SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 234 - Oct/18/23

Oct/18/23 7:29:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

8 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/18/23 7:29:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-252

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

24 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Oct/18/23 7:29:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to address the House on the critical issue of the opioid crisis. So many of our communities and families have been devastated by this metastasizing crisis, in terms of the use of dangerous opioids in our communities. After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, it is very clear that the approach to this issue is not working. We have heard many people say that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, but that is particularly the case in terms of the human cost, not just the financial cost. We hear members of other parties speak about the science, allegedly, and about their approach, which they posit is better than alternatives. However, it is clearly not working. We can see, in all of our communities, the real substantial human cost associated with the government's failed response to the opioid crisis. Conservatives are proposing an alternative, a common-sense approach that opposes giving free drugs to those who are struggling. Instead, it seeks to bring home our loved ones drug-free. I would say that is a common-sense response. The Liberal-NDP response, after eight years of providing more taxpayer-funded drugs to people, is not common sense, is not working and has an incredible human cost. My question was about aspects of the background of the opioid crisis. Here is the background on this: A company called Purdue Pharma developed a new opioid product, OxyContin, which it intentionally marketed to as many people as possible. The company called it the drug to start with and to stay with. They ran a very effective marketing campaign. The goal of that campaign was very similar in its premises to the arguments for safe supply made today: This corporate seller of drugs, Purdue Pharma, pushed the idea that all one had to do was remove the stigma and make drugs available, and then everything would be fine. Of course there was no stigma around this product when it was initially released, because it was a new product. The company sought to market OxyContin as being less risky, when in fact, it was more risky than opium and certain other available opioids. There was clear dishonesty and manipulation in the marketing of this product. There was no stigma at the time, but clearly the effect of making this dangerous drug available to more and more people was that many people became addicted. Because of the tolerance-inducing nature of opioids, people moved on to harder and more dangerous drugs, eventually moving on to things such as fentanyl in many cases. As a result of the lies that were told at the time by Purdue Pharma and the fact that McKinsey, the consulting company that is so close to the government, was involved in supporting Purdue Pharma and that marketing campaign, these companies have been required to pay massive compensation in the United States. However, when I put an amendment before this House, calling on the government to sue for all damages associated with the opioid crisis, it voted no. The government said it would eventually join provincial class action lawsuits to sue for some of the damages. The federal government is not even contemplating suing for many of the different damages associated with these drugs. I believe that this is why it opposed my amendment. Why is the government still siding with big pharma, which is trying to sell drugs to people, instead of siding with the victims and helping us to bring them home?

589 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.)

Oct/18/23 7:33:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be in the House tonight for an adjournment debate with my hon. colleague. I agree with the member that the unfettered marketing of opioids to people in the United States and in Canada has led to extreme amounts of harm. Our government is here to ensure that we achieve accountability with Purdue Pharma. We are currently working with provinces and territories on the substance use challenge that our country faces. I do understand that the member has a different opinion on how to deal with substance use and addiction. However, we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Substance use harms extend far beyond overdose deaths. The complicated and very multi-faceted nature of substance use harms and the intersection of the overdose crisis with several complex social issues such as mental health, homelessness, experiences of trauma and multi-generational impacts of colonialization means that the most vulnerable people in Canada are the most impacted by this crisis. That is why we need a comprehensive, integrated and evidence-based response that is grounded on the four internationally recognized pillars of substance use policy, which the member opposite and the Conservative Party do not seem to understand. They are prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement. It is not one or the other, and not one against the other, but all four of those principles. The toxic drug supply is killing people. People do not know what they are consuming. People fear criminalization, which leads them to use alone and die alone. In 2018, the Province of British Columbia commenced a proposed class action suit on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments against 50 opioid manufacturers and distributors for allegedly acting inappropriately in the sale and distribution of opioids in Canada. In addition, British Columbia commenced a separate proposed class action in December 2021 on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments against McKinsey & Company, which allegedly acted inappropriately in the course of providing consulting and advisory services to opioid manufacturers and distributors in relation to marketing and promotion of opioids in Canada. The Government of Canada supports provinces and territories in their efforts to recover health care costs from any company that acted inappropriately in the marketing and distribution of opioids, and we will be a party to these litigations should they be certified. I appreciate the interest of the opposition on this issue and his agreeing that it is an important thing to do. The accountability is absolutely necessary but they can see that we are already acting on the issue. I fully invite the member and his party to continue supporting us in ending the crisis instead of continually raising stigma. This litigation is an example of the significant co-operation that exists with provinces and territories as we work together to address the overdose crisis. That is what this crisis is calling for, co-operation across party lines and across orders of government in collaboration with all of our partners. The health and safety of Canadians is our government's first and top priority. Since the start of this overdose crisis, we have taken significant actions and made commitments of more than $1 billion to respond. We cannot end this crisis alone. It is our collective obligation and responsibility to work together as parliamentarians with provinces and territories and our community stakeholders to do what they can and what we can to respond to it. What I would like to know is why the party opposite is continuing to oppose harm reduction. What would the member opposite say to the over 50,000 people whose overdoses have been responded to and reversed? They would otherwise be dead. Does this party realize that the more than four million visits to safe consumption sites across this country represent four million contacts with a health care provider? On this side, we want to save lives, not overly stigmatize addiction.

663 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Oct/18/23 7:37:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there were aspects of that response that were, frankly, bizarre. First of all, let us be clear. This NDP-Liberal approach is just not working. The member said that one is not entitled to one's own facts, even if one can have one's own opinion. That is true, of course, but all one has to do is look at the impact, the drug abuse, the disorder and the crime we are seeing in the streets, to see the impact of this failed NDP-Liberal approach over the last eight years. He mentioned stigma. In fact, he accused me of trying to raise stigma. Let me be very clear. I do not think we should stigmatize individuals. I think individuals need help. We need to work on providing individuals with treatment and recovery. That is what our approach emphasizes, the common sense approach of treatment and recovery. I do think we need to have an appropriate fear associated with dangerous substances. These are extremely dangerous substances that the government has decriminalized in B.C. and is giving away, with taxpayers' dollars, to people who are struggling. That is what is wrong.

194 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Oct/18/23 7:38:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will say this again. We are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. This is not a Liberal-NDP approach to solving the addictions epidemic by helping people who are suffering from addiction. It is an evidence-based response. It is one that is internationally recognized by all stakeholders. I would encourage the member to perhaps schedule a meeting with Moms Stop the Harm or any of the many organizations that are advocating for more support for people living with addictions. Indeed, we must stand for the four pillars, all four, as I said, not against them, not choosing one or the other and not cherry-picking which ones we like best. All four pillars of addictions response are important, and not cherry-picking them is of the utmost importance. We continue to be committed to ensuring that individuals and organizations who are legally marketing or supplying drugs are held accountable, while also supporting pathways to care for people who are experiencing or are at risk of harm from substance use. The people who use substances, their families and the communities around them need us. We must use every single tool at our disposal to provide compassionate care and maintain community safety.

209 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/18/23 7:39:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening in Adjournment Proceedings to discuss the question that I first raised on May 18 of this year. It was a question for the Minister of Environment on the topic of the Ontario Greenbelt and the potential for water policy and water governance to provide assistance and additional tools to the minister. As many members in this place will know, since I asked that question in May, Premier Doug Ford of the province of Ontario has admitted he made a mistake. That is putting it mildly, but the point of my question remains relevant; it is not moot. I am afraid the point of my question was missed by the hon. Minister of Environment when he responded to me. I was suggesting to him that water governance and water law and policy present an opportunity for usable tools. The Minister of Environment has not been looking at water governance very much and keeping it up to date, so I pointed the Minister of Environment in the direction of the Great Lakes annex, which is a legally binding agreement between Canada and the United States, as well as eight U.S. states and two Canadian provinces. It is an extraordinary and robust document that actually gives us legally binding tools. At the time, the Minister of Environment raised other ways that he might be prepared to protect the Greenbelt, so in general we agreed, but I think it is appropriate now, in October, to raise issues about where we are in water governance and water policy, particularly the long-promised Canada water agency. We have made progress. We have heard a number of announcements and they have gotten increasingly specific. We now know that the Canada water agency will be based in Winnipeg, but after double-checking the Government of Canada website before our debate tonight, I found the same language: “Legislation will be introduced in 2023 to establish the Canada Water Agency as a stand-alone Agency.” Months have passed and we still do not have that stand-alone legislation before this place. We are still in 2023, so the Liberal government has part of October, all of November and part of December to table that legislation. I would like to remind the government of its importance. When we look at water governance and water policy, what we should look at, which has been referenced through all manner of expert reports and blue ribbon panels, is the need to engage federal, provincial and municipal orders of government. As I said before, we need to look at them in terms of the basins in Canada and the U.S., the shared basins. We have to look at international law. We also have to really engage, which we have not yet done, indigenous nations and peoples in water policy and water governance. We have to do all of this with a climate lens. We are the only country in the G7, I was surprised to find out the other day, that does not have any water agency to predict water events such as floods and droughts. This is about being aware that the climate crisis has a specific and immediate impact on water. In the time remaining, I would like to use this opportunity, as I tried to do back in May in question period, to remind the government that water policy, water governance and the engagement of different orders of government are critical for moving forward. We have opportunities to coordinate and to ensure that we update our existing set of international agreements in order to take more into account of the climate and indigenous roles in the protection of healthy waterways, which is in all of our interests as we try to adapt to an increasingly warming world. I imagine I will have a lot to discuss with the hon. parliamentary secretary.

653 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.)

Oct/18/23 7:44:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I sincerely look forward to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' return to the House. I hope that my friend is doing well. I hope that she is recovering and feeling good. I look forward to having this discussion, hopefully, in person when she returns to the House of Commons. I would like to focus the first half of my answer on the greenbelt. It is a moment to celebrate. It is a moment to rejoice. Indeed, victory on the greenbelt is a big win for Ontario. There are lots of groups that we have to thank for this. I have the opportunity now to do something that I have never done before, which is to read directly from my householder that is going out to my constituents in Milton. The question resembled a question that I asked myself and my constituents were asking me, so I answered it in a monthly community newsletter. It is titled, “Victory on the Greenbelt: A big win for Ontario”, and it states: Back in March, Canada's Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, [the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie] announced that our government would be investigating the real and potential environmental, economic, social and health impacts related to developing parts of the Greenbelt. Due to the Premier’s recent cancelling of his provincial government’s plan to develop parcels of the Greenbelt – we subsequently announced that we are suspending the urban park study indefinitely as it’s no longer necessary. This is great news. This reversal reflects the collective efforts of citizen advocates, independent journalism, researchers, environmentalists, conservation authorities, and municipalities who tirelessly voiced their objections. Their commitment has reaffirmed the significance of maintaining the Greenbelt’s integrity – this is a big win for our province, and I want to express my personal gratitude to these stakeholders and everyone who used their voice to safeguard this most vital natural resource. I would add the leader of the Green Party, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, to that list. The plan to develop luxury homes and create brand new neighborhoods in Ontario’s hinterland, as proposed by Premier Ford’s government, was never a sustainable approach for addressing our housing affordability concerns. The federal government will remain steadfast in our mission to protect the natural environment, including Ontario’s Greenbelt, toward a greener, more sustainable future for all Canadians. I will continue to call for responsible urban planning, sustainable development, and the preservation of green spaces to ensure the well-being of current and future generations, and I look forward to more details of how Premier Ford will strengthen the protections of all Greenbelt and ecologically vulnerable land in our region. I would like now to turn to our work on water. I was very pleased that in budget 2023, we saw a historic $650 million go toward the maintenance and restoration of much of our Great Lakes. That is so important, not just because I love the Great Lakes and I spent a lot of time paddling on the Great Lakes, but it is important because Canada is really the water keeper of the world, particularly with respect to fresh water. These 24 new projects that we just announced on September 28 will restore water quality and ecosystem health in areas of concern. They will prevent toxic and nuisance algae. They will engage with indigenous peoples in Great Lakes restoration and protection. That $650 million over 10 years that I referenced includes an investment of $420 million for the Great Lakes, which was announced by the Prime Minister, with a focus on accelerating Canada's implementation of the Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. It also includes $22.6 million over three years starting this year to support better coordination efforts to protect fresh water right across Canada. Last, but certainly not least, is the new Canada water agency. It is the federal focal point for all fresh water. We will be working in partnership with indigenous peoples, provinces, territories and stakeholders to strengthen collaboration efforts on fresh water. It will deliver on key elements of the strengthened freshwater action plan.

707 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Oct/18/23 7:47:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hate to disillusion the parliamentary secretary in terms of the levels of support the government is giving to water, but on the notion that $650 million is historic for the Great Lakes, back in the days when former prime minister Brian Mulroney made real strides in protecting the Great Lakes, that would be a small amount compared to the billions a year that was being spent. We had an inland waters directorate in Burlington, Ontario, with several thousand staff. We need to rebuild our capacity in inland waters, fresh water and freshwater science, and that will take a stand-alone agency to create the Canada water agency. That legislation is due any minute. Does the parliamentary secretary have an update for us? I would be grateful to know.

131 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Oct/18/23 7:48:42 p.m.
Watch

Again, Madam Speaker, I look forward to discussing this in person upon the return of my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. Indeed, the federal government is making Canada's largest-ever investment in protecting the nation's sources of all fresh water, which includes the Great Lakes. Commitments recently announced by the government during U.S. President Biden's visit includes some of the over $650-million investments, but it brings us very close to the $1-billion commitment that we have aimed to achieve. There are other efforts that we can include in that long list of things that we are going to invest in. I would add to the remarks I made earlier with respect to all of the investments that we have made over the past couple of years that I am enthusiastic about any further efforts to conserve and protect Canada's greatest natural resource. I know that work with the Canada water agency is under way. Indeed, the Prime Minister named the first-ever parliamentary secretary for water.

175 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/18/23 7:49:44 p.m.
Watch

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 7:49 p.m.)

42 words