44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 18, 2023 02:00PM
- Oct/18/23 6:45:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hope this sheds some light on what happened, either in whole or in part. We also cannot forget that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is studying the matter from another angle. Together, the two committees will certainly be able to shed light on the matter. More than anything though, we must find concrete long-term solutions and implement them.
As I was saying earlier and as my colleague was saying, we are talking about public money, of which we are merely the trustees. We have to be responsible when it comes to these funds.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 6:46:29 p.m.
- Watch
There are only 30 seconds left in the debate. The hon. member for Terrebonne may begin her speech, but I will have to interrupt her rather quickly.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 6:46:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, since I have only 30 seconds, I will simply say that there is a real a problem with the current government's emphasis on belt-tightening and with its plan to ask companies to repay their Canada emergency business account loans. Meanwhile, way too much money has been wasted on apps. Accenture received $208 million to manage a program that is not even being managed properly.
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 6:47:07 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member will have nine minutes and 30 seconds the next time this matter is before the House.
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I support Bill C-252. I believe it is a continuation of what the government talks a great deal about, which is a healthy eating strategy overall. We need to recognize that excessive amounts of sodium, sugar and saturated fats lead to things such as obesity and diet-related chronic diseases.
What I like about the legislation before us is that the member focused the attention on advertising to children 13 and under, which I believe would have a profoundly positive outcome. I want to applaud the member for taking this initiative. I believe it will make a difference in terms of healthier eating habits for young people. As they grow older, we have a healthier society.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to try a little experiment with you, although I am not sure whether you prefer sweet or salty snacks. Let us assume the latter.
Imagine you are sitting in your living room, curled up beside your partner, and watching a movie. He hands you the chip bowl. He left the bag of chips on the table in the living room in case you finish the bowl he just prepared. He hands you the bowl, all smiles, and you take a chip, all smiles. He takes one too, and you look at each other tenderly as you snack on the delicious chips. Is your mouth watering? Do you want to go to the corner store and buy a bag of your favourite potato chips? You probably do.
That is an example of the effect of advertising, to make people want to buy something they do not really need, usually not at all, something they may not even really want. That being said, the image of the story I just told could very well still be in your mind, and you may suddenly feel a craving for potato chips and need them immediately.
We are adults and we are able to see reason. We know what advertising is and the purposes of advertising, but we still sometimes fall for it. The difference between us and children is that we are aware of the effects of advertising and we can think logically. Children have not yet acquired the ability to question themselves and to think logically about the subject of the ad. They only see the good things. They do no ask themselves whether what they are seeing is good for their health and they do not ask questions when they see an advertisement on the street, along the highway or in a big box store.
There is also advertising on television, video games, social media and the videos that children sometimes watch. There are a lot of advertisements directed at children and, despite the laws, advertisers find new ways to ensure that children see their ads every day. Advertisements are also often sources of misinformation by omission. Think about the advertisement for that famous cereal with its delicious spoonfuls of honey. It is a delight to eat and provides nine essential nutrients. It is incredible just how nutritious and delicious that cereal is. What the ad does not tell people, however, is that the amount of sugar in one bowl exceeds the daily recommended intake and that the bowl in the ad represents three servings for a child. The ad also fails to mention that the essential nutrients a person would get from eating a real complete breakfast are far greater than the nine essential nutrients the cereal provides. The ad capitalizes on the pleasure of eating sweet things.
Why is it important to legislate on advertising targeting children?
Let us start with what I mentioned. Children do not have the maturity or the necessary knowledge to have perspective when they see an ad and to question the truth of that ad. Then there is the fact that sugar can be addictive. Our brain releases dopamine when we eat sugar. It is pleasing. We become hooked on that dopamine over time to the point where we always want more. The ad does not tell us that.
It does not tell us that children who do not adopt healthy eating habits from a young age will live with many health problems as they grow up. The ad leads our children to make bad food choices that will have repercussions on their health their entire lives and, by extension, on the health care systems because of weight-related comorbidity, obesity and inactivity that are the result of bad food choices. These bad food choices cause children to have less energy because they are not well fed.
Of course the parents are partly to blame, but they may be tempted to indulge, offer a treat, make an exception. Far too often the exception becomes the rule and that is how sugar becomes associated with the idea of a treat or a pleasure, as though there is nothing else that could be a treat or a pleasure.
The consequences of consuming foods that are high in sugar, saturated fat and sodium are not felt immediately, rather, they manifest over the long term. That is why we use them as treats, because they do no harm at the time. However, when consumed repeatedly, then they become problematic.
In the short term, the various effects of consuming sugar are no less unpleasant and damaging than the long-term consequences. These short-term effects impact both children's bodies and their social lives. Sometimes, children's behaviours change. They may become less agreeable and consequently be ignored by others.
Other consequences include fatigue, irritability, impatience, trouble concentrating, dizziness, headache, feeling hungry. Even after having just eaten, children may still feel hungry because they did not get any nutrients. They can also experience arrhythmia in some cases, or temper tantrums. Children may have a tantrum because they are not getting what they want and they are going through sugar withdrawal. Some even get aggressive.
Where is this sugar? It is everywhere, from croquettes to popsicles. As soon as I say the words I see advertising images in my head. Sugar is everywhere, and some ads target young people so directly they become almost impossible to avoid. That is the problem.
I would also mention that these foods can cause obesity. The industry is deliberately targeting young people because they are less equipped to detect its strategies. At their age, they cannot make informed choices.
In 2019, the Government of Quebec created an action plan to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks and encourage people to drink water instead. Things have reached a point where we have to promote water, when water is fundamental. Water is all we need and all we should have. However, we have ended up in a different place. The Government of Quebec makes the connection between sugary drinks and how they are marketed, and the resulting health problems.
The report states the following:
Given the findings of epidemiological studies on the health risks associated with the consumption of sugar or sugary drinks, as well as data on the consumption of sugary drinks in Quebec and their marketing, more efforts are needed to prevent the daily consumption of sugary drinks within the population, especially among certain groups (e.g. young people).
In the same report, the Government of Quebec says it wants to:
De-normalize the consumption of sugary drinks and marketing practices that promote their consumption....
Today I am talking about sugar, but it is one example of food advertising and marketing that should not be directed at young people. To direct advertising at children is nothing but crass profiteering; it is perverse. It targets people whose minds have not matured. It experiments on young human beings who have their whole lives ahead of them as if they were Pavlov's dogs.
Advertising directed at children under the age of 13 has been practically outlawed in Quebec for 40 years. Section 248 of the Consumer Protection Act already prohibits advertising directed at children. On the surface, therefore, the bill seems to offer no advantage for Quebec, which has already legislated on the matter. Quebec's legislation is among the toughest in North America. However, federal legislation is still important because some Canadian provinces lack the kind of protective legislation provided by Quebec.
In Quebec, certain players are using nostalgia for the past to try to convince people to put advertising to youth back on the agenda. They are saying that it is difficult to fund the great programs for youth as we did in the past. They claim they need youth-oriented advertising in order to invest in youth programming. We used to talk about greenwashing. In this case, it is “ad-washing”. I am not sure how to put it.
The Bloc Québécois will determine whether the proposed strategy is compatible with the strategies adopted in Quebec and with the Consumer Protection Act. We will propose amendments to ensure that the two acts are similar. I would remind the House that Quebec and the provinces have legislative jurisdiction over this area.
1397 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-252, the child health protection act.
For many years, the NDP has been calling for a law to stop junk food advertising aimed at children, and 11 years ago we called for such a ban, but no action was taken by successive Conservative and Liberal governments. I am hopeful that with the support from all parties, we can pass this bill and stop the barrage of junk food ads directed toward kids.
I am also hoping that we go further than that, by putting in place a national school food program that gives every child the nutritious food they need to thrive.
The evidence is clear that banning junk food directed at young children leads to better health outcomes. Quebec has had such a ban in place for over 40 years and the results speak for themselves. Fast food consumption in Quebec has gone down by 13% since the law was put in place. In addition, Quebec has the lowest obesity rates among five- to 17-year-olds and the highest consumption of fruits and vegetables in Canada.
It is a true nutrition success story that should be applied across the country. Not only will a law to stop junk food advertising benefit our kids' health, it also makes financial sense.
This is a preventative step that in the long term will mean fewer visits to the ER for preventable diseases, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. At a time when our health care system is strained and faced with an aging population, it is a no-brainer for us to reduce the pressure on the system by passing this bill into law.
It is immoral for the CEOs of big food companies to be profiting off pushing junk food to young children. As much of 90%, in fact, of the food ads children see are for unhealthy food products and these ads are increasingly sophisticated. Companies are making money off selling products to young people that are harmful for their health.
This is wrong and it has to stop. Just as we have done with big tobacco companies in severely restricting advertising of their products, we must do the same with big food companies that are irresponsibly marketing junk food to young children.
While the ban on junk food aimed at children is an important first step, it is not enough. We cannot have a conversation about ensuring that our kids are getting proper nutrition without talking about poverty. Poverty makes it so much more difficult for families to make the healthy food choices they would like to make but are unable to because of the lack of money.
I recall a story. As a young early childhood educator, when we instituted a no-junk-food lunch policy, a mother shared with me that it was cheaper for her to buy a bag of cookies that lasts two weeks than a bag of apples that lasts a week.
We cannot talk about healthy food choices without addressing issues of poverty, especially in this affordability crisis we are living in, with persistently high grocery prices. Far too many people simply cannot afford healthy food to sustain a balanced diet. Eating healthy is expensive and preparing healthy meals can also be very time-consuming.
When one is working two or three jobs to make ends meet, which is not uncommon in this country, particular with the affordability crisis, time becomes a luxury one cannot afford, leading one to choose convenience foods that are quick and cheap but unhealthy.
I see it in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, which has the highest child poverty rate of any riding in the country.
Too many kids are going to school on an empty stomach. Families are choosing between groceries and rent. Food banks are reporting record usage, and the temporary pandemic benefits that kept families afloat have expired and have not been maintained. Poverty is a form of economic violence. I have likened choosing to keep people poor to one of the worst human rights violations, and poverty is something that is faced by many of my constituents, including children, which robs them of the best possible start in life.
That is wrong, and it is a direct result of deliberate policy choices.
I believe we need to make different choices to eliminate poverty and ensure that every child gets the nutritious food they need. It is a choice, and the lack of political will to eradicate poverty, especially for children, is unacceptable. One of these choices is implementing a national school food program. Providing every child with healthy school meals would be a game-changer that would go a long way towards improving nutrition in this country.
It is long past time for us to put such a program in place. Canada remains the only G7 country without a national school food program or national standards. In 2019, the Liberals promised in their federal budget to work towards implementing a program, but after four years, they have still not delivered.
I call upon the government to keep its promise and finally allocate funding for a national school food program in the upcoming federal budget. It would make a profound difference in the lives of children, including many children in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, whose learning is harmed because they are not getting the healthy food they need. I am a former educator, and in my classroom I had a toaster, bread and other food, which I bought with my teaching salary as a classroom management program because I knew the kids in my classroom could not learn or stay focused on an empty stomach.
Another choice is introducing a guaranteed livable basic income for all people in Canada. Yesterday, on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, I joined Senator Kim Pate in support of her bill, Bill S-233, and my own bill, Bill C-223, the national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income act, at a press conference. In its study of Bill S-233, the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance heard overwhelming support from experts and advocates for the social, economic and health benefits that a guaranteed livable basic income would provide.
Providing a guaranteed livable basic income is an idea whose time has come because we know the pandemic revealed the deep cracks in our social safety net, and those cracks remain. In every corner of this country, the human rights of people living below the poverty line are violated on a daily basis. I have called poverty one of the most violent human rights violations, one that robs people of their dignity and their humanity. In one of the wealthiest countries in the world, no one should be forced to sleep in tents, on the streets or in bus shelters. By providing everyone over the age of 17 who needs it with an unconditional cash transfer, a guaranteed livable basic income would lift millions of people out of poverty.
Poverty is expensive. In fact, poverty costs our country at least $80 billion a year. It costs our health care system, and one of the benefits of GLBI would be improving just that.
To conclude, I want to thank the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for introducing the bill. I call on all members to support it, and I call on all members to support measures, including a national school food program and a guaranteed livable basic income, which would ensure no child in this country is ever hungry again.
1277 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not know if I am changing or the member for Winnipeg Centre is, but this is second time this week I completely agree with everything she has said.
I genuinely appreciate her comments today, in particular about a basic income, but also about, more generally speaking, the food sharing program we absolutely need to bring into our schools throughout the country.
I want to congratulate the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for introducing this very important bill. Once again, we see Quebec, which has had this legislation in place for decades now, has led the way, like it quite often does on other issues socially, or the environment, for example.
This is critically important. It is important that our children, who are in the age of developing and whose minds are still developing, are not subject to a bombardment of detrimental and unhealthy choices at such a young age. I have two children under the age of 13, and I think of how easily they are influenced by what they are seeing. The forms of media have changed so much since I was a child. Nowadays children are watching much more YouTube and more custom and tailored shows. We are seeing these advertisements come across in a way I certainly was not exposed to. When I was younger, we would sit in front of a TV on Saturday morning to watch cartoons. These ads would pop up, and our parents could be kind of looking our shoulder to see what we were watching. It is much more difficult now.
I also completely agree with the comments from the member for Winnipeg Centre about this being a preventative step. This is about helping to prepare children so they can have the best shot at life in terms of health.
I am going to keep my comments very short. It is very refreshing to see the entire chamber support this initiative. The only thing I wish I could ask is that this be extended to grandparents too, because my mother, my children's grandmother, quite often purchases unhealthy stuff. Maybe that will be tackled at a later time.
Congratulations to the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for bringing this forward. This is a very important initiative, and I look forward to it making its way over to the Senate next and becoming law so we can move forward on this very important initiative.
413 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as always, it is great to be able to enter into debate on the important issues that matter to Canadians.
If the House could indulge me for just a moment before I get into the substance of Bill C-252, I want to pass along a big thanks. This Saturday marks four years since I was first elected as the member of Parliament for Battle River—Crowfoot. It is a great honour for me, along with the class of 2019, to be able to take my place in this hallowed chamber to stand up for the good people of, in my case, east central Alberta.
First, I pass along my deep thanks and appreciation to my wife Danielle and my three boys. I did not have three boys at the time and now I do: Matthew, Emerson and Winston. I could not do this without them. I thank the rest of my family as well for their support over the last four years.
Of course, one does not start one's political career on election day. There is work that goes into politics prior to that. I give a massive thanks to those who have helped in various campaigns and to those on my EDA and political association. I thank those who, since I first got involved at the age of 15, have been on this political journey with me. I have the honour of being a part of it.
I, like so many in this place, am so deeply appreciative of the work that office staff do to help make sure that we can accomplish the good work we do in standing up for our constituents in this place and back in our constituencies.
Of course, I thank the people of Battle River—Crowfoot. For the last two elections, I have been honoured to receive a mandate and serve the 110,000 people. They are on about 53,000 square kilometres of beautiful, east central Alberta real estate. It is cowboy country. It truly is an honour.
I will continue to stand for those rural values and for democracy each and every day. I look forward to, after the next election, standing behind who I hope will be the new prime minister who brings home common sense to our country. I thank the people of Battle River—Crowfoot for a great four years. I look forward to continuing to fight for many more years to bring common sense home to Canada.
We are debating a bill and its subject matter is something that I would be very surprised if anyone disagreed with. We want to ensure that there are healthy diets for kids across our country. As a father of three young boys, my wife Danielle and I take great pains to work and budget to ensure they have healthy meals. Especially in light of the cost of living crisis we see in this country, that is becoming an increasingly challenging circumstance.
It has been talked about substantially in this place over the last number of years, and especially with Thanksgiving just over a week ago. We saw how the dramatic increase in prices has put significant pressure on so many families. When it comes to ensuring that there is fairness, we need to empower people to understand exactly what they are eating.
We need to have regulations in place that support food safety and transparency, and that the ingredient list actually includes that. For example, something could claim to be organic. We want to have truth behind the whole process of our food supply chain. I know we dealt with it in this place, the fact that the Liberals wanted to label ground beef as being unhealthy, but not potato chips or candy bars.
I hope we would all agree in this place, though I sometimes wonder with some of the activist actions that have been taken by other parties, that we want to ensure healthy diets for everyone, especially for our young people in those formative, developmental years. We need to ensure their tummies are full when kids go to school in the morning. There are examples of this.
I have heard from many across my constituency and across the country. I would specifically give a big shout-out to Altario school. It is located about 45 minutes from my hometown of Consort. Principal Van Lagen has done an incredible job. The school has a greenhouse where it sells vegetables to the community. There is a farm at the school. The school sell animals and produces high-quality food for the local community. This little town of only several dozen people in the community of Altario is able to feed more than the number of people in the community.
We talk about the need to ensure that there is a healthy diet for all—
813 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 7:17:46 p.m.
- Watch
I would ask the hon. member to move his earpiece or shut it off, because it is affecting the interpreter's ability to translate.
The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is probably no one in this place who would disagree with the fact that I do not need to speak louder. I want to give a shout-out to our great interpreters and everybody who makes it possible for us to do the good work that we do in this place, including helping with some of those little technical issues.
I will get into some of the substance of the bill in just a second, but I was talking about Altario and the work people do there teaching kids. I saw an application letter that Principal Van Lagen shared the other day. It was incredible, because the applicant, who I believe was in grade nine, was applying to be the manager of the school farm. Can members imagine that? They are teaching kids and giving them those practical skills so they not only know how to eat healthy but also can be a part of that agricultural sector, which is pivotal in our nation.
When we come down to the root of this, we want Canadians to have access to healthy meals. I hope that every member of the House agrees with this, but when it comes to the practical reality of what the bill before us would accomplish, there are a few concerns I would like to highlight. One concern is that we need to make sure that we are, at every stage of the process, empowering parents to make the best call for their family in whatever their circumstance is. Whether they are part of an Inuit family in the north, a rural family in the area I represent or an inner-city family, every person needs to be empowered to make decisions that are best for them, and empowering parents needs to be at the root of this.
We also need to deal with things like food inflation. I will not speak at length about this, because I have in the past, but we need to address some of the challenges that are leading to food inflation, like the carbon tax and regulations that are adding some additional costs for farmers. That has to be addressed. Ultimately, we need to empower people to be prosperous at every step of the process. The best way we can ensure that people are healthy is to have an economy that is working for everyone.
I held a series of town halls, which I spoke about in a statement before question period today, and there are a lot of concerns that the folks from rural Alberta shared with me about how frustrated they are with the Liberal government. However, the number one concern brought forward at every town hall was the cost of living and the fear that people have for their future. I will highlight a couple of things that I believe need to be put on the record.
Legislation needs to be able to achieve its stated goal. Legislation in the province of Quebec, although it has regulations that address issues similar to ones in the legislation before us, has not done so. I am certainly concerned that the House would pass something that may not be able to be actualized in terms of a public policy objective. The regulations that are proposed in the bill are difficult to enforce. There is not very much clarity that it would be possible to see them brought about.
Something that has been highlighted specifically by a number of constituents, especially those who work very hard to do things like fundraising for school sports, is about sponsors, as in the case of Timbits hockey, for example. I would hate for the bill to accidentally limit the ability of Canadians to play soccer or hockey because of not allowing a company to sponsor kids to be able to do just that. It could be an incidental, and I hope not an intentional, part of the bill.
I have heard a great deal of support for the bill, and certainly there is widespread agreement that we need to have a plan to ensure that kids' and seniors' tummies are full. There is nothing more heartbreaking than when we hear a senior talk about having to limit their dietary intake. One tragic story is that a senior thought the only thing they could afford was pet food. We need to make sure we have a plan to address health and nutrition at every stage of the process.
Certainly, when it comes to the laudable objectives of the bill, healthier kids, it is great, but when it comes to actually delivering on those results, I am concerned that the bill falls far short of the mark that would deem it worthy of support in this place.
793 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 7:22:40 p.m.
- Watch
I wish to congratulate the hon. member on his upcoming four-year anniversary this Saturday. I just celebrated the 15th anniversary of being elected this past Saturday, and I will take this moment to thank the good people of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for having put their trust in me for five elections.
The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has the floor for her right of reply.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to rise this evening in this House to bring forward once again my private member's bill, Bill C-252, which aims to prohibit the marketing of certain foods and beverages directly to children.
I would like to begin by sincerely thanking all my colleagues here for offering their opinions and contributing to the important conversation on Bill C-252, which has sparked very interesting conversations. It is abundantly clear from many of the exchanges that the issue of marketing of certain foods and beverages to kids is one that many of us care deeply about and is a practice we want to see stopped. I am grateful for the overwhelmingly positive and supportive comments made by my colleagues about Bill C-252 and remain confident that we will be able to pass this bill over to the Senate in the coming days.
I would like to take a second to acknowledge the importance of the leadership that Quebec, my home province, took on this issue in the 1980s and to acknowledge Senator Greene Raine's efforts in 2016 with a previous and different version of this bill. Simply put, we have had plenty of time to discuss the essence of Bill C-252 and its impacts. I respect all my colleagues for their work and their perspectives and enjoyed the opportunity to hear them speak to this issue at length.
Truthfully, we are past the time for debate and are very much at the time when action is necessary. In the intervening years while we have been waiting to act, things have only gotten worse. If we continue to remain idle on this issue, kids' health and the consequences of marketing foods rich in salt, sugar or saturated fats to kids will not improve.
Inaction will mean that our children will continue to be manipulated by this multi-billion dollar industry. Relying on powerful multinational companies to self-regulate and reduce their targeting of children has only been proven unsuccessful. Our children remain at risk and will continue to be unjustly influenced and led to develop poor eating habits that we scientifically know to be detrimental to their health. Rates of obesity will only continue to rise, and the burden on our health care system will only grow.
We can see plainly that we have more than passed the time for action. We must fulfill our duty as parliamentarians and, for many of us, as parents to protect our children's health. We must heed the calls of the United Nations and the World Health Organization, which have been resolute and unequivocal on the very clear harm that the marketing of certain foods and beverages to children can cause to their overall well-being.
As members may be aware, Norway's government just voted this past June to adopt very similar legislation. Norway is not alone in this endeavour, and a growing number of countries, including the United Kingdom and Spain, are also developing similar legislation after years of seeing the ineffectiveness of industries' self-regulation. The international community is moving in the right direction and taking steps and legislative measures to tackle the issue of marketing to kids. Let us draw a lesson from Norway and other countries that place the importance of children's health before the monetary interests of multi-billion dollar industries. Let us pass Bill C-252, but let us do it now.
I would like to thank the stakeholders and researchers who have advocated for the passage of Bill C-252 and to sincerely thank my colleagues in the House and at the health committee for their comments and questions. Voting in favour of Bill C-252 means supporting concerned parents across Canada who currently have to battle against the influence of a multi-billion dollar industry. It means supporting parents who are trying to teach their children to develop healthy eating habits. It means accepting the best science available on this issue and listening to the growing chorus of researchers and health care professionals who have been telling us for years that this legislation is needed. It means joining the international community in its growing efforts to improve the well-being of children across the world. In short, voting in favour of this bill means prioritizing children's health and the well-being of kids from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and across the country from coast to coast to coast.
752 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 7:28:17 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 7:29:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
