44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 7, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure and a privilege to stand in the House and speak to supply management. At one time, I had the honour of being the official opposition critic for international trade, so I remember well this issue and how deeply it engages so many people who live in this country.
I also recognize the threats that supply management has been under for a long time. This bill, Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act with regard to supply management, is introduced by my colleague from Montcalm, whom I have the pleasure of serving with on the health committee. I want to congratulate him for this bill, because I think it is a very important and necessary piece of legislation that, unfortunately, is required because supply management has been under threat by successive Liberal and Conservative governments, which have continued to push trade deals that increasingly carve away at one of the key pillars of supply management.
This bill would forbid the minister from promising to make larger percentages or amounts of imported dairy products, poultry or eggs, which are supply-managed products in this country, eligible for lowered or waived tariffs. In other words, it would forbid the minister to reduce tariffs applied to these goods when more than are eligible for lowered or waived tariffs are imported.
It is unfortunate that we even have to do this, because I have stood in the House for a number of years when successive Liberal and Conservative governments have passionately risen and stated their undying commitment to supply management and their commitment to the farmers in their ridings that they would never encroach upon this very well-thought-out and important system, and then have turned around and negotiated trade deals that increasingly give other countries increased quotas to come into our country.
Why is that a problem? I am going to start by explaining just a little bit what supply management is. It is a system that started in the 1970s and that was meant to provide farmers in key industries in this country with the ability to have a stable income and to know how much supply would be provided in any given year. This is the real strength of the system. It is a system that rests on three key pillars.
It was brought in because those farmers were suffering through very wild price fluctuations, especially on commodities: One year they might do very well, but the next year they would face ruin. Many farms experienced great difficulty in planning for the future. We know that if one wants to stay competitive and maybe even have an edge in agriculture, investments in technology and machinery are absolutely critical. Supply management provides that certainty, so that farmers can make those investments with the firm knowledge that they will be able to recoup their investment and sell their goods for a fair price.
The three pillars of supply management are production control, pricing mechanisms and import control. It has been referred to as a three-legged stool. Of course, we all know that if we affect one leg of a three-legged stool, then the whole seating structure is at risk. What has been happening in the trade deals, negotiated and signed by successive Conservative and Liberal governments, is that they have focused on the import control leg of the pillars and they continue to allow more and more goods to be imported into Canada in those supply-managed sectors, which of course threatens the entire system.
What this bill would do is remove the ability of the trade minister, when negotiating a trade deal, to put those supply-managed commodities on the table and to trade off, as it were, supply-managed sector goods for other trade benefits.
This happened in the TPP. It happened in CUSMA. It happened in CETA. Those agreements did allow, first the European Union, then the TPP countries and now the United States and Mexico, to make ever-increasing inroads into being able to get more of their goods into Canada. I will try to put that into perspective, to see why it could be so destabilizing.
It is my understanding that the entire production of milk in Wisconsin would be enough to serve the entire Canadian market. One can only think about those very large corporate farms in the northern United States that, if they were able to have untrammelled access to the Canadian market, would be able to flood Canada with products on an economy of scale that would make it impossible for Canadian farmers to compete.
The other factor that is critically important is that supply-managed sectors also give us the ability to make made-in-Canada regulations around the production of our food. For instance, there are certain growth hormones, certain ways of production and certain chemicals that are permitted in other countries that Canada would not want to have in our food system.
At the end of the day, Canadians, when given a choice, would like to source their food from local producers. Canadians want to know that they are supporting their neighbours, their small towns and rural Canada, and that we are helping those farmers and those farm families to make a decent living. We want to know that our food is produced in humane, high quality, safe and healthy manners. This means that Canada should have control over our domestic food production. Again, most Canadians support that and I know that the vast majority of farmers in supply-managed industries also support that.
I want to just touch briefly on a couple of myths. There is this myth that this artificially increases the price of these goods and the Canadian consumer is somehow being exploited or taken advantage of by the supply-managed sector. Nothing could be further from the truth because what supply management does is provide stable prices. I know that right now in this country we have a crisis in the price of food, but in regular times, generally when someone goes to the store to buy a litre of milk or a dozen eggs over the last 20, 30 or 40 years, they know that they are going to be faced with a stable price. In non-supply-managed countries, they may have extraordinarily cheap eggs and milk one year and then if there is bad production in the next year due to bad weather, blight or disease, the prices of those goods skyrocket. Therefore, what supply management does for consumers in this country is provide a stable source of high-quality, supply-managed goods, including poultry, eggs and milk, at stable prices. That ensures that everybody has access to these excellent products at all times.
I know that I speak for my New Democrat colleagues when I say that we are firm, committed and passionate believers in the supply-managed sector. We know it is a system that works well for rural Canada, for farmers and for consumers. To use the old metaphor, “if it ain't broke, don't fix it.”
We also know that the forces that are constantly wanting to cut this away are not forces that care about Canadian farmers, small-town communities, rural Canada or consumers in Canada. Rather, they represent large agribusiness, usually multinational agribusiness, or right-wing economic ideologues who are just pursuing a free-market frenzy philosophy without any regard for the actual impact that this will have on our community and our country.
Therefore, we are very proud to support this bill to committee. We look forward to listening to the evidence and testimony. I want to again congratulate my colleague from Montcalm for this excellent bill. We look forward to working together to strengthen the supply-managed sector in this country so that Canadian farmers and Canadian consumers have access to high-quality products at all times.
1331 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent Shefford, a riding that is located in the region known as Quebec's pantry. We are proud of our farmers. Agri-tourism is at the heart of my riding's economy. I love going around to all the public markets and talking to local farmers.
Naturally, the subject of Bill C-282, supply management, is vital to many of them. During the last election campaign, I promised the Union des producteurs agricoles de la Haute‑Yamaska that I would fight tooth and nail for supply management and introduce a bill. I also made the same promise during a press conference with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the riding next to mine.
It is therefore with great humility and tremendous respect for the the work of the first dynamic trio who recently went to bat for the vital issue of supply management that I rise to speak on this subject. I am talking about my dear colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé, Montcalm and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
I will begin my speech by talking about the importance of supply management. Then, I will remind the House of the Bloc's historic role on this issue and close with the words of some farmers from my riding.
First, the bill amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to include the protection of the supply management system as part of the minister's responsibilities. It adds supply management to the list of directives the minister must take into account when conducting business outside Canada, including in international trade.
Once this bill comes into force in its entirety, the minister responsible for international trade will have to stand up for supply-managed farmers in front of our trade partners. The minister will henceforth have the mandate to negotiate agreements without creating breaches in the system, as it did during the signing of the three most important international trade agreements of the past decade.
The bill has become necessary, not least because of the serious breaches that previous governments, both Liberal and Conservative, opened up and negotiated in the last international trade agreements. These breaches in the supply management mechanism prevent the system from working effectively by attacking the integrity of its basic principles, namely pricing control, production control and border control.
In Canada, only the markets for dairy, table eggs, hatching eggs, and poultry, meaning chicken and turkey, are under supply management. This is a system that was put in place in the 1970s. It ensures that we produce just enough to meet domestic demand while avoiding overproduction and waste. It also ensures price stability.
Prices are controlled by setting a price floor and a price ceiling so that each link in the chain gets its fair share. That includes the consumer, who can be sure of getting a very high-quality, ethically farmed local product. Another aspect is border control, which includes very high tariffs and import quotas, preventing foreign products or by-products from invading our market. Because the market is largely closed to imports and there are price controls in place, producers do not end up in a never-ending race to lower production costs.
The current government is taking a number of worrisome actions that compromise the ability of Canada—and especially Quebec, which has a different agricultural reality—to choose the type of agriculture it wants to develop. In fact, the recent free trade agreements, particularly the one with the United States and Mexico, CUSMA, will have catastrophic consequences for certain products and processors under supply management.
Border control is the pillar most weakened by the international agreements. However, given that supply management has never come under fire from the World Trade Organization, or WTO, Canada has every right to protect its markets so long as it complies with the degree of openness established by the WTO.
If international agreements and the WTO give Canada the right to protect its markets, why have there been concessions? It is because Canada cannot cope with pressure from trading partners during negotiations. It is as simple as that. It succumbs to lobby groups and arguments made by other countries that want access to an as-yet untapped market at all costs.
Despite the new aid programs, which were a long time coming, it is abundantly clear that no compensation can possibly make up for the permanent damage caused by concessions in agreements with Europe, the Pacific Rim nations, the United States and Mexico. Accordingly, the Conservatives' argument about how compensation was promised under the Harper Conservatives during the opening rounds of the first two agreements is false.
Second, I want to stress the following point: The Bloc Québécois has always defended supply management in Ottawa. This is the second time that this bill has been tabled and, if not for the unnecessary election that the Prime Minister called in August 2021, Bill C‑216 might have made it to the Senate by now.
By contrast, the House had to adopt four motions unanimously to ask the federal government to fully protect supply management. However, the Liberal and Conservative governments presumably did not feel bound by this commitment when they signed the last three free trade agreements. In fact, because of the concessions that were made, these agreements were catastrophic for agricultural producers and processors under supply management, who are now wondering about their future.
Supply management is a model that is envied around the world, especially in jurisdictions that have abolished it. In Quebec, agriculture is practised on smaller farms where there is a much greater concern for quality and respect for the environment. While Quebec's quality-centred agriculture sector is flourishing, with an ever-increasing variety of local products and organic farming, Ottawa is taking the opposite approach by encouraging more industrial agriculture.
Until the Quebec government is present at international negotiations and until it gets to act as the sole architect of agricultural policies, there is a serious risk that Ottawa will align the federal government with the needs of western Canada. The Bloc Québécois simply wants the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party to keep the promise they have made more than once to stop making concessions at the expense of supply-managed producers. That is all.
It was Stephen Harper's Conservatives who got the ball rolling in 2008. Supply management first started crumbling with the Canada-Europe free trade agreement negotiations, because the Canadian government started putting supply management on the table, something it had never dared to do in the past. Since then, there has been one breach after another.
Supply management has always been a key issue to the Bloc Québécois. During the entire time that the Bloc Québécois had a strong presence in the House, which I remember well, as I was an assistant then, the government signed free trade agreements with 16 countries and fully protected the supply management system.
During the federal election that followed the creation of the WTO, in other words the June 1997 election, defending the supply management system was already one of our election priorities. That was quite a few years ago. The Bloc Québécois was the first party to move a motion in the House calling for the pillars of the supply management system to be fully maintained. The House will recall that the motion was adopted unanimously by all parties. What is more, for practically every major negotiation, the National Assembly of Quebec has unanimously adopted a motion calling on the federal government to protect supply management. We are the defenders of supply management, the voice of supply-managed farmers.
Third, I want to share the words of farmers back home. Nancy Fournier, a farmer from Saint‑Alphonse‑de‑Granby who is a member of the board of directors of the Haute-Yamaska branch of the UPA and part of the next generation of Quebec farmers, told us that she is proud of our efforts and our support for agriculture.
Denis Beaudry, a farmer from Saint‑Alphonse‑de‑Granby, said the following: “The bill is very relevant because we are fed up with supply management being used as a bargaining chip in treaty negotiations. From a more local perspective, the riding of Shefford is home to many supply-managed businesses, so when supply management is mishandled, the agricultural community suffers. I look forward to seeing whether the other parties will support the bill. The government said that it would no longer compromise on supply management. We will see.”
Valéry Martin, a communications advisor at UPA de l'Estrie, said the following: “Supply management provides stability and helps maintain the country's food self-sufficiency. Supply-managed farms are everywhere, keeping our communities strong. There are not many sectors that can provide this kind of predictability, food security and superior quality products without direct subsidies.”
I want to say one last thing. Without supply management, there would not be many people left in Abitibi, Saguenay, Lac‑Saint‑Jean or the Gaspé, because it helps ensure that there are family farms all across our beautiful Quebec nation. If there is one economic sector that is key to how our land is used in Quebec, it is the agricultural industry. The statistics speak for themselves. With $9.1 billion in sales generated by just over 42,000 farmers on 29,000 farms, Quebec agriculture is essential, important, vital.
Agriculture is going through a very difficult period, however. We are at a crossroads, where we will have to choose between following the trend of more open markets and protecting domestic markets in order to promote human-scale agriculture. We will need strong agricultural policies that will help local farmers make a living providing top-quality agricultural products to consumers.
Consumers are also placing increasing demands on farmers. Farmers are being asked to produce better-quality food that is more diverse at a lower price. They are also being asked to protect the environment and use Quebec's land to benefit all of society. As incredible as it may seem, despite the meagre support they receive, farmers are doing a brilliant job of rising to this challenge, despite the pandemic, the labour shortage, the disastrous consequences of the free trade agreements, the war in Ukraine and the inflation crisis.
We must respond to the requests of this sector that feeds us, that sustains us. Tomorrow, let us put partisanship aside and vote in favour of Bill C-282. We must take action.
1801 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 5:56:52 p.m.
- Watch
Since no one else wishes to speak, we will go to the hon. member for Montcalm for his right of reply.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, here in the Bloc Québécois, we work as a team. Protecting and promoting supply management matters to all of us, not just the member for Montcalm, as does the outcome of tomorrow's vote.
Supply management has been a priority for me since I first came to the House in 2015, and, as the sponsor of Bill C‑282, I have to say that, for my friend and colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, protecting supply management has truly become an obsession. That obsession can be satisfied only once Bill C‑282 comes into force. To make that happen, we are going to need the tenacity and skill of our colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, because if Bill C‑282 makes it through the crucial vote tomorrow, it will then go to the Standing Committee on International Trade, of which our colleague is a member. I also have to say that it has the unconditional support of every member of the Bloc caucus, who stand not only with me, but with supply-managed producers.
As this debate at second reading comes to a close, I see that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and his party will support my bill. Last week, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food held a press conference to announce that the Liberals are supporting Bill C‑282 at every stage. It is not clear where the Conservatives stand. They will sleep on it, but let us not take anything for granted, even though Bill C‑282 is identical to Bill C‑216, which, in case it needs to be repeated, received the support of a majority of members before the last unnecessary election.
I travelled around some of Quebec's major agricultural regions with my colleagues, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. We met a farming community that is more mobilized than ever and determined to defend and promote supply management. We also met Quebeckers who care deeply about the advantages of this agricultural model. Indeed, supply management has proven its worth, especially during the pandemic, in terms of self-sufficiency and food security, and consumers are finding that they have access to an adequate supply of high-quality food at competitive prices. They actually want to bring farmers closer to their plates. They want farms with a human dimension, not mega-farms that are fuelled by overproduction and the waste of food and resources.
Farmers in the United States actually want to return to supply management, because their model, based on overproduction, favours only mega-producers and makes human-scale farms disappear. This often means that quality disappears, as well. Consumers can see the beneficial effects of supply management on sustainable agriculture, on land use and on regional economies.
Our producers deserve to no longer feel threatened every time a free trade agreement is negotiated. They want predictability, they want to be able to imagine the future, to be able to ensure succession and to preserve their quality standards. The time has come to take action. All countries protect sectors of their economy that they consider to be essential before sitting down at the free trade table. In the United States, that is the case for cotton and sugar.
After several motions were unanimously adopted by the House of Commons, successive Conservative and Liberal governments did not keep their promises and, on three occasions, made long-term and irreparable breaches. Only one law will prevent this from happening again. My mother used to say that it is never too late to do the right thing. If we truly respect those who work to feed us, we must walk the talk and vote for Bill C‑282.
Therefore, I invite all Conservative parliamentarians who have yet to be convinced to vote for Bill C-282 so not one more government will take it upon itself to sacrifice, on the altar of free trade, supply management, our agricultural model and the men and women who feed us.
691 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:02:06 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:02:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
28 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:03:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking tonight about the opioid crisis and the organizations responsible for causing the opioid crisis.
It is now a matter of public record that Purdue Pharma, a pharmaceutical company, developed oxycontin, mislabelled it, misbranded it and actively promoted it in such a way that fuelled and, I think, in many respects, caused the opioid crisis that has killed so many people and devastated so many families here in Canada and around the world. In response to these actions by Purdue Pharma there have been various lawsuits, especially in the United States, that have sought to hold Purdue accountable.
Notably, in the timeline of Purdue's actions and subsequent measures to hold it accountable, Purdue was found guilty of criminal misbranding their product in a way that downplayed risks and contributed to the opioid crisis. It was found guilty in 2007.
The company, McKinsey & Company, that we have been speaking about in this House, did work for Purdue Pharma for a period of about 15 years and that spanned from 2004 until about 2019. In other words, most of the work done by McKinsey & Company for Purdue Pharma happened after Purdue had already been found guilty of criminal misbranding.
When McKinsey was brought on, part of its mandate was to figure out how to address, in the face of escalating criticism over Purdue's actions, concerns about the tapering off of opioid sales. McKinsey approached this is in a totally amoral way, coming back with recommendations that showed no regard for those suffering from addiction, no regard for the impact on communities and families, but instead looked exclusively at how to increase, or in their words, turbocharge, the sale of opioids.
Some of the recommendations that McKinsey brought to Purdue Pharma on how to do that are truly horrifying in their disregard for human life and well-being. McKinsey had proposed, for example, that bonuses could be paid out to pharmacists in instances where there were overdoses. McKinsey also proposed that, in order to get around checks that were being put in place in traditional pharmacies to try to control over-prescription and address addiction issues, Purdue could try to circumvent those controls by having a mail-in system whereby people could access opioids through the mail. Those were the kinds of proposals that McKinsey was bringing to Purdue Pharma.
For about two-thirds of that 15-year period that McKinsey was working for Purdue Pharma, Dominic Barton was the managing director. He claimed at committee to have absolutely no knowledge of what was going on during this time. The fact of the matter is that he was the managing director of this company that for 15 years was doing work for Purdue Pharma, advising them on how to turbocharge opioid sales, showing no concern, no regard whatsoever for the impact that this was having on human life and on families and communities throughout North America and around the world.
As a result of the advice provided by McKinsey, McKinsey had to pay a settlement in the hundreds of millions of dollars in the United States. Meanwhile, the government has a clear, close relationship with McKinsey and Dominic Barton.
I asked the government this question that I would like to ask again tonight. Did the Prime Minister or members of his cabinet ever discuss opioid policy with Dominic Barton or the senior leadership of McKinsey?
570 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:07:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will give the member full credit: He is like a dog with a bone on this particular issue. However, he is very selective in what he tells us. He tries to give a false impression that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister have a wonderful cozy relationship with Dominic Barton or McKinsey & Company.
Yesterday, the member decided to have a three-hour debate inside the chamber on this issue, and what we found out is that there was a cozy and comfortable relationship between Dominic Barton and Jim Flaherty. I will remind the member opposite that Jim Flaherty is not a Liberal. He is a Conservative. In fact, he was the minister of finance for the Conservative Party. That is where the cozy and comfy relationship was.
The member talks about McKinsey & Company. I should remind him that not only has the government had contracts with McKinsey & Company, but so did the Stephen Harper government. The member has the tenacity to try to say that the opioid crisis we are facing today, which is a very serious issue that provinces, municipalities and Ottawa are trying to deal with, is somehow directly tied to McKinsey & Company, as if to say maybe it would not have happened if the company did not get contracts, or as if to blame Ottawa for this so-called special relationship. How ridiculous is that?
It is sad and somewhat shameless that the Conservative Party would try indirectly, using contracts that have been issued by a professional civil service, the very same civil service that worked on and issued contracts under Stephen Harper, to blame civil servants for not doing their homework before awarding contracts to McKinsey & Company. That is Conservative politics. It is truly amazing.
We need to recognize that circumstances in all situations should be looked at. If the member was concerned and had these concerns years ago, and I suspect he did not, maybe instead of trying to grandstand yesterday and prevent the government from being able to debate legislation that talked about foreign investments in Canada, he could have focused his attention on the standing committee that deals with procurement. He could have raised the concerns he is raising today, but maybe not the conspiracies. I would suggest that the member take off the tinfoil hat, sit down with the standing committee and talk about ways to improve upon the system, as opposed to attacking the civil service and as opposed to character assassination of the Government of Canada.
If we really want to look into the mischievous mind that the Conservatives on the other side have, we should look at Jim Flaherty, as I pointed out at the beginning. I would be interested in hearing the member's comments on Jim Flaherty and maybe how Jim Flaherty might have had some influence with someone like Dominic Barton. Maybe he should be brought into the conspiracy. Maybe Stephen Harper should be brought into the conspiracy too, because his government also issued contracts. The member should apply his tinfoil hat to those two thoughts.
520 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:11:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to speak more about the over $100 million in contracts that the government gave to McKinsey & Company. However, my question tonight is specifically on behalf of the families that have been devastated as a result of the opioid crisis and is about the role McKinsey played.
The member wants us to believe that it is a tinfoil hat conspiracy to suggest that McKinsey played a role in fuelling the opioid crisis. McKinsey had to pay a settlement of over half a billion dollars because of its role in supercharging the opioid crisis. The member surely cannot be so fundamentally ignorant about the history of that crisis or about the massive settlement the company has had to pay in the United States to spread that nonsense here in the House of Commons.
The reality is that McKinsey provided detailed advice to Purdue Pharma on how to supercharge the opioid crisis. It did so at the same time that Dominic Barton, who was leading McKinsey, was advising the Prime Minister's growth council.
This is a very simple question that the Liberals have refused to answer, so I will ask it again. Were there conversations about opioid policy between the Government of Canada through the Prime Minister and those working at McKinsey, yes or no?
220 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:13:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am talking about how the member and the Conservative Party of Canada are taking advantage of the opioid crisis, which is killing people from coast to coast to coast. It is a sad circumstance that has been devastating to the families and friends of people who have endured overdoses, and they are turning it into a political issue. They are not necessarily blaming McKinsey & Company, but rather, they are trying to make a connection between the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister to that company and Dominic Barton. That is what the Conservatives are trying to do with the situation of the opioid crisis. I say that is shameful.
If the member and the Conservative Party are genuine and really want to contribute to the debate on these type of contracts, they would be better off to raise the issue in the standing committee to see if we could change the regulations so that future contracts put out by the civil service —
168 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:14:14 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:14:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually in the House tonight to pursue a question I initially asked in question period. I asked it on November 14, 2022, just as COP27, the 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, was under way in Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt.
The Secretary General of the United Nations opened that conference saying that the world is “on a highway to climate hell, foot still on the accelerator.” That is the situation we are in today, and the question I put to the minister was whether the Prime Minister had chosen to stay away from Sharm el-Sheikh and COP27 knowing that we are one of those countries with the foot on the accelerator.
I want to concentrate more, in the time I have this evening, on the response I received from the hon. parliamentary secretary. His response was that we are doing wonderful things in Canada, that our foot is not on the accelerator, and that we can ignore what we are doing in expanding fossil fuel infrastructure with the shameful decision to buy the Kinder Morgan pipeline, spending public money on a project that violates indigenous rights, threatens the ecosystems of the 800 crossings of watercourses between Alberta and Burnaby, and threatens the ecosystems of the Salish Sea with a spill that would not be of crude oil but, even more impossible to clean up, diluted bitumen. We can set that all aside and ignore it because of all the wonderful things the government is doing.
The hon. parliamentary secretary pointed to $100 billion in climate spending and a $9-billion emissions reduction plan. Let us be honest about this. Let us stop pretending that spending billions of dollars will protect our children and grandchildren from an unlivable world. When the UN Secretary General spoke of climate hell, he was not being hyperbolic. It is the reality of the science we are looking at, and it is deeply distressing. In fact, looking at it soberly, it is terrifying.
One of the things we know is that the IPCC report from last spring, April 4, 2022, spoke of the opportunity we have to hold to the Paris commitments of a 1.5°C global average temperature increase, and as far below 2°C as possible. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made it clear that both of those goals, both of those avoidances of the worst, will not be possible unless global emissions of greenhouse gases hit their peak and then drop rapidly before 2025. We are at 2023, and we have less than 24 months to ensure that global emissions hit their highest-ever level and drop rapidly from there.
The Government of Canada continues to pretend that by spending money on electric cars and consumer heat pumps, which is a good thing to do, it can distract the Canadian public with the fact that it is spending $8 billion on more subsidies through something called carbon capture and storage, which, all around the world, has already been shown to be highly expensive and highly ineffective. We are also spending hundreds of millions of dollars on nuclear technology, which is not a solution to the climate crisis.
We are putting money, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, into what we now own, a pipeline that we are all shareholders in, the Trans Mountain pipeline, for a horrible total of $21 billion. In other words, the government is spending more on putting the foot on the accelerator on the highway to climate hell than we are in avoiding that disaster.
610 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:18:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, building on the outcomes of COP26, Canada's engagement in the lead-up to and at COP27 was an opportunity to highlight our government's ambitious domestic climate actions, including by sharing best practices and lessons learned, as well as advocate for ambitious and concrete action by all, particularly major emitters.
Our government was pleased to set up Canada's first national pavilion at COP27, providing an opportunity to showcase Canadian climate action, amplify global efforts, support the developing countries and support the Egyptian presidency priorities. Canada continues to work with all parties to make the UNFCCC process as effective as possible with a focus on implementation.
It is undeniable that the impacts of a changing climate pose a serious and significant threat not only to our health but also to the Canadian economy. I agree with the hon. member that Canada and, indeed, all of the world's nations need to step up efforts to decarbonize our economies in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
That is why, since coming to power, our government has taken bold and decisive action by introducing strong environmental legislation and by putting in place regulations that will cap emissions and set Canada on a path to becoming net-zero by 2050.
My hon. colleague knows that our government has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by the year 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050. We introduced the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act to help us deliver on these commitments.
Most recently, we released the 2030 emissions reduction plan. This plan includes $9.1 billion in new investments and provides a framework for meeting our 2030 emissions reduction target. During the last federal election, we pledged to step up our efforts to reduce Canada's reliance on more carbon-intensive sources of energy by accelerating our G20 commitment to eliminate fossil fuels, from 2025 to 2023. We have also invested over $120 billion in climate action and environmental protection that will bring forward results throughout the Canadian economy.
The environmental measures we have brought forward are intended to provide a cleaner and healthier environment for our children and grandchildren while promoting a strong economy that works for Canadians and their families.
From a consumer point of view, I will quickly add that we talk about things such as the banning of single-use plastic items, the planting of literally hundreds of millions of trees, and the types of things that Canadians can actually step up and also contribute to. There are the bigger, macro issues that the government is dealing with, and there are also those issues where Canadians have demonstrated a wonderful willingness to participate in making our planet a greener and better place to be.
473 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:21:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when the parliamentary secretary and so many Liberals before him use words like “bold and decisive” to describe the Liberal climate action, they probably believe it, but just for honesty's sake, let us take out “bold and decisive” and put in what it is, “incremental”. These are incremental things, like Christmas baubles on the Christmas tree, but they do nothing to ensure that our kids will have a livable world.
I do not envy my friends, such as the hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change or the Prime Minister, but they have run out of time for wiggle room and run out of time for procrastination. I have been working on this issue since 1986, and governments before them have used up all that time.
We are now in a crisis, and the contest is between what is politically feasible and what is scientifically necessary. We are still playing with our children's future by betting on doing too little and leaving it until too late.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:23:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the impacts of climate change continue to intensify, as witnessed most recently through the destructive force of hurricane Fiona, which devastated a number of areas throughout Atlantic Canada. It is evident that we must adapt, and adapt quickly, to our ever-changing environment. That is why our government is working on finalizing Canada's first national adaptation strategy with its partners. Our government recognizes that we need to do more to help prevent and protect our citizens against climate change.
I look forward to continuing to work with my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands to achieve our mutual objectives. I think that, at the end of the day, we are moving very much in a progressive fashion forward on our environment, and I do appreciate the many contributions that the leader of the Green Party has put forward.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:24:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government's watch, thousands of innocent refugees and migrants are being locked up in prisons, treated like criminals, simply for seeking safety and a better life in Canada.
On November 14, 2022, I asked the government whether it would stop incarcerating migrants and asylum seekers in provincial jails, as has been called for by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. In response to my question, the parliamentary secretary said that, “immigration detention is a measure of last resort.” That is the same message the Minister of Public Safety's office told CBC, indicating that, “the government continues to seek alternatives”.
The government's record tells the true story. Every year between 2016 and 2020, under the Liberals, the number of immigration detainees increased, and 8,825 people were detained between April 2019 and March 2020 alone. The minister's stock answers are no comfort to the thousands of people who come to Canada seeking safety, yet end up being locked away, including 136 children who were housed in detention during the same period.
Canada is also among the only countries in the global north without a legal limit on the length of time people can be in immigration detention. In other words, Canada locks them up and throws away the key. This is wrong. Since 2016, 300 people were detained for more than a year. One man was detained for 11 years, and 17 people have died in immigration detention since 2000, most of them in provincial jails.
Alberta recently became the last province to announce that it is severing its agreement with the CBSA to end the practice of detaining immigrants in provincial jails. The province joined Manitoba and Nova Scotia, led by British Columbia, which are all cancelling their contracts, but the federal government seems to be missing in action and needs to take leadership by ending immigration detention, full stop.
A 2021 report by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documents serious human rights violations experienced by immigration detainees in Canada, particularly those with psychosocial disabilities. Immigration detainees are often subjected to solitary confinement, shackled and held with violent offenders, fearing for their safety. Researchers also found that Black detainees appear to be incarcerated longer and are more likely to be detained in provincial jails, while people with mental health conditions disproportionately receive coercive treatment. In fact, CBSA officials told researchers that people with mental health conditions may be detained in provincial jails to manage them in light of their behaviour.
The negative effects of incarceration can be severe and may impact former immigration detainees for years after they are released. Recent media reports have revealed the horrific conditions experienced in immigration detention. Abdirahman Warssama came to Canada from Somalia and was locked up in a maximum security prison for five years and seven months, even though he was not considered dangerous. During his time in prison, he was beaten and experienced 199 lockdowns during a single year. During these lockdowns, detainees are locked in their cells, sometimes for several days, without access to showers, a phone or the ability to go outside. Another man who escaped war in his home country was locked up in an immigration holding centre in Laval for months, despite having no criminal history.
This is wrong. This needs to stop.
558 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:28:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Vancouver East for her ongoing advocacy on this issue.
Canada has a robust and fair refugee system. Immigration detention is a measure of last resort, and I am committed to working with the minister, CBSA, stakeholders across the country and the hon. member to expand alternatives to detention.
Over the past year, I had numerous discussions with the hon. Lloyd Axworthy and the hon. Allan Rock and Hanna Gros from Human Rights Watch. Their advocacy and advice on immigration detention has been invaluable, and I know this is an issue the minister is seized with.
We made significant progress in implementing alternatives to detention and in reducing our use of detention, but we know there is more work to do. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, individuals can only be detained when grounds for detention exist and after all alternatives to detention have been considered.
While detention always defaults to an immigration holding centre, in regions where there is no centre the CBSA relies on the use of provincial correctional facilities to house high-risk detainees. I visited the immigration detention in Milton several years ago and spoke to several of those who were being held there. It is one of the reasons I am committed to working with those who want to see change in the system. I also met with Matthew House staff. They offer an outstanding program to support those facing deportation and house them in community.
Detention in provincial correctional facilities is only used sparingly. As of November 17, 2022, 138 immigration detainees were housed in a provincial correctional facility, 189 were housed in an immigration holding centre and 11,233 were enrolled in an alternative to detention.
The government is committed to further decreasing the use of provincial correctional facilities. That is why we invested in new and upgraded immigration holding centres, including one in Surrey in 2020 and one in Montreal in 2022. With these investments, we have been able to reduce our reliance on provincial correctional facilities and provide better services to those being detained.
The government is committed to treating all detainees in a dignified and humane way.
One important condition in all our agreements with provinces is that they authorize the Canadian Red Cross to visit correctional facilities. This is to monitor and report on the conditions of detention and treatment of detainees to ensure they are treated fairly according to domestic legislation and international obligations. As the member opposite is aware, the Red Cross' findings and the CBSA action plans are available on the CBSA website.
The CBSA continues to work to create a better and fairer immigration detention system, one that treats all persons with compassion and dignity while upholding public safety and the integrity of our immigration system.
The government is committed to protecting the safety of Canadians while upholding the rights of detainees.
488 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:31:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is simply wrong to have immigration detention for people who pose no security risk to Canadians or have no serious criminality issues. There is no reason for that.
In the case I mentioned earlier, CBSA's own document, which was obtained by the CBC, said that he posed no risk. He posed zero risk to Canadians. As a result of the detention, he lost his job, he lost his apartment and he lost his belongings.
In other countries like the European Union, detention has had a maximum length of six months since 2008. Argentina does not use immigration detention at all. Other countries have recognized that people have not committed a crime and should not be locked up indefinitely, yet Canada continues to do this. CBSA continues to incarcerate migrants and destroy people's lives. It remains the only major law enforcement agency without independent civilian oversight.
This is so wrong. Enough of this gross human rights violation, enough of saying that we are doing something and then not doing enough. Let us end immigration detentions for those who do not have serious criminality issues or are not a threat to public safety.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:32:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I remain committed to listening to the voices of stakeholders calling for reform.
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, individuals can only be detained when grounds for detention exist and after all alternatives to detention have been considered.
I commit to the member opposite I will continue to advocate within government and in this place to call for an expansion of the eligibility for alternatives to detention and to invest in programs that support the mental health of all migrants and refugee claimants.
While we have made improvements, we also recognize there is more work to do. Our government remains committed to ensuring all detainees are treated in a consistent, dignified and humane way that is in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
