order to hit our targets. We will hit our targets. To date, we have put forward a price on pollution. We are going to make sure that 90% of our electricity comes from non-emitting resources from 2030. We have made the largest investment in the history of public transit.
I have taken hundreds of questions in this chamber, and not one of them from a Conservative MP asking us to do more. When it comes to the environment, the Conservative Party of Canada cannot be trusted.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, since this Liberal government came to power, the cost of living for Canadians has skyrocketed. That is quite the coincidence, much like the deficit. Eighty per cent of Canadian families started paying more taxes since the Liberal government came to power. Every year, $800 more is coming out of their pockets.
I would therefore like to repeat my question to the Prime Minister. Why does he want to burden Canadians even more and increase fuel prices by 23¢ per litre?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, with respect, when it comes to affordability, we have no lessons to learn from the Conservatives, who opposed the Canada child benefit which put more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 low- and middle-income families. They voted against cutting taxes for middle-class Canadians and voted for keeping them low for the richest 1%.
I have answered so many questions when it comes to climate, but the Conservatives do not seem to listen. They will not listen to Conservative stalwarts like Preston Manning. They will not listen to the Nobel Prize winner in economics. I would urge them to listen to the Pope, who this past weekend said, “For too long we have collectively failed to listen to the fruits of scientific analysis” and called carbon pricing essential.
It is time to get with the program.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves: The Liberals cut the public transit tax credit and the children's fitness and arts tax credit. What is more, the Prime Minister created a deficit on the backs of our grandchildren, who will end up paying the bill one day.
Once again Canadians, honest workers, will end up paying more taxes because of this government.
Why is this Prime Minister increasing the price of gas by another 23¢ with his lousy carbon tax?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, they want to talk about adding costs for the next generations. Inaction on climate change is the thing that is going to lead to the greatest cost for future generations. Every time we propose a measure to deal with the environment, the Conservatives oppose it. They opposed our price on pollution. They opposed our largest investment in history on public transit. For God's sake, when we announced we were going to be banning harmful single-use plastics and gave them an opportunity to support the environment or garbage, they chose garbage.
The Conservatives cannot be trusted when it comes to the environment.
It is time to get with the 21st century. Climate change is real, and we have found a way to make life more affordable for families at the same time.
I think the hon. parliamentary secretary meant “for goodness' sake”. He has gone from the pope to a higher power.
Mr. Speaker, speaking of the pope, it is time they made a confession over there.
They have been keeping a deep dark secret. If the Liberal government is re-elected, as the PBO has pointed out, the carbon tax will add a full 23¢ to the cost of gas. This is the PBO, whose word is much more reliable than that of a government that is missing its day to balance the budget by two decades.
Will the member unburden his soul and confess to Canadians the real price that he will add to a litre of gas if re-elected?
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the recent PBO report, the hon. member knows that it presumes no further action will be taken on climate change. I suggest that the hon. member is projecting what we should expect to see in the Conservative plan due to come out this week. I would also invite the hon. member to review the prior report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which indicated that eight out of 10 families in his province will be left better off as a result of our plan.
We are following the advice of the leading experts in the world, including last year's winner of the Nobel Prize in economics. If the member will not believe me, not believe the Pope and not believe the Nobel Prize winner, I suggest that there is no convincing him.
Mr. Speaker, the member still would not answer the simple question of how much gas prices will go up when the Liberal carbon tax is fully and finally implemented.
The PBO went on CTV last week and said that the Liberals' plan for the carbon tax would have to be twice as high as they now admit and five times as high as it now is, leading to gas prices that would rise 23¢ a litre. If the PBO is wrong, then how much will gas prices go up under the Liberal plan?
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had actually read the PBO report, he would have noticed that he pointed out this was the least expensive option. I expect that the Conservatives' plan will mirror that of Doug Ford's, and I am curious that their strategy is to cozy up to the Premier of Ontario. However, we know that it is going to lead to a worse record in terms of emissions reduction and a greater cost for families. We have been transparent about our plan. The price will increase to $50 a tonne by 2020. I will show him the website afterward. Until then, I will assume that their plan will mirror Doug Ford's and will make life more expensive for families.
Mr. Speaker, there we have it: 23¢ a litre is the minimum cost that the Liberals would impose on Canadian motorists. I think Canadians would like to know the maximum cost of the Liberal carbon tax. He is right. The PBO did say that the Liberal carbon tax could actually be higher than the $100 a tonne. It speaks about provincial politics. We know that Kathleen Wynne is their model. She lied in four elections about coming tax increases. She increased the cost of energy. If they are following that model, why will they not come clean before the election and tell us how much it will cost in higher gas prices if the Liberals are re-elected?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to clarify. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer pointed out, the climate action incentive makes life more affordable for his constituents. The whole system works by returning the rebates directly to households. A typical family of four, in the hon. member's own constituency, would have received $307 off their taxes this year. I am curious that the Conservative Party of Canada has now adopted an approach towards politics that would see families pay more tax. It comes as no surprise to me after a number of years of watching its members vote against the Canada child benefit, the middle-class tax cut and now against a price on pollution that will reduce emissions and make life more affordable.
[Translation]
Health
Mr. Speaker, the health care system is no longer responsive to Canadians' needs.
It is not okay that some people are covered for dental and vision care and others are not. The Liberals' targeted approach simply does not provide the desired results. The NDP is proposing extending health care coverage to protect people from head to toe, while offering Quebec and the other provinces the chance to opt out with full compensation.
Can the government follow the NDP's example and commit to extending medical coverage to include dental and vision care?
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be part of a government that makes historic investments in health in order to respond to the needs of Canadians today and in the future. We have invested more than $11 million in mental health care and home care.
We will continue to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that Canadians continue to be proud of their health care system.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, that was not really an answer to the question. It was over 20 years ago that the Liberals first promised pharmacare. They have had three majority governments since then, and their common criticism of the NDP is that we are in too big of a hurry. We are in a hurry. We think it should not have taken 20 years for Canadians to get affordable access to drugs. We are not prepared to apologize for that in the least. We also know, because the science tells us, that preventative access to things like dental care and eye care are less expensive in the long term and improve quality of life. Will they commit today to moving forward on that?
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a government that has made historic investments in the areas of mental care and home care. To make sure that we could meet the needs of Canadians today and also tomorrow, we have invested more than $11 billion in the areas of home care and mental health. From there, we continue to work with the provinces and territories, as we want to make sure that our health care system remains a point of pride for all Canadians.
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, when six premiers expressed their serious concerns about the Liberals ramming the anti-energy Bill C-69 through the House, the Prime Minister attacked them and accused them of threatening national unity. When respected economist Dr. Jack Mintz raised concerns with the damaging impact of the Liberals' energy policies, the Minister of Natural Resources attacked him and accused him of undermining Canada.
Why is it that whenever legitimate concerns about the energy sector are raised with the Liberals, their response is always “shut your mouth, Ottawa knows best”?
Mr. Speaker, part of our commitment in 2015 was to put forward an agenda that would help us grow the economy and protect our environment at the same time. We noticed that after 10 years of government under Stephen Harper, where the Conservatives could not get major projects done, part of it had to do with the fact that they rammed through an environmental assessment process that did not gain the trust of Canadians.
We are advancing better rules that are going to enhance public participation, strengthen environmental protections and give certainty to industry. This is why the Mining Association of Canada is behind it, the industry that deals with these processes more than any other.
If the hon. member would like a tutor session with me, I would be happy to walk him through it afterwards.
Mr. Speaker, if he wanted to see Ottawa Liberal arrogance, there it was.
Nine provinces have expressed their concern about Bill C-69. Indigenous leaders from across the country have expressed their concerns about Bill C-69. The government has ignored them every step of the way, because the Liberals believe when it comes to energy, they are the only ones who know anything.
How can the government come off saying that it knows best when it has been the worst government in Canadian history when it comes to Canadian energy workers?
Mr. Speaker, with great respect to the hon. member, it was the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada who said that Ottawa knew best. We are moving forward with an agenda that is going to strengthen environmental protection. It is going to provide certainty for industry. Importantly, it is going to allow the public greater opportunities to take part in the environmental assessments of projects that impact their communities. These are simple principles.
We went through an extensive period of consultations to understand the impact it would have on Canadians. We have come up with a process that will help grow our economy and protect our environment at the same time. I am proud to stand with this government as we move forward with this ambitious agenda.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals must approve the Trans Mountain expansion tomorrow, which they already did before, in 2016, except this time it actually has to get built. The Liberals are blocking all new pipelines with their anti-energy, anti-business Bill C-69, which nine out of 10 provinces and all three territories oppose this.
The Nisga'a, Lax Kw'alaams and hundreds of other indigenous communities are against the Liberals shipping ban, Bill C-48, and they have been against it from day one. Instead of cancelling it, the Liberals are steamrolling opposition and indigenous communities to force it through before summer.
Will the Liberals kill these anti-energy bills before it is too late?
Mr. Speaker, this government remains committed to delivering on its promise to Canadians to put forward this oil tanker moratorium and to formalize it in legislation.
I stood in the House this morning, addressing the Senate amendments that came over. We are hoping to work with all parliamentarians here. It is important for Canadians to understand that when it comes to Bill C-48, every single party in the House was in favour of it. The only party that did not vote in favour of it was the Conservative Party.
Order, please. I would remind members that those singing can do so outside.
The hon. member for Lakeland.
Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that member would answer the question. He is the one from Burnaby who opposes the Trans Mountain expansion.
However, other changes to the Liberals' no-more-pipelines Bill C-69 would actually have increased the voices of locally impacted indigenous communities in resource reviews, but the Liberals rejected them.
Manufacturers, chambers, economists, provinces and municipalities are outraged too. Quebec warns that Bill C-69 “ gives the federal government the equivalent of a veto over Quebec's economic development”. Ontario says that it is the worst possible news at the worst possible time which “hinders natural resource related economic development” in Canada.
Again, will the Liberals kill Bill C-69 before it is too late?
Mr. Speaker, with great respect to the hon. member, we know that the mining sector, as an example, is the sector that deals with environmental assessments more than any other industrial sector in the Canadian economy. It supports the process that is outlined in Bill C-69, because it understands that we are putting forward better rules than were put forward under the previous government.
We have better rules that are going to enhance environmental protection. It is going to increase the ability of the public to take part in the projects that affect them. It is going to engage indigenous voices at the same time we bring certainty to industry.
This is not complicated. This is common sense, straightforward proposals that will help improve our ability to get major projects done in the right way.
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, Amin was deployed seven times as a language and cultural adviser for the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. Like many Canadians, Amin brought the war home with him in the form of PTSD.
When he reached out to the government, he was told he was ineligible because he had not applied for civilian benefits on time. Civilians share the risk, but they do not get the support. That is wrong. Surely the government can support this gentleman in his desperate time of need, and all the other civilians who put their lives on the line for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the work of the women and men in uniform and civilians who have served in Afghanistan. I want to thank Mr. Ayubi for his work and dedication to helping our Canadian Armed Forces members.
For privacy reasons, I cannot speak to the specifics of the case, but I have directed officials to look into this case and find a solution.
Health
Mr. Speaker, abortion is legal in Canada, yet some struggle to access this service in a timely fashion. It is not enough for the Liberals and the Conservatives to say that they will not reopen the abortion debate.
Under the Canada Health Act, abortion services are insured, yet only one in six hospitals actually offers these services. Some provinces will not cover the cost of surgical abortion in health clinics. Access is even worse for people in rural areas, the north and the Atlantic provinces.
Will the Liberals enforce the Canada Health Act to ensure medical and surgical abortion is available and covered in all parts of the country?
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Harper Conservatives, we know abortion rights are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we will always defend those rights.
We believe all Canadian women should have access to safe abortion services. That is why we stood up for reproductive health options in all parts of Canada, including expanding access to Mifegymiso in different parts of the country, including rural areas, to ensure that everyone would have access to abortion services.
[Translation]
Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, today, the residents of Brossard—Saint-Lambert and I were delighted to learn that the new Samuel De Champlain Bridge will be opening soon. Our government was clear in 2015. We wanted to make it easier for families to commute so that they could spend more time together rather than stuck in traffic.
Could my hon. colleague, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, give us some highlights and updates on the opening of the new Samuel De Champlain Bridge?
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from Brossard—Saint-Lambert for her unwavering support while this work was being carried out.
We are proud to be able to give people on the south shore and in Montreal a modern and iconic toll-free bridge.
There are three important dates to remember. The northbound lanes will open on June 24, the official opening ceremony will take place on June 28, and the southbound lanes will open on July 1.
The real heroes in all of this are the 1,600-plus workers who worked tirelessly to give Canada this iconic bridge.
[English]
Forestry Industry
Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks, the communities of Vavenby and 100 Mile House have been devastated by sawmill closures. We have an industry in crisis and it is moving en masse to the United States. Despite this urgency, the government failed to even consider it as part of the NAFTA negotiations.
The Prime Minister is heading to Washington next week to meet with the U.S. President. Will he commit to addressing the softwood lumber dispute with President Trump?
Mr. Speaker, we strongly disagree with U.S. tariffs on softwood lumber. These are punitive duties. They are unfair. They are deeply troubling. Our government will take every opportunity to vigorously defend our forestry industry and its workers against protectionist trade measures.
My father is a professional forester. I grew up in that industry. We are committed to it. We will continue to work constantly to ensure our industry is successful and our workers are employed.
[Translation]
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, we have been asking the Prime Minister for two years to take appropriate action to deal with the border crisis. For two years, he has been spending millions of dollars to welcome illegal migrants but has done nothing to put an end to that migration.
On Thursday, the Prime Minister will be meeting with President Trump. Will he have the courage to stand up and address the subject of the illegal migrants who are entering Canada through the United States?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, from the outset, we have been very clear that our government is committed to a fair and compassionate system which does, in fact, provide protection to those who need it while ensuring the safety all Canadians. We have achieved an extraordinary reduction in the number of people who have been crossing our borders irregularly as a direct result of our work with the United States and our other partners right across Canada and around the world.
We will continue to work hard for Canadians to ensure our system remains fair and safe.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Canada's Arctic sovereignty is under threat. The United States refuses to recognize our sovereignty over our Arctic waters.
Last month, U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, called our claim to the Northwest Passage “illegitimate”. The Arctic has never been a priority to the Liberals, and the Prime Minister has never stood up for our Arctic sovereignty.
The Prime Minister is meeting with President Trump on Thursday. Does the Prime Minister plan to continue his policy of giving away our sovereignty to Trump or will he finally fight for Arctic?
Mr. Speaker, Canada's Arctic sovereignty is long-standing. It is well-established, and we have taken every opportunity to express that. We know that the north is an extremely important region of our country. It is more than photo ops. It is more than taking a picture and going to the Arctic once a summer. It is about real people, sustainable environmental protection and ensuring that Canada's sovereignty is protected.
We will stand firm. Canada's Arctic is Canada's Arctic.
Mr. Speaker, when will we see the Prime Minister stand for our sovereignty?
Canadians are concerned about the Prime Minister's ability to convince the U.S. President when he meets with him this week to act with Canada to free two Canadians from a Chinese prison. The Prime Minister consistently fails Canadians in our global relationships and, in particular, with China to the point where the Chinese President has said that he will not meet with the Prime Minister during the G20.
With lives hanging in the balance, will the Prime Minister secure the support of the U.S. President to help release our imprisoned Canadians in China?
Mr. Speaker, indeed, Canadian lives do hang in the balance. This is not about political grandstanding. It is not about rhetoric. It is about doing the work patiently and persistently and continuing to not try to score political points but to bring Canadians home safely.
We have rallied an unprecedented number of partners around the world in support of Canada's position: NATO, Australia, the EU, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the United States Senate.
We will continue to stand up for Canadians. We ask all members of the House to do the same.
[Translation]
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could believe that the government will eventually rise above partisanship.
A month ago, the NDP tabled a motion in Parliament declaring a climate emergency, but the Conservatives and the Liberals voted against it. The government chose to adopt its own emergency declaration by moving a motion that will not stop pipelines from being built or stop the flow of subsidies to oil companies. They chose to play political games rather than work with all the parties to tackle the emergency head-on.
Can the government stop making this existential crisis political and work with the rest of us to revise the greenhouse gas reduction targets? Can it stop subsidizing oil companies and embark on the climate transition an entire generation is calling for, yes or no?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would be honoured to work alongside the member any day to advance a climate agenda that actually makes sense.
One of the problems with the NDP's climate motion is that it called for the immediate end to all subsidies no matter what, which included subsidies that provided electricity to northern, remote indigenous communities. It included subsidies for research that would actually help some of our biggest polluters bring their emissions down. It included subsidies that would help with the transition toward electric vehicles.
As always, when it comes to climate change, the NDP members have their heart in the right place, but their heads simply have not caught up.
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister goes to meet with Donald Trump in the U.S., he has shut down debate on a trade deal that will impact Canadians for generations to come.
The Liberals' promise of a full debate on the new NAFTA is now just another broken promise. The cost of medication, copyright extension, corporate powers over our regulatory bodies, dairy farmers losing out and jobs are all at stake.
On the TPP, the trade committee had over 400 witnesses on a cross-country tour. How many witnesses will we have at the prestudy on the new NAFTA tomorrow? There will be 12.
Why are Liberals trying to silence stakeholders and keep Canadians in the dark?
Mr. Speaker, that member in particular should know that the new NAFTA is a great deal for labour and for auto workers, especially those in her own riding. The then president of Windsor-Essex Regional Chamber of Commerce, Janice Forsyth, said that the new deal was “a great step forward”. Flavio Volpe, the president of Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association of Canada said that “Windsor is perfectly positioned to take advantage.”
Why will the member not support the workers of her own riding instead of trying to score some political points?
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are falling far short of their Paris targets, yet the minister continues to pretend that she is on track, trying to distract from her own climate failures.
Now she asks Canadians to believe that the Liberals will not hike the carbon tax past $50 per tonne. Right. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that, for the carbon tax to have any effect, it would need to be doubled to meet the Paris targets. The Liberals cannot have it both ways.
When will the minister admit she will not meet the Paris targets?
Mr. Speaker, with respect, we are going to meet our Paris Agreement targets because, quite frankly, failure is not an option.
With respect to the PBO report, I have pointed out a number of times on the floor today that it assumes that no further steps will be taken on climate change. Perhaps this is foreshadowing what the Conservative plan is going to look like.
We know that climate change is real, and we know that we have an obligation and an opportunity to do something about it. In fact, I think we have an obligation to do the most effective solutions that we know exist today. That includes putting a price on pollution that is going to bring emissions down. By working with folks like the Nobel Prize winner in economics last year, we have found a way to do it that makes life more affordable for Canadian households.
[Translation]
Canada Summer Jobs Program
Mr. Speaker, can someone tell me why the Liberals are giving more than $25,000 to an organization the CRA banned because of its links to terrorist entities?
The Islamic Society of North America is on the CRA's blacklist. An audit revealed that funds supposedly meant for charitable works were making their way to extremist entities that India, the United States and the EU consider to be terrorist organizations.
Terrorism and extremism. Why did the minister and the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore approve this funding?
What further proof does the minister need to revoke the funding immediately instead of conducting bogus reviews?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows we unequivocally condemn violence and extremism of any kind. It is unacceptable and is not tolerated.
We understand and share the member's concerns about this organization. ESDC is conducting a review of this matter through Service Canada Ontario. The member has long served in this House. He knows how this program works and that money will not be flowing if in fact this group is not compliant.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals cannot stand up and say that they do not support terrorism and then give funding to an organization that was proven to have given money to terrorists. It is ridiculous.
The Liberals rejected funding to organizations that do things like support women who are single moms and support poverty reductions in our community, because these organizations would not sign their others' values test.
When are the Liberals going to do the right thing and revoke the funding to this organization? This is a no-brainer.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives like to say that politics are being played with the Canada summer jobs program, but politics are being played by them. We know the Conservatives have continued to mislead Canadians with regard to the Canada summer jobs program. They say that we are not funding any faith-based groups anymore.
Even in their leader's riding, the Raymore Baptist Church, Avonhurst Pentecostal Assembly and Echo Lake Bible Camp have received funding, if Conservatives check their list. That would be another aspect of this program they continue to play politics with.
Order. I would remind the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill that after she poses her question, someone else gets to speak. She should not be interrupting when someone else is speaking, nor should anybody else. We should all keep that in mind, that each side gets its turn.
[Translation]
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, in recent years I have had the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence as our government was putting together its new defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. This policy puts our men and women in uniform first, including Canadian civilians who choose to join the reserves.
Can the Minister of National Defence tell us about the recent changes made to support our reservists across the country?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his support of the reservists.
Last week, I was in Laval to announce changes to the reserve force pay. The reservists will now be paid the same as the regular force for the valuable work they do. This important initiative, laid out in our defence policy “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, is a clear demonstration of how we value the dedication of all members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Our reservists make us proud.
Ethics
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister claimed the Liberal member for Steveston—Richmond East had addressed allegations that the MP's law firm was used by a notorious Chinese drug boss to launder money. We now learn that the B.C. inquiry into money laundering has discovered that the same member was directly involved in another suspicious deal. The purported deal involved a wealthy gambler, hidden investors and an unexplained $1-million transfer in and out of the MP's law firm.
Will the Prime Minister act, or is this just another case of one set of rules for Liberals and another for everyone else?
Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard with the provincial governments right across the country and, in particular, in British Columbia on the issue of money laundering. I am not going to comment on any unproven allegation at this point, but what I will say is that our government has been working very diligently to address all of the sector vulnerabilities, including working with law societies from across Canada to address the concerns that are being addressed.
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, a Vale tailings dam by my community of Thompson has been flagged by outside investigators for stability concerns. Vale told its shareholders of this, but not people living on the ground. In fact, it took an investigative report from The Wall Street Journal for this to come to light. No one wants another Mount Polley disaster, but this is a company that has shown repeatedly that it does not take these kinds of safety concerns seriously.
What is the government doing to ensure the protection of the people and the environment around Thompson and in our north?
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, the steel sector directly employs over 20,000 Canadians across the country and is vital to manufacturing companies in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. In the face of the U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum, Canadians stood together and firm to defend these important industries and our workers.
Now that we have succeeded in having the U.S. tariffs fully lifted, can the Minister of Finance update the House on how our government is working to continue to protect the industry and workers from unfair trade practices?
Mr. Speaker, while we accept these challenges around the world, we need to continue to take actions to protect our steel industry against the potential of import surges. We introduced Bill C-101 in order to make sure that we have the flexibility to stabilize our market, to protect workers and to protect the industry in the case of steel surges that might come because of those protectionist issues.
I want to thank the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge and the finance committee for their work, and I want to ask all members in the House to bring forth their unanimous support so we can move this bill forward quickly to protect steel workers and to protect our steel industry.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, nearly two million people in Hong Kong have taken to the streets to protest the draconian new extradition law that would have seen residents and visitors, including Canadians, sent to China to face trial in communist-controlled courts. They are on the streets to defend their hard-earned democracy. The extradition law is a clear assault on Hong Kong's autonomy. There is mounting pressure for Hong Kong's PRC-controlled leader, Carrie Lam, to resign after trying to ram through this law and silence peaceful protestors with violence.
What action is the government taking to support the people of Hong Kong and the 300,000 Canadians living there?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his concern about this topic, which I think is shared throughout this House.
We have expressed serious concerns about the proposed amendments to Hong Kong's extradition laws. They have been delayed; they have not yet been cancelled. The Hong Kong government must listen to the voices of its citizens. Last week, we issued another public statement expressing our concern about the impact of these changes. We are very aware that there are, indeed, 300,000 Canadians living in Hong Kong. That is of special concern to all of us.
I took this topic up with legislators when I met with them in Hong Kong. We will continue to advocate for human rights in our world.
[Translation]
Intergovernmental Relations
Mr. Speaker, last night Quebec passed its secularism bill. Finally.
Will the Prime Minister now undertake to respect the will of Quebeckers and their National Assembly and neither challenge the new Quebec bill in court nor fund legal challenges?
Mr. Speaker, our position has always been clear. It is not up to politicians to tell people what to wear or what not to wear.
Canada is already a secular country and that is reflected in our institutions. No one should have to choose between their religion and their job. This new law violates fundamental rights and individual freedoms.
We will always defend the charter for all Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, completely out of touch with Quebeckers, has already dragged out his “it is a sad day for Quebec”. It took less than 24 hours.
Whether he likes it or not, it is a good day for Quebec. This is a great day, and the culmination of over 10 years of debate on secularism in Quebec. The fight is not over, however. We still have to make sure that Ottawa will not drag this matter before the courts.
Will Quebeckers get a solemn commitment that the federal government will respect their will and not challenge this secularism legislation either directly or indirectly?
Mr. Speaker, I have known the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for many years. He is a proud Quebecker. He is a proud Canadian. He is entitled to his opinion on an issue that is so fundamental to Quebec.
We as a government have always defended the charter. It is not up to the government to tell Canadians what to wear or what not to wear.
Canada is already a secular country, and as I just said, we will defend the charter.
[English]
Northern Affairs
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It was one of the proudest moments of my life when I was elected to the first Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. There was such hope and promise.
However, fast-forward 20 years, and life is not better for Nunavummiut. For many, it is worse. Nunavut only works if we can build a sustainable economy, and we can only do that with the support that was promised by the federal government. It will take massive investments in infrastructure, housing, roads, ports and connectivity.
Will the Prime Minister finally work with the Government of Nunavut and fulfill the commitment Canada made 20 years ago, or do we have to wait another 20?
Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that Canada is working with the Government of Nunavut and all our northern partners to develop and implement the new Arctic and northern policy framework, which will be done based on the principles that were determined by northerners around infrastructure, investing in people and investing in our sovereignty.
I look forward to working and being able to announce that very quickly.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
[Translation]
Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act
The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-88, An Act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.
It being 3:08 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 28, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-88.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 1361)
YEAS
Members
AldagAlghabra
Amos
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arya
Ashton
Ayoub
Badawey
Bagnell
Baylis
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Benson
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blaney (North Island—Powell River)
Boissonnault
Bossio
Boutin-Sweet
Bratina
Breton
Brosseau
Cannings
Caron
Carr
Casey (Cumberland—Colchester)
Casey (Charlottetown)
Chagger
Champagne
Chen
Choquette
Christopherson
Cullen
Cuzner
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeCourcey
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Drouin
Dubé
Dubourg
Duguid
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona)
Dusseault
Duvall
Dzerowicz
Easter
Ehsassi
Ellis
Erskine-Smith
Eyking
Eyolfson
Fergus
Fillmore
Finnigan
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser (West Nova)
Fraser (Central Nova)
Freeland
Fuhr
Gerretsen
Gill
Goldsmith-Jones
Goodale
Gould
Graham
Hardcastle
Hardie
Harvey
Hehr
Hogg
Holland
Housefather
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Johns
Jolibois
Joly
Jones
Jordan
Jowhari
Julian
Kang
Khalid
Khera
Kwan
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation)
Laverdière
Lebouthillier
Lefebvre
Leslie
Levitt
Lightbound
Lockhart
Long
Longfield
Ludwig
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Manly
Massé (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia)
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
McCrimmon
McDonald
McGuinty
McKay
McKenna
McLeod (Northwest Territories)
Mendès
Mendicino
Mihychuk
Monsef
Morneau
Morrissey
Murray
Nantel
Nassif
Ng
O'Connell
Oliphant
Oliver
O'Regan
Ouellette
Paradis
Pauzé
Peschisolido
Peterson
Petitpas Taylor
Picard
Plamondon
Poissant
Quach
Qualtrough
Ramsey
Rankin
Ratansi
Rioux
Robillard
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Rudd
Ruimy
Rusnak
Sahota
Saini
Sajjan
Samson
Sangha
Sansoucy
Sarai
Schiefke
Schulte
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simms
Sohi
Sorbara
Spengemann
Stetski
Tabbara
Tassi
Thériault
Tootoo
Trudel
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vaughan
Weir
Whalen
Wilkinson
Wilson-Raybould
Wrzesnewskyj
Yip
Young
Zahid
Total: -- 198
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAlbas
Albrecht
Alleslev
Allison
Anderson
Arnold
Barrett
Benzen
Bergen
Bernier
Berthold
Bezan
Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis)
Block
Boucher
Carrie
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Deltell
Diotte
Dreeshen
Eglinski
Fast
Finley
Gallant
Gladu
Gourde
Harder
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kent
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kusie
Lake
Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lukiwski
Maguire
Martel
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McColeman
McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo)
Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound)
Motz
Nater
Nicholson
Nuttall
Paul-Hus
Poilievre
Rayes
Reid
Rempel
Saroya
Schmale
Shields
Shipley
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Strahl
Stubbs
Sweet
Tilson
Trost
Van Kesteren
Vecchio
Viersen
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Wong
Yurdiga
Total: -- 78
PAIRED
Members
BeaulieuLeBlanc
Total: -- 2
[English]
Fisheries Act
The House resumed from June 14 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, and of the amendment.
Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 28, 2019, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to Bill C-68.
The question is on the amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 1362)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAlbas
Albrecht
Alleslev
Allison
Anderson
Arnold
Barrett
Benzen
Bergen
Bernier
Berthold
Bezan
Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis)
Block
Boucher
Carrie
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Deltell
Diotte
Dreeshen
Eglinski
Fast
Finley
Gallant
Gladu
Gourde
Harder
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kent
Kitchen
Kusie
Lake
Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lukiwski
Maguire
Martel
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McColeman
McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo)
Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound)
Motz
Nater
Nicholson
Nuttall
Paul-Hus
Poilievre
Rayes
Reid
Rempel
Saroya
Schmale
Shields
Shipley
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Strahl
Stubbs
Sweet
Tilson
Trost
Van Kesteren
Vecchio
Viersen
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Wong
Yurdiga
Total: -- 77
NAYS
Members
AldagAlghabra
Amos
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arya
Ashton
Ayoub
Badawey
Bagnell
Baylis
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Benson
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blaney (North Island—Powell River)
Boissonnault
Bossio
Boutin-Sweet
Bratina
Breton
Brosseau
Cannings
Caron
Carr
Casey (Cumberland—Colchester)
Casey (Charlottetown)
Chagger
Champagne
Chen
Choquette
Christopherson
Cullen
Cuzner
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeCourcey
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Drouin
Dubé
Dubourg
Duguid
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona)
Dusseault
Duvall
Dzerowicz
Easter
Ehsassi
Ellis
Erskine-Smith
Eyking
Eyolfson
Fergus
Fillmore
Finnigan
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser (West Nova)
Fraser (Central Nova)
Freeland
Fuhr
Gerretsen
Gill
Goldsmith-Jones
Goodale
Gould
Graham
Hardcastle
Hardie
Harvey
Hehr
Hogg
Holland
Housefather
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Johns
Jolibois
Joly
Jones
Jordan
Jowhari
Julian
Kang
Khalid
Khera
Kwan
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation)
Laverdière
Lebouthillier
Lefebvre
Leslie
Levitt
Lightbound
Lockhart
Long
Longfield
Ludwig
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Manly
Massé (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia)
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
McCrimmon
McDonald
McGuinty
McKay
McKenna
McLeod (Northwest Territories)
Mendès
Mendicino
Mihychuk
Monsef
Morneau
Morrissey
Murray
Nantel
Nassif
Ng
O'Connell
Oliphant
Oliver
O'Regan
Ouellette
Paradis
Pauzé
Peschisolido
Peterson
Petitpas Taylor
Picard
Plamondon
Poissant
Quach
Qualtrough
Ramsey
Rankin
Ratansi
Rioux
Robillard
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Rudd
Ruimy
Rusnak
Sahota
Saini
Sajjan
Samson
Sangha
Sansoucy
Sarai
Schiefke
Schulte
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simms
Sohi
Sorbara
Spengemann
Stetski
Tabbara
Tassi
Thériault
Tootoo
Trudel
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vaughan
Weir
Whalen
Wilkinson
Wilson-Raybould
Wrzesnewskyj
Yip
Young
Zahid
Total: -- 198
PAIRED
Members
BeaulieuLeBlanc
Total: -- 2
I declare the amendment defeated.
[Translation]
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 1363)
YEAS
Members
AldagAlghabra
Amos
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arya
Ashton
Ayoub
Badawey
Bagnell
Baylis
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Benson
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blaney (North Island—Powell River)
Boissonnault
Bossio
Boutin-Sweet
Bratina
Breton
Brosseau
Cannings
Caron
Carr
Casey (Cumberland—Colchester)
Casey (Charlottetown)
Chagger
Champagne
Chen
Choquette
Christopherson
Cullen
Cuzner
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeCourcey
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Drouin
Dubé
Dubourg
Duguid
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona)
Dusseault
Duvall
Dzerowicz
Easter
Ehsassi
Ellis
Erskine-Smith
Eyking
Eyolfson
Fergus
Fillmore
Finnigan
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser (West Nova)
Fraser (Central Nova)
Freeland
Fuhr
Gerretsen
Goldsmith-Jones
Goodale
Gould
Graham
Hardcastle
Hardie
Harvey
Hehr
Hogg
Holland
Housefather
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Johns
Jolibois
Joly
Jones
Jordan
Jowhari
Julian
Kang
Khalid
Khera
Kwan
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation)
Laverdière
Lebouthillier
Lefebvre
Leslie
Levitt
Lightbound
Lockhart
Long
Longfield
Ludwig
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Manly
Massé (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia)
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
McCrimmon
McDonald
McGuinty
McKay
McKenna
McLeod (Northwest Territories)
Mendès
Mendicino
Mihychuk
Monsef
Morneau
Morrissey
Murray
Nantel
Nassif
Ng
O'Connell
Oliphant
Oliver
O'Regan
Ouellette
Paradis
Peschisolido
Peterson
Petitpas Taylor
Picard
Poissant
Quach
Qualtrough
Ramsey
Rankin
Ratansi
Rioux
Robillard
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Rudd
Ruimy
Rusnak
Sahota
Saini
Sajjan
Samson
Sangha
Sansoucy
Sarai
Schiefke
Schulte
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simms
Sohi
Sorbara
Spengemann
Stetski
Tabbara
Tassi
Tootoo
Trudel
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vaughan
Weir
Whalen
Wilkinson
Wilson-Raybould
Wrzesnewskyj
Yip
Young
Zahid
Total: -- 193
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAlbas
Albrecht
Alleslev
Allison
Anderson
Arnold
Barrett
Benzen
Bergen
Berthold
Bezan
Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis)
Block
Carrie
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Deltell
Diotte
Dreeshen
Eglinski
Fast
Finley
Fortin
Gallant
Gill
Gladu
Gourde
Harder
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kent
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kusie
Lake
Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lukiwski
Maguire
Martel
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McColeman
McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo)
Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound)
Motz
Nater
Nicholson
Nuttall
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Plamondon
Poilievre
Rayes
Reid
Rempel
Saroya
Schmale
Shields
Shipley
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Strahl
Stubbs
Sweet
Thériault
Tilson
Trost
Van Kesteren
Vecchio
Viersen
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Wong
Yurdiga
Total: -- 81
PAIRED
Members
BeaulieuLeBlanc
Total: -- 2
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Ways and Means
Government Response to Petitions
Interparliamentary Delegations
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present in the House, in both official languages, a report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association reflecting its participation at the 40th annual interparliamentary meeting between the European Parliament and the Parliament of Canada in Brussels, Belgium and Strasbourg, France from March 12 to 14, 2019.
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present, in both official languages, the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled “Adapting Canada's Immigration Policies to Today's Realities”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
I would also like to thank the member for Don Valley West, the parliamentary secretary, for his work chairing this committee to help develop this report; and all the members, including the vice-chairs from the Conservative Party and the NDP, who travelled to Tanzania and Uganda in order to obtain witness testimony for this comprehensive report.
Industry, Science and Technology
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, entitled “Rural Wireless Digital Infrastructure: A Critical Role”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
The first is the 25th report, entitled “Aquatic Invasive Species: A National Priority”. I want to recognize the member who put this forward for study, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap and thank him for that.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.
I will take this opportunity to thank all the members for their work over the past few months as we get ready to rise for the summer. I also want to thank the table staff, translators and everybody involved in making the committee work so efficiently.
Foreign Affairs and International Development
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 28th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “Renewing Canada's Role in International Support for Democratic Development”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to present.
[Translation]
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 28th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, entitled “The Criminalization of HIV Non-Disclosure in Canada”.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. However, notwithstanding the deadline of 120 days stipulated in Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the comprehensive response be tabled within 60 days of the presentation of the report to the House.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 29th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, entitled “Taking Action to End Online Hate”.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report; however, notwithstanding the deadline of 120 days stipulated in Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the comprehensive response to this report be tabled within 60 days of the presentation of the report to the House.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, while Conservatives accept testimony that although deliberately attempting to infect one's partner is infrequent, it still occurs. Victims must have recourse and law enforcement must have tools in these situations. Repealing criminal consequences for the deliberate, negligent or reckless attempts to spread HIV is not something that we can support. I am pleased to table our dissenting report and recommendations.
While I am on my feet, I would like to thank all those who appeared before the committee to give a wide range of diverse views on the important topic of online hate. While tackling the proliferation of extremist violence is of the utmost importance, it cannot come at the expense of fundamental freedoms of Canadians. The report tabled by the Liberal majority on this committee does not strike an appropriate balance. Measures like the restoration of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are an unacceptable violation of the freedom of speech of Canadians. Therefore, I am proud to table the Conservative Party's dissenting report and recommendations.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Health.
The first is the 27th report, entitled “Get Canada's Youth Moving!”
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
The second is the 28th report, entitled “The Health of LGBTQIA2 Communities in Canada”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. However, notwithstanding the deadline of 120 days stipulated in Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the comprehensive response to this report be tabled within 60 days of the presentation of the report to the House.
With respect to the report entitled “The Health of the LGBTQIA2 Communities in Canada”, I would like to thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for bringing this critically important study forward. It is also quite appropriate that we are tabling this historic report in the middle of Pride Month. We had very comprehensive and emotional testimony throughout that was very educational.
On Motion No. 206 on physical activity of youth, I want to thank the member for Newmarket—Aurora for his tireless work over the last four years to make this study possible. We have heard from experts in the field of physical activity, including Participaction and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the 67th report, entitled “Report 5, Equipping Officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, of the 2019 Spring Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”; and the 68th report, entitled “Do Service Well: the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of the Forty-Second Parliament”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to these two reports.
Government Operations and Estimates
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, entitled “An Even Greener Government: Improving the Greening Government Strategy to Maximize its Impact”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Also, since this may be my last opportunity in this Parliament to say a few words on behalf of our committee, I want to congratulate and thank all our clerks, analysts, interpreters and translators, who helped our committee achieve, I think, some very worthy and laudatory work on a number of reports. I also want to thank all the members of the committee. As members know, many times in committee, discussions can get quite heated and quite partisan. I was fortunate enough to chair a committee on which all the members acted with great professionalism and respect for one another. I look forward to once again returning to Parliament in the fall, hopefully to have the same response from future committees.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are pleased to present a supplementary report on a green government.
While the OGGO report highlighted many failures of the Liberal government in greening government, the biggest oversight was that we did not, in this report, look at national defence emissions, which account for 50% of the entire government's emissions. It is because of this, unfortunately, that the report issued by OGGO has little value.
Indigenous and Northern Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, entitled “Summary of Evidence of Capacity Building on Reserves”.
I take this opportunity to recognize my colleague, Kevin Waugh, a former school trustee, who understands education and carried the passion of that to this study.
However, it is a study that we did not have an opportunity to complete. All members of our committee would encourage the next government and the next INAN committee to consider continuing this important work, which deals with the training and employment of indigenous people on reserve.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources: the 12th report, entitled “Energy Efficiency Benefits in Canada: Maximizing Opportunities for a Competitive Economy”; and the 13th report, entitled “International Best Practices for Indigenous Engagement in Major Energy Projects: Building Partnerships on the Path to Reconciliation”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to both reports.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow committee members, some of whom are here today. I have been working with them for four years now, and they have made the committee run incredibly smoothly. It has been a pleasure working with these individuals. I would especially like to thank our clerk and analysts, who have made working with the committee particularly smooth. Everything ran incredibly well, and it is because of them that this was able to happen.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The first is the 17th report, entitled “A Lifetime of Dedication: Helping Senior Women Benefit from their Lifelong Contributions to Canadian Society today”. The committee was able to hear from 54 witnesses, including 11 from departments, 10 individuals and 18 organizations. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.
The second is the 18th report, entitled “A Force for Change: Creating a Culture of Equality for Women in the Canadian Armed Forces”. The committee heard from nine independent witnesses, four organizations and seven individuals from DND. This was a fantastic opportunity for us to do the work. I want to mention the work done by our analysts, Dominique and Clare, and our fantastic clerk, Kenza, who were able to get all of this done in the last few weeks. We were able to get a report done and tabled.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Mr. Speaker, we submitted two dissenting reports, the first having to do with seniors. The focus was seniors who find themselves in financially vulnerable situations. Interestingly, under the Liberal government, there are more seniors who live in poverty now than there were up to 15 years ago, according to Statistics Canada data that came out within the last couple of weeks. When Conservatives were in power, the rate of female seniors living in poverty was about 11%. Under the current government, it is over 16%, so that number has increased drastically.
The reason I raise this is that one of the concerns we heard from women who appeared at committee was that not enough is being done to support them, in particular those who choose to spend part or all of their working years at home looking after children and the well-being of the home as a whole. The government does not respect that choice, so in our report, we call on it to respect a woman's autonomy and economic choice in life.
The other dissenting report I am tabling has to do with women in the Canadian Armed Forces. The reason this study was initiated was that the government promised that 25% of those in the Canadian Armed Forces would be women. It has not reached that target. It has also failed to respond to problems taking place within Operation Honour. Liberals also made a campaign promise that they would not take veterans to court, but they have. It is important for us to highlight the places where they have failed to meet their promises to Canadians and to make sure that we act as a voice advocating for these women who are part of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians continue to die because of the ongoing opioid crisis. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, its most recent numbers indicate that since January 2016, over 11,000 Canadians have died. For the first time in decades, our life expectancy in Canada has stalled, and it is because of the opioid crisis. It is a public health crisis, and public health experts across the country are unanimous in calling for drug use to be treated as a health issue. That means expanding harm reduction and treatment options, which this government has done, but it also means removing the criminal sanction for low-level possession, because we know that the number one stigma associated with seeking treatment is the criminal sanction.
It does not mean removing the criminal sanction for producing or trafficking, but for personal use by the very people we want to help, it means treating patients as patients and not as criminals. That is exactly what this bill seeks to do by removing the criminal sanction for low-level possession. It is a necessary next step in following the evidence to save lives. If I am re-elected, it will be the first bill I reintroduce.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Criminal Code
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-461, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (trafficking in persons).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the many advocates and community partners that helped us in the creation of this bill. The issue was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine, Darla, who, as a survivor of human trafficking herself, notes how dire the situation is. As my colleague, the member for Peace River—Westlock, has stated before, human trafficking is happening within 10 blocks of where one lives.
This private member's bill is a product of meaningful consultation with many of our community partners from Oshawa, including the Durham Region Human Trafficking Coalition, Durham Regional Police and its human trafficking unit, Victim Services of Durham Region and many more.
I want to introduce this to my fellow colleagues as an non-partisan issue. Many ridings along the border and our highways are facing a rise in human trafficking. This is an issue on which we all agree we can do better as a country. Human trafficking does not discriminate, and as a father, I want to ensure that our country is a safer place for our children.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today. I will keep them brief.
The first petition is signed by 67 members of my community from the Christian Cultural Association of South Asians and the community at large. The petitioners are bringing to the attention of the government minority groups from Pakistan who have been subjected to human rights violations, discrimination and fear of prosecution. These asylum seekers are living in miserable conditions, including children, who are deprived of education and treatment. Further, these members of the Christian Cultural Association of South Asians are willing to help. They are calling on the Government of Canada to show compassion and bring these asylum seekers to Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the next petition is signed by 25 members of my community. The petitioners are bringing to the attention of the government the need for Canada's animal cruelty laws to be addressed due to an incident that happened to Ms. Krista Brown, of Kingston, when she suffered the loss of two dogs who were killed by her partner. She is requesting that the legislation be changed so that here is a differentiation between pets and farm animals.
Mr. Speaker, the third petition is signed by 42 members of my community who are calling on the Government of Canada to recognize and enshrine the rights of farmers and other Canadians to freely save, reuse, select, exchange, condition, store and sell seeds. The petitioners are further calling on the government to refrain from making any regulations under the Plant Breeders' Rights Act.
Mr. Speaker, the final petition is signed by 75 members of my community who are calling to the attention of the government the fact that public health and safety, traffic flow, air quality and CO2 emissions are all improved by the greater use of bicycles and that bicycle use is encouraged by bicycle boulevards. They are asking the House of Commons and Parliament to assemble the appropriate funds to subsidize the cost of creating bicycle boulevards in Canadian cities and municipalities, dependent on local assessment needs and feasibility.
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting two petitions today.
The first petition is on behalf of hundreds of Canadians who believe that the conscience rights of health care workers are not being protected when they are forced or coerced to become parties in assisted suicide. Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, yet the current government has done nothing to defend these rights in its euthanasia legislation. These citizens are calling on the Government of Canada to enshrine in the Criminal Code protection of conscience for physicians and health care workers. I trust that the government will urgently deal with these concerns and defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on behalf of hundreds of Saskatchewan residents who believe that the Government of Canada must defend the rights of all Canadians, regardless of whether the Liberal Party of Canada agrees with their individual views. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms identifies freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of belief as fundamental freedoms. These citizens believe that the current government requiring Canada summer jobs program applicants to hold the same views as the Liberal government is in contravention of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The petitioners call upon the Prime Minister to defend the charter and withdraw this requirement from the Canada summer jobs program. I hope the government will deal with the concerns of these citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition on behalf of many residents of Toronto, Hamilton, Guelph and Brantford, Ontario, joining their voices to the thousands of Canadians who have signed similar petitions. I would like to thank the B.C. Retired Teachers Association and the National Association of Federal Retirees for their advocacy in this work. All these petitioners point out that before the 2015 federal election, Canadians were clearly promised, in writing, that defined benefit plans would not be retroactively changed to target benefit plans. As the House knows, Bill C-27, tabled by the Minister of Finance, precisely permits this change. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-27, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act of 1985.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today.
The first is signed by Canadians requesting that Parliament collaborate with all provincial and territorial governments to reduce climate change through putting a price on pollution. The petitioners support the adoption of a price on carbon as the focal point of a Canadian climate action plan and urge the implementation of carbon reduction strategies from around the world.
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by Canadians who request that the federal, provincial and territorial governments work together to deliver a publicly funded and financially sustainable drug plan that would cover all medically necessary prescription drugs for all Canadians. The current patchwork of providing prescription drugs to Canadians is neither adequate nor sustainable. Canadians should not be denied access to essential medicines because they cannot afford them.
Mr. Speaker, there is frustration among members of my community who have watched the government present draconian legislation against the energy sector. Members of my community are calling upon the government to immediately scrap Bill C-69, as well as to examine the equalization formula, which petitioners believe has been made untenable and unfair given the Prime Minister's ideological opposition to jobs in our community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present e-petition 2046 on behalf of my constituent Mandy Fowler and her son Kayge. The petition has been signed by 8,712 Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
The petitioners are asking that May 25 be declared as national DIPG day of awareness. It would help to educate the public about the prevalence and severity of this disease, encourage funding to support ongoing research, increase dialogue in the professional medical community, further publicize and promote Canada's involvement in the fight against DIPG and honour the victims of this terrible disease.
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians from coast to coast are calling on the government to put the safety and well-being of children first and foremost. They call on the federal government to consider the placement of three-point seat belts within school buses across the country. I am tabling a petition on this today.
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions that were signed at the Guelph Farmers' Market by local advocates.
The first one is signed by 312 Canadians and calls for an immediate moratorium on the licensing and release of new GMOs and for an independent review of existing GMOs already released in the market.
Questions on the Order Paper
[Text]
With regard to Health Canada’s regulation of natural health products and non-prescription drugs: (a) what specific regulatory changes have been proposed or are currently under consideration by Health Canada; (b) for each proposed change, what is the stage, status, and timeline of the proposed change; and (c) is Health Canada proposing or considering bringing natural health products under direct regulation and, if so, what are the details, including timeline of such a proposal?
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a), (b) and (c), natural health products have been regulated under the natural health products regulations since 2004, and Canadians now have access to more than 150,000 licensed natural health products. The government is committed to preserving access to a wide range of health products, while making sure that Canadians have the information they need on the product labels to make informed health choices. Health Canada is dedicated to being reasonable, thoughtful and deliberate in how it develops its policy proposals and how it implements any changes.
Since fall 2016, departmental officials have conducted extensive consultations with a diverse range of stakeholders to gain their perspectives and concerns on proposed changes to the natural health products regulations to improve the labelling of natural health products, and the food and drug regulations to modernize the oversight approach for non-prescription drugs. Health Canada has received input from over 4,500 consumers, industry, health care professionals, academia and many other interested stakeholders. This engagement will continue as proposals advance over the coming months to further seek stakeholders’ perspectives and collaboratively work with them on potential solutions.
With regard to the natural health products regulations, Health Canada is proposing changes to improve the labelling of natural health products to make labels easier to read and understand, help consumers make informed decisions about their health and the health of their families, and reduce avoidable harms associated with confusing or illegible labels. Under this new proposal, labels would require a standardized product facts table, a minimum font size and appropriate colour contrast. This proposal is targeting spring 2020 for pre-publication in the Canada Gazette, part I. To support this proposal and its implementation, Health Canada has been engaging stakeholders extensively and has been meeting individual companies representing tens of thousands of natural health products on the Canadian market, to identify any challenges with implementing the proposed labelling changes and working in collaboration with stakeholders to identify potential solutions. Furthermore, Health Canada will publish its proposed guidance on labelling changes in June 2019 to seek additional feedback on the proposed changes prior to formal consultation in Canada Gazette, part I.
In April 2019, Health Canada published its findings from public opinion research on improving self-care product labelling during in-person public consultations held across Canada in 2018: “Consulting Consumers on Self-Care Product Labelling: A Report on What We Heard”, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/topics/self-care-products/what-we-heard-product-labelling.html.
With regard to the food and drug regulations, Health Canada is proposing changes to modernize the oversight approach for non-prescription drugs, which range from cosmetic-like topical products to higher-risk products such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatories. This proposal would introduce simplified market access pathways for lower-risk products and reduce regulatory burden for industry. This proposal is targeting spring 2020 for pre-publication in Canada Gazette, part I.
The regulatory modernization proposals, as described above, are outlined in Health Canada’s “Forward Regulatory Plan 2019-2021”: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/legislation-guidelines/acts-regulations/forward-regulatory-plan/plan/self-care-framework.html.
More information on the proposed regulatory changes and how stakeholders can get involved can be found in “Next steps on the self-care products initiative”, at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/self-care-framework.html.
Health Canada remains committed to continue to engage stakeholders throughout the regulatory modernization process.
With regard to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many Canadian businesses are investing in projects in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, broken down by year; (b) how much Canadian money is spent on projects in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, broken down by year; and (c) of the projects listed in (a), how many of these businesses are operating through, either directly or indirectly, the Canadian government?
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), the Department of Finance has been informed that one Canadian firm, Hatch, is providing consulting services on an AIIB-financed project. In addition, the Department of Finance understands that Canadian firms and consultants are engaged with core functions of the bank. For example, TD Securities helped manage AIIB’s first bond issuance in May 2019, among other financial services firms.
The AIIB publishes details of investors who invest alongside the AIIB in a project. This information can be found on the AIIB website in project documents of both proposed and approved projects, at the following links: https://www.aiib.org/en/projects/approved/index.html and https://www.aiib.org/en/projects/proposed/index.html.
In response to part (b), Canada purchased a 0.995% shareholding in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank at a cost of $199 million U.S. This amount, which is payable over a five-year period in equal proportions, starting in 2017-18, is pooled with that of other member countries and used to finance AIIB projects over multiple years.
In response to part (c), businesses win procurement contracts independently and do not operate through the Government of Canada.
With regard to the 2016 compliance agreement signed by SNC-Lavalin and Elections Canada: did Elections Canada receive any communication from the government, including from any minister’s office, about SNC-Lavalin since November 4, 2015, and, if so, what are the details of all communication, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) form (email, letter, telephone, etc.), (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents?
Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada has not received any communication from the government, including from any minister’s office, about the 2016 compliance agreement signed by SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and the Commissioner of Canada Elections, CCE.
The CCE is responsible to ensure that the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act are complied with and enforced, including the negotiation of compliance agreements. In the exercise of that role, he acts independently of the Chief Electoral Officer.
[English]
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2454 to 2457, 2459 to 2468 and 2471 to 2476 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
[Text]
With regard to the case of Abousfian Abdelrazik and his claims that Canada violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, since June 1, 2018: how much has it cost the government to litigate the case, broken down by (i) the value of all legal services, (ii) disbursements and costs awards for Federal Court file numbers T-727-08 and T-1580-09?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the restrictions announced in April 2019 by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on Chinook salmon fishing in British Columbia: (a) did the government do an economic analysis of the impact of the recreational fishery restrictions on the fishing tourism industry for 2019, and, if so, what were the findings of the analysis; and (b) did the government do an economic analysis of the impact of the restrictions, both recreational and commercial, on the various communities and regions of British Columbia impacted by the restrictions and, if so, what were the findings of the analysis?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the procurement, deployment, usage and maintenance of all new and existing information and communications techonolgies (ICT) and all related costs incurred by the government in fiscal year 2018-19: (a) what was the total level of overall spending by each federal department, agency, Crown corporation, and other governement entities; (b) what are the details of all these expenditures and related costs, including salaries and commercial purchases; (c) how many full-time employees, part-time employees, indeterminate appointments, term employees, contractors and consultants were employed to manage, maintain and improve ICT systems and infrasturcture in each federal department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entities; and (d) what is the ratio of all ICT support workers (full-time, part-time, indeterminate, term employees, contractors and consultants) to non-ICT employees in each federal department, agency, Crown corporation, and other government entities?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the caribou recovery agreements negotiated, proposed, or entered into by the government since November 4, 2015, including those currently under negotiation or consultation: (a) for each agreement, has an economic impact study been conducted and, if so, what are the details, including findings of each study; (b) for each agreement, what is the total projected economic impact, broken down by (i) industry (tourism, logging, transportation, etc.), (ii) region or municipality; and (c) what are the details of all organizations consulted in relation to the economic impact of such agreements, including (i) name of organization, (ii) date, (iii) form of consultation?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, since its creation: (a) what is the number of meetings held with Canadian and foreign investors, broken down by (i) month, (ii) country, (iii) investor class; (b) what is the complete list of investors met; (c) what are the details of the contracts awarded by the Canada Infrastructure Bank, including (i) date of contract, (ii) value of contract, (iii) vendor name, (iv) file number, (v) description of services provided; (d) what are the details of all travel expenses incurred, including for each expenditure the (i) traveller’s name, (ii) purpose of the travel, (iii) travel dates, (iv) airfare, (v) other transportation costs, (vi) accommodation costs, (vii) meals and incidentals, (viii) other expenses, (ix) total amount; and (e) what are the details of all hospitality expenses incurred by the Bank, including for each expenditure the (i) guest’s name, (ii) event location, (iii) service vendor, (iv) total amount, (v) event description, (vi) date, (vii) number of attendees, (viii) number of government employees in attendance, (ix) number of guests?
(Return tabled)
With regard to ongoing or planned government IT projects over $1 million: (a) what is the list of each project, including a brief description; and (b) for each project listed in (a), what is the (i) total budget, (ii) estimated completion date?
(Return tabled)
With regard to international trips taken by the Prime Minister since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of each trip, including (i) dates, (ii) destination, (iii) purpose; (b) for each trip in (a), how many guests who were not members of the Prime Minister’s family, employees of the government, or elected officials, were on each trip; and (c) what are the details of each guest in (b), including (i) name, (ii) title, (iii) reason for being on the trip, (iv) dates individual was on the trip?
(Return tabled)
With regard to government expenditures on gala, concert or sporting event tickets since January 1, 2018: what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) total cost, (iv) cost per ticket, (v) number of tickets, (vi) title of persons using the tickets, (vii) name or title of event for tickets purchased by, or billed to, any department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity?
(Return tabled)
With regard to Minister’s regional offices (MROs): (a) what are the current locations of each MRO; (b) how many government employees, excluding Ministerial exempt staff, are currently working in each office; and (c) how many Ministerial exempt staff are currently working in each office?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the statement by the Minister of Indigenous Services on April 30, 2019, that “Kashechewan will be relocated”: (a) where will the community be located; and (b) what is the projected timeline for the relocation?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the government’s response to the outbreak of African Swine Fever (ASF) in certain parts of the world: (a) what specific new measures has the government taken since January 1, 2019, in order to prevent ASF from coming to Canada; and (b) what new restrictions have been put in place on imports in order to prevent ASF from coming to Canada, broken down by country?
(Return tabled)
With regard to usage of the government's fleet of Challenger aircraft, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight?
(Return tabled)
With regard to all government contracts awarded for public relation services since January 1, 2018, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of these contracts, including (i) date of contract, (ii) value of contract, (iii) vendor name, (iv) file number, (v) description of services provided, (vi) start and end dates of services provided?
(Return tabled)
With regard to Service Canada’s national in-person service delivery network, for each Service Canada Centre: (a) how many centres were operational as of November 4, 2015; (b) what were the locations and number of full-time employees (FTEs) at each location, as of November 4, 2015; (c) how many centres are currently operational; (d) what are the current locations and number of FTEs at each location; (e) which offices have changed their hours of service between November 4, 2015, and present; and (f) for each office which has changed their hours, what were the hours of service as of (i) November 4, 2015, (ii) May 1, 2019?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the government’s Connect to Innovate Program first announced in the 2016 Budget: (a) what is the total of all expenditures to date under the program; (b) what are the details of all projects funded to date under the program, including (i) recipient of funding, (ii) name of the project, (iii) location, (iv) project start date, (v) projected completion date, (vi) amount of funding pledged, (vii) amount of funding actually provided to date, (viii) description of the project; (c) which of the projected listed in (b) have agreements signed, and which ones do not yet have a signed agreement; and (d) which of the details in (a) through (c) are available on the Connect to Innovate section of Industry Canada’s website and what is the specific website location where each such detail is located, broken down by detail requested in (a) through (c), including the subparts of each question?
(Return tabled)
With regard to concerns that infrastructure funding has been announced, but not delivered, in Kelowna, British Columbia, since November 4, 2015: (a) what is the total amount of funding committed in Kelowna; (b) what is the total amount of funding paid out in relation to the funding committed in (a); and (c) what are the details of all projects, including (i) date of announcement, (ii) amount committed, (iii) amount actually paid out to date, (iv) project description?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the Connect to Innovate Program and specifically the project to close the Canadian North Fibre Loop between Dawson City and Inuvik: (a) what is the current status of the project; (b) what are the details of any contracts signed in relation to the project, including the date each contract was signed; (c) what amount has the government committed to the project; (d) of the funding commitment in (c), what amount has been delivered; (e) what is the start date of the project; (f) what is the projected completion date of the project; (g) what are the details of any tender issued in relation to the project; (h) has a contractor been selected for the project and, if so, which contractor was selected and when was the selection made; and (i) which of the details in (a) through (h) are available on the Connect to Innovate section of Industry Canada’s website and what is the specific website location where each such detail is located, broken down by detail requested in (a) through (h)?
(Return tabled)
With regard to all expenditures on hospitality since January 1, 2019, broken down by department or agency: what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of expenditure, (iv) start and end date of contract, (v) description of goods or services provided, including quantity, if applicable, (vi) file number, (vii) number of government employees in attendance, (viii) number of other attendees, (ix) location?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the Non-Insured Health Benefit (NIHB) Program, and the provision of medical transportation benefits in Saskatchewan for each fiscal year from 2012-13 to the current : (a) what is the number of clients served; (b) what is the number of approved trips; (c) what were the approved transportation service providers and the number of trips approved for each; (d) what were the approved modes of transportation and the number of trips per mode; (e) what was the average wait time for approval of applications; (f) what was the number of trips that required lodging, accommodations, or other expenses unrelated to the provision of the treatment being sought; (g) what were the reasons why additional expenses in (f) were approved and the number of applications or trips approved for each; and (h) what was the number of appeals launched as a result of rejected applications, the average length of the appeals process, and the aggregate results?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the 2019-20 federal budget presentation of March 19, 2019, and issues related to the Phoenix pay system for public servants, as of today: (a) what is the total number of affected clients; and (b) what is the total number of affected clients in each electoral district?
(Return tabled)
[English]
Government Orders
[English]
The Environment
Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned
[S. O. 57]
Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 29, I move:
That the debate be not further adjourned.
In accordance with Standing Order 67.1, we will now proceed to a 30-minute question period.
Members will recall that the preference for questions during the 30 minutes is provided to the opposition, but not to the exclusion of some members from the government side. I ask all members who wish to participate in the 30 minutes to now rise, to indicate how much time will be afforded.
If members could keep their interventions to approximately one and a half minutes, that will get through the members who wish to participate.
A final reminder is that members can speak more than once, should the need arise or it be necessary in the course of the 30 minutes.
We will now proceed to questions, with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take note of the fact that the government introduced this motion over a month ago. The government House leader has not put this back on the agenda, which, for one, kind of belies what the Liberal government actually thinks constitutes an emergency.
Two, the Parliamentary Budget Officer this week panned the government's carbon tax, saying that it would not work. Then the environment minister said that the Liberals were not going to increase the price of carbon, so they admitted that their carbon tax is a cash grab. She is responsible for dumping millions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence. As well, the Prime Minister could not even answer to Canadians what he was doing to reduce plastics use.
If it is such an emergency, why is the Prime Minister jetting back and forth today from the Raptors parade, creating a big carbon footprint?
Mr. Speaker, it is really important that the House come together to vote on the increasing climate emergency that we are seeing here in Canada and around the world.
Scientists did a report on the science behind climate change here in Canada. It found that Canada is warming at twice the global average, and three times or more in our north. We know we need to take action on climate change. We know that the science is clear, including the science around extreme weather and the links we have seen already this year, with floods in the Ottawa-Gatineau region. They were supposed to be once in a hundred-year floods and are now happening every several years. That is having a real impact on people's lives, property and on the economy.
When it comes to Alberta, we are already seeing wildfires. We know the science behind climate change. The changing climate report shows we can expect that wildfires will start earlier, will burn longer and will have a greater impact. We need to take action on climate change. I am hoping that the whole House comes together to show Canadians from coast to coast to coast that we understand there is an increasing climate emergency. We understand the science behind climate change, and we understand the need to do work here at home to meet our international obligations.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. The science says that pushing through TMX, the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, will massively increase greenhouse gas emissions for Canada. The science says, as well, that if we continue to massively subsidize billions of dollars a year to the fossil fuel industry, we are going to simply accelerate climate change. The science says all of those things.
The NDP brought forward a climate emergency motion over a month ago. The Liberals voted it down, because we called for what science calls for exactly, which is stopping the fossil fuel subsidies that the Liberals love to lavish on the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and stopping the Trans Mountain pipeline.
A month later, after this motion simply languishing, all of sudden, on the eve of the Trans Mountain rubber-stamp, the Liberals are bringing it back. They are bringing it back with a vicious type of closure that basically shuts down debate completely. Is the reason that they are bringing in this toxic type of closure today, after letting this motion languish for weeks, not because tomorrow they are going to rubber-stamp and ram through Trans Mountain and they are embarrassed about the consequences on climate change?
Mr. Speaker, I hope the member opposite and his party will support our motion that we have an increasing climate emergency.
I know the NDP cares greatly about taking action on climate change, but we also have to make sure we grow the economy and create good jobs. That has always been our focus. Affordability is something that Canadians care about. That is why we put a price on pollution. However, we are giving the money back to people, such that 80% of people will be better off, especially low- and middle-income people.
That is why we are also making investments in clean innovation. That is creating jobs across the country. I have been in British Columbia and have seen amazing companies, like Carbon Engineering, in Squamish, B.C. They are taking CO2 out of the air and then using it to create clean fuels. That is the kind of innovation that is going to create good jobs.
We have made historic investments in public transportation so that people can get around cheaper, faster, cleaner. We are working across the board. We understand that we need to tackle climate change; we need to protect to environment. We can do that at the same time as growing the economy and making sure that life is affordable for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned, this motion was first introduced just over a week ago. Here we are today, and it is being pushed through.
There is some hypocrisy entangled within the motion that is being brought forward by the Liberals. I will comment a little on that. The government says that its so-called climate action plan is to impose a carbon tax on Canadians, but then it is allowing the largest emitters in Canada to get off scot-free. They are off the hook. Meanwhile, everyday Canadians, small business owners, moms and dads who are driving their kids around to sports games, are paying top dollar on the fuel that they use as well as the natural gas they use to heat their homes in Canada. That is not really an option, especially for those in my constituency, Lethbridge, where our winters are -30°C or -35°C.
The idea of a carbon tax is a theory, but it does not work in reality. Instead, we should be focusing on looking after our rivers and waterways, on conserving our land and making sure that wildlife is protected. We should be making sure that we are making investments in green technologies.
Let us talk about the hypocrisy with regard to the St. Lawrence River, the waste that is being dumped in it and the government having done absolutely nothing to stop that.
If we are going to talk about the environment, then let us have a real conversation about the environment, and let us make real changes for it, rather than speaking out of one side of our mouth and doing something different, which is exactly what the Liberals are doing.
Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to see last week that Pope Francis met with major energy companies. He said that carbon pricing was essential to combatting climate change. He appealed to climate change deniers to listen to the science. He said, “For too long we have collectively failed to listen to the fruits of scientific analysis and “doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain”.
Pope Francis is so focused on this, because the most vulnerable, the poorest among us are the most impacted by climate change. We need to take action. He was very clear that there needs to be price on pollution, that it can no longer be free to pollute, because we are paying the price. The people who are paying the price are the most vulnerable among us. That is a basic teaching of the church, that we need to be standing up for the most vulnerable, that we need to be working together to protect what he has called “our common home”.
Laudato Si, the encyclical of the Pope, is very clear about the need for us all to come together, which I hope this House will do. We need to come together to tackle climate change, to realize it can no longer be free to pollute, to understand that we need to do the hard work at home to meet our international obligations. We are all going to need to do more.
Mr. Speaker, some people in my riding are questioning why we need to declare a climate emergency.
While climate impacts are being felt around the globe, in my riding, we are seeing impacts, with irregular weather, hotter summers, invasive species killing our trees, and affecting our health, for instance with Lyme disease and the West Nile virus.
However, there are those who are questioning the need to declare this a climate emergency. Can the Minister of Environment and Climate Change please share with the House the purpose of declaring a climate emergency?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for all the work that she has done to protect the environment, to tackle climate change, including previously as head of the House of Commons committee on the environment.
The reason we need to recognize that we have an increasing climate emergency is because that is what the science tells us. The science says that Canada is warming at twice the global average, three times more in our north. If we are to take serious action on climate change, we need to understand the science, we need to recognize the science and we need to act on the science.
We hope that everyone in the House will come together and we will show Canadians from coast to coast to coast that we understand the science behind climate change, including the impacts that the member spoke about in her own riding.
We recognize that extreme weather is linked to climate change. We recognize that we need to take action and we need to take it now. We recognize that we need to take action at home to meet our international obligations. We all need to do more.
It is important to show Canadians and the world that Canada understands. It is time for us to act. It is good for our economy, it is good for our environment and we owe it to our kids.
Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that when it comes to addressing climate change, we need policy that is based on fact and scientific evidence. When we hear the Parliamentary Budget Officer say that the $40 per tonne price on carbon is not going to allow the government to meet its Paris targets, that is something we should digest, internalize and perhaps change course on.
For the minister to now go from saying we need a scientific-based approach to making this about religion, is hypocritical. Is she going to quote religion on other areas of policy? We have to get away from zealotry and dogma, which is what the minister has made her whole career on. It is the church of climate change and policies that will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
If the minister really cares about climate, why is she making this about religious dogma as opposed to putting forward a plan that would actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Why is the government invoking closure on a debate where we could be discussing these exact things and sussing out a policy that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change in a meaningful way?
Mr. Speaker, my point was that people around the world, including the Pope, understood that climate change was having an impact and that we needed to act. In fact, that meeting was between the Pope and major energy companies.
The member opposite cares greatly about jobs and about getting our resources to market. Those companies met with the Pope to say that a price needed to be put on pollution.
Let us talk about our climate plan. We have a climate plan and we are committed to meeting our targets. We have noted that we are not just doing a price on pollution, but we have other measures.
What are we doing as part of our climate plan? We are making historic investments in public transportation. We are phasing out coal and investing in renewable energy and a just transition for workers, because we need to ensure people are at the heart of it. We are investing in clean innovation and energy efficiency. We are working with provinces on electric vehicles to ensure people have more affordable and cleaner options. We are making investments in affordable housing, but ensuring that those investments are the most energy efficient, so that people with the least amount of money can save money.
We are going to continue acting on climate change. I hope the party opposite is going to present its climate plan. We really hope it will show how the Conservatives will meet the target right in Canada through clear action.
Mr. Speaker, I find it very troubling that we are talking about moving closure on a motion to declare the climate issue in Canada a crisis. As the minister said, Canadians are concerned, above anything else, about climate change. All I hear is about the forest fires and the floods.
Yesterday I was in my home in Penticton and at one o'clock in the morning, my neighbour banged on my door to tell me to get out of the house because there was a big forest brush fire 200 metres from our houses. We had to get out. Luckily, three fire departments came and put the fire out.
People are very concerned about this, yet the Liberal government tries to stand behind its targets, which the IPCC says are inadequate. Climate action tracking websites say that our actions are highly insufficient. We should be debating this in the House for as long as it takes to get across to everybody here. We have to work across party lines and across provincial borders to get this done. Moving closure on this sends a very bad signal to the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I know how much my hon. colleague cares about taking action on the environment. It sounds like it was a terrible situation last night. This is, unfortunately, what we are seeing across the country. Wildfires are now starting earlier in the season because it is much drier. They are burning longer and they are more destructive. We see clear links to climate change and we will continue to see this.
The reason we need to have this discussion and the reason it is important that we have this vote before the session ends is because Canadians deserve to see whether everyone in the House understands the science behind climate change, understands that we increasingly are in a climate emergency and understands that we need to do our part at home. We need to meet our international obligations and then, like everyone in the world, we need to do more. This is a critical discussion. I am very hopeful. I believe the NDP will support this motion.
However, the big question is this. Will the Conservatives support the motion? Do they understand that Canadians expect us to act right here at home? Do they understand that we need to take the measures to reduce emissions, that we can do it in a way that makes life affordable the same way we have done with putting a price on pollution and giving the money back to Canadians, that we need to move forward as a country, that we should not be fighting in court, that we should not be having sticker campaigns like Premier Ford and that we should be taking serious action on climate change?
Mr. Speaker, according to the Prime Minister's itinerary today, he started the morning in Ottawa. He then flew to Toronto. He will then fly to Ottawa. After that, he will fly to Montreal. After he is done in Montreal, he will fly back to Ottawa for the climate emergency vote tonight.
What does the Challenger jet fly on? Does it fly on good intentions or is it just that the Prime Minister is a high-carbon hypocrite?
Order, please. I would ask the hon. member for Perth—Wellington to consider the use of those kinds of characterizations. As the members have seen, they lead to disorder. I really ask hon. members to think about how they phrase things, especially when they are talking about characterizing or assigning adjectives to other hon. members in the House.
The hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want to know is whether Conservative politicians understand that climate change is an increasing emergency. There is a real question out there. There have been a number of cases where the Conservatives have openly questioned the links between extreme weather and climate change.
Jason Kenney, the Premier of Alberta, says that climate change is like the flavour of the month. There are forest fires burning such that he cannot do a press conference to talk about how he killed a price on pollution, because it is so smoky in the legislative building.
Doug Ford is cutting programs for flood management and forest fire management, while there are floods and forest fires. He is funding sticker campaigns so small-business owners will have to pay fines if they do not mislead Ontarians about the cost of a price on pollution and the money that goes directly back to people, that this is shameful that we need to take action on climate change.
Young people are striking every Friday. They are looking for leadership from everyone in the House to stand and say that we have an increasing climate emergency. We need to take action, we need to make decisions based on science and we need to come together to meet our international obligations and then, like the world, we all need to do more.
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the students in Guelph from the community environmental leadership program and the Headwater Group had a town hall where they had the mayor, the MPP and me, as the MP, being challenged to recognize the climate emergency.
At the beginning of the session, I was not sure what they meant by that. By the end of the session, it was very clear that they were asking us to look at our policies, look at our budgeting and look at how we were protecting the natural environment as an emergency, as something that needed to have action now. They also asked about our alignment with international partners and what Canada was doing to lead in the international stadium. I had a follow-up meeting last week on Skype with those same students, who were calling on us to take action as a federal government.
Could the minister update us on our international obligations as well as how we develop policy, budgets and protection of natural habitat with respect to managing this crisis and emergency we are facing?
Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to visit the member's riding to see what the university is doing, to see what local businesses are doing in the community and how much they care about the environment and are taking action on climate change.
We started in Paris with the Paris Agreement. We played an active role at the negotiating table. People were happy that Canada was there saying that we recognized the science, that we needed an ambitious agreement. For the first time ever, the whole world came together and agreed that we all needed to take action on climate change.
Then we came home. We did the hard work. We developed a national climate plan that has over 50 measures, from phasing out coal, to putting a price on pollution, to making historic investments in public transportation and clean innovation. However, we have not stopped. We are doubling the amount of nature we are protecting because that is natural sinks. It is also good for species at risk, which I know are a concern in the member's riding as well. We just announced incentives for zero-emission vehicles. We are tackling plastic pollution. We are not going to stop because we know we have an opportunity to do a lot better.
We did not get it out of the stone age because we ran out of stones. We got smarter. This is progress and we will continue to move forward for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the debate in the House of Commons does not do justice to the crisis we are in. For my Conservatives friends, when we arguing over the costs of the carbon tax, the costs of unmitigated climate change are going to completely dwarf anything we are arguing about now in future generations.
With respect to the minister, I know her heart is in the right place and I know many of my Liberal colleagues are as well. However, with respect to this motion, I look at what the government has done, spending $4.5 billion of our tax dollars on an export pipeline. Is this the economic future in which we want to be investing? How long is the pipeline going to operate for, another 10 years, maybe 20 years or 30 years? In 2050, are we still going to be exporting three times as much bitumen as we are presently? Is that where we want to be?
To use an analogy, the reason Wayne Gretzky was such a great hockey player was because he was always going to be where the puck was going to be, not where it was currently. That is what we need to do as a country. We have to look at where we want to be in 2050, 2060 and put ourselves on a projection toward that. It does not involve purchasing an oil pipeline, tripling its capacity and investing in fossil fuels that rightly belong in the past.
We have to do the just transition. We have to be faithful to our workers, use their skill sets and get them in the new energy economy of the future. I do not see actions with respect to the government paying attention to the seriousness of the motion before us today.
Mr. Speaker, I totally agree. We need to move to the economy of the future. That does not happen overnight, but we are working extraordinarily hard. We have invested over $40 billion in everything from public transportation, to green infrastructure, to clean innovation to investments in science and research. That is critically important, but it is also critically important we still create jobs.
When we look at the LNG Canada, it is the largest foreign direct investment in Canada's history that will create tens of thousands of jobs. The NDP members initially supported this project, which is supported by the NDP government in British Columbia, but now they have flip-flopped and are against this project. That is not how we will transition to a cleaner future. We need to figure this out.
Transitions take time. They require thoughtfulness and they require a great ambition. That is what we are doing. We are doing what we need to on climate change at the same time ensuring that when we phase out coal, there is a just transition for workers and communities. We put a price on pollution to give the money back to people so life is more affordable for 80% of families, especially low and middle-income.
We are going to continue to do that because we need to figure this out together. When I talk to Canadians, they want us to take serious action on climate change. They also want good jobs and they want life to be affordable.
Mr. Speaker, talking about thoughtful transitioning, it would be interesting to see if the Prime Minister would show some leadership on this issue. It is interesting to note his itinerary for today. He started out his morning in Ottawa. He is now in Toronto and he is coming back to Ottawa. He is going to end his day in Montreal and we expect him to be back in Ottawa for tomorrow. How does he propose to tour around the country in this manner without a carbon economy?
Mr. Speaker, sometimes I really wonder about the debate. Is this really the biggest issue? We are talking about a climate emergency.
I noted that the Leader of the Opposition was also celebrating the Raptors. That is a great thing. We the North. I am really happy the Raptors won. I bet probably everyone in the House is happy the Raptors won, but they still want a serious climate plan. That is what we have. We have a serious climate plan, a plan that will phase out coal, that will invest in clean innovation, that will invest in energy efficiency, that will make sure we are looking at biofuels for planes and that we are investing in the economy of the future, but we continue to hear things from Conservatives that are not in the big picture.
We need to take action on the climate change, we need to figure out this transition, and I really hope Conservatives will show Canadians that they are serious about climate change. I hope they will vote for this motion, recognizing we have an increasing climate emergency, that we need to meet our international obligations through actions right here at home, and that the science between climate change and extreme weather is clear. I hope they will have a serious climate plan.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard from Conservatives on the other side of the House on a number of occasions talking about the Prime Minister flying from here to there and his carbon footprint. The reality of the situation is that every member in this House has a larger carbon footprint than probably the average person in our communities based on the fact that we have to travel to get here. They say it as though any one particular individual has the ability to change everything, as though if only one person wanted to drive an electric car, suddenly the entire industry would boom.
What they are missing, and I want the minister to comment on this, is how this is a solution that can only be achieved if we work together toward a common goal. Calling individual people out is not going to help us move in the right direction. How do we do this collectively in a way that moves societies forward when it comes to real change for our carbon footprint?
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point. This is about how we all move together collectively. There are so many things we can do and that is why we are making investments. We can help and work with Canadians so they get around faster, cleaner and cheaper by investing in public transportation. Light rail transit in Ottawa will be the largest greenhouse gas reduction in the city's history, but it is also good for families. They can get around faster and cheaper. When we invest in affordable housing, that is great because we have a shortage of affordable housing, but we can also make sure it is energy efficient so folks can save money, so that people who can least afford it pay the least. This is the point.
The problem with Conservatives is that they do not even seem to understand the $26-trillion economic opportunity. We have the opportunity to provide the solutions that the world so greatly needs, and we are already doing that. Let us take CarbonCure out of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. It is injecting CO2 emissions into concrete, so there is cheaper, stronger concrete. These are the solutions the world needs. This is about bringing everyone together and I really hope that everyone will support the climate emergency motion today.
Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the minister mention that she wants to phase out coal. Does that include our exports? As she is aware, Vancouver exports 36.8 million tonnes of coal a year. Are we going to phase out coal exports also?
Mr. Speaker, we are phasing out coal here and we are working with communities. We know that we need to phase out coal. In fact, the whole world needs to phase out coal, because right now we have a challenge that is called climate change, and coal is the most polluting. When we talk about how we heat our homes, there are ways we could do this a lot better. We know that. Renewables are now cost-competitive in many cases, but, of course, we are focused on communities and workers, so we need to ensure a just transition for workers and communities. We have been working with labour and business to do exactly that.
I guess the question is this: Will the Conservative Party put out a serious climate plan? Will they say that they are committed to phasing out coal? Will they recognize that a price on pollution is the most efficient way to tackle climate change and that it can be done in a way that makes life affordable?
Mr. Speaker, there are really two points we are looking at, the environment package and the closure motion. This is the second time I have been up. The first time was for time allocation. Here we go again. The government is saying it is going to shut down debate on a very important topic.
However, over and over, the minister slams the Conservatives by saying she hopes we do this and she hopes we do that. Then she says that the Liberals have a very serious environmental plan. We know their plan. It is the Kathleen Wynne plan. It is the plan that saw much of our manufacturing leave Canada. It is the plan that saw high energy prices here in Ontario going through the roof so that jobs were lost. That is the plan.
Who else did the minister attack? She attacked the premiers of Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan. She has attacked everyone who does not believe in her points as she sees them. That is why we need more debate, but the government is closing it down again.
It is unfortunate that we have a minister who lives in her own little bubble, in her own little circle, and everyone else is demonized. She brings in the Pope's comments to support her, but she demonizes everybody else.
Mr. Speaker, I am here speaking on behalf of Canadians. I talk to Canadians every day. What do they say to me? They say we need to take action on climate change and we need to do it in a way that is affordable and grows the economy.
I know how much the member cares about growing the economy, so let me tell him some facts. We have created over a million jobs with Canadians. We have the lowest unemployment rate in four decades. We have raised over 800,000 Canadians and 300,000 children out of poverty. We have done that at the same time we are taking action on climate change, because we can do both, because we need to do both.
Let us talk about the costs we are paying, because the Conservatives seem to care so much about costs. We are paying 500% more than over a decade ago when it comes to the costs of insurance related to climate change. That is only going to go up. I would encourage them to read our Canada's changing climate report, which was written by scientists in Canada. It talks about what we can expect if we do not take serious action on climate change. Whether or not we take action, we are going to see the impacts, but we have a choice right now. I am hoping everyone in the House chooses serious climate action, chooses for us to make decisions based on science and chooses that we will meet our international obligations by doing the hard work at home.
[Translation]
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion before the House.
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.