44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 5, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, a Canadian environmental bill of rights sounds like a great idea. Who could possibly think a healthy environment, especially with clean air and water, is a bad idea? Certainly not me.
That said, Bill C-219, an act to enact the Canadian environmental bill of rights and to make related amendments to other acts, falls far short of what we as a country need. It is my hope that, working together, we can make amendments to this legislation to make it something Canadians can be proud of.
None of us in this House lives in a vacuum. When we consider legislation, we know what we are doing is not an academic exercise in political science. What we say here and what we do here have implications that go beyond this room. That is why we debate proposed legislation and policies. We need to try, within the best of our abilities, to get things right, and there is probably no issue on which there is a greater need to get things right than when we are dealing with the environment.
As a father, l want to do what is right and to set an example for my two sons. I want them to be able to look back on my time in Parliament and feel their father spent his time doing good, that he was working for their future and for the future of Canada.
Of course, there are sometimes things over which we have little or no control. Climate change, for example, is a global issue. The parties in this House, though we may differ on our approach to the issue, are in agreement that Canada is a very small player when it comes to dealing with climate change. That does not mean we should not do our part. Rather, we need to understand that our best will only produce positive results on a global scale if we can convince other nations of the seriousness of the need for immediate action.
Let us take a look at Bill C-219, what it would do and what it would not do and consider how we can improve it.
Bill C-219 would enact the Canadian environmental bill of rights, which provides that all residents have the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment; the right to reasonable, timely and affordable access to information regarding the environment; the right to effective, informed and timely public participation in decision-making regarding the environment; the right to bring a matter regarding the protection of the environment before courts or tribunals; and the right to request a review of any act of Parliament respecting the environment, any instrument made under such an act or any environmental policy of the Government of Canada.
Bill C-219 would also amend the Canadian Bill of Rights to provide that “the right of the individual to life, liberty and security of the person includes the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment”. It is important that we safeguard the right of present and future generations of Canadians to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. We also need to confirm the Government of Canada's duty to protect the environment so as to protect the collective interests of Canadians in the quality of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations.
It is also important to ensure that all Canadians have access to adequate information regarding the environment, justice in an environmental context and effective mechanisms for participating in environmental decision-making. This is to enhance public confidence in the administration and enforcement of environmental laws, including by allowing individuals to request reviews of laws, to apply for investigations of offences and to bring environmental protection actions.
Protection of our natural environment has long been a core Conservative principle. We want to conserve and strengthen what is good. As we know, it was a Conservative prime minister, the right hon. Brian Mulroney, who took strong action to stop the acid rain problem. When confronted with a climate problem, Conservatives know how to get the job done.
I am encouraged that Bill C-219 calls for increased transparency in information relating to environmental matters. Conservatives have long called for government transparency and access to information.
However, I am concerned that, under this bill, decision-making power on environmental matters would be transferred from the legislature to the courts. This seems unwise, as I am not convinced that the judiciary has the necessary expertise to delve into policy issues.
To my friend opposite, who I am sure is about to suggest that many in this House are also not policy experts, I say that the responsibility still resides with us. I would suggest that we spend more time considering policy than most judges. Policy debates should happen through representative institutions and electoral politics. Courts are not well equipped to examine policy instruments, nor do they have the expertise to evaluate the consequences of various policy options. Not only do they not have the expertise to do so, but they are not elected officials either, and it is not within the purview of the court to make such decisions.
We have a very recent example of the problems that can ensue when the House delegates its responsibility to someone else. The Liberal government, in its wisdom, or more accurately, in its lack of wisdom, has tasked the CRTC with implementing provisions of the Online Streaming Act. As a result, streaming companies are restricting what Canadians can access online, and the government does not know what to do as it tries to force them to pay what amounts to a tax.
Furthermore, the CRTC, which has no expertise in these matters, has announced that it is putting all new radio licence applications and any complaints relating to radio on hold for two years. Meanwhile, it is trying to figure out how it is supposed to regulate what Canadians can and cannot see online. It is abandoning its core functions to take on this task, because this government had no idea of the effects of its legislation or what it is doing. Given that experience, is it any wonder that I have concerns about transferring decision-making functions on environmental matters to the judiciary? We have judges to enforce our laws. This bill, it seems to me, transforms them into a legislative authority. That is going too far.
I think everyone in the House agrees on the need for a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. We also agree on the need for more transparency and public input. Where we disagree is on how to combat climate change. The Liberals believe that they can tax Canadians until they can no longer afford to heat their houses or drive their cars. They think that will solve Canada's emissions problem. In Canada, with our cold weather climate, our options are not as varied as they are in some other countries. It is important that we focus on the development of new technologies and Canadian ingenuity as the key to lessening, then eliminating, our dependence on fossil fuels.
Conservatives believe that, in order to have a strong economy and maintain good health, Canada must have strong, coordinated and achievable environmental policies. The Conservative Party believes that responsible exploration, development, conservation and renewal of our environment are vital to our continued well-being as a nation and as individuals. An environmental bill of rights is a nice idea in theory. This bill, though, needs a lot of work to make it acceptable.
1261 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:17:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am so delighted to be standing here today speaking to the bill from the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.
I want to start by saying how proud I am to be his colleague in the House. He is one of the nicest parliamentarians in this place, if not the nicest. I think if we asked members from any party, they would agree with me on that statement. He is also such an unbelievable champion for the environment. He has been his entire parliamentary career, and even before then.
I was at a bird sanctuary just outside my riding, the Beaverhill Bird Observatory. The member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay is like the Wayne Gretzky of birds. The people there were very excited that I actually know him in person.
He has also been a very big environmental mentor for me. I brought forward a bill earlier on in this Parliament that would stop coal mining in the Rocky Mountains, something that is very important to the vast majority of Albertans. In fact, it was his advice that helped me draft that legislation.
I also have to say I am now succeeding the amazing and incredible Linda Duncan, who was the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona, the seat I now hold. She brought forward this bill many times. The first time was in 2009. Before Linda was elected as a member of this House, she was an environmental lawyer.
Since she left the House, she has continued to be an absolutely incredible advocate for the environment. Her dedication and her commitment to environmental conservation, and the absolute tenacity she brings to her work, is nothing short of remarkable. I am deeply proud to be her successor in this place.
This bill does three things. It confirms the duty of the Government of Canada to uphold its public trust duty to protect the environment. It creates a new human right for Canada, which would be the right to a clean and healthy environment. It also gives legal tools to all residents of Canada.
I am going to talk as an Albertan. The reason we need an environmental bill of rights could not be more clear right now. Right now, in the province of Alberta, the provincial regulation of our polluting industries has been completely inadequate. We have a regulator that works directly with polluters to cover up the seepage of toxins into the environment downstream of indigenous communities.
Right now, Imperial Oil's Kearl site seepage and spill is the latest example of how this is happening. The Alberta regulator has approved a massive oil sands development on the McClelland Wetlands. These are wetlands, which are very important environmental sites, and it has approved putting a wall in the middle of the wetlands. That is how it is intending on protecting our water from the tailings ponds. What could go wrong?
In addition to that, we have Danielle Smith from the UCP, a Conservative premier, who is putting coal mining back on the table. Every Albertan thought that this was behind us. We thought we had won this battle. We thought that we had made it very clear to our government that we did not want to rip down our Rocky Mountains so that we could mine coal to ship to China to make a whole bunch of Australians really wealthy, all while undercutting our steel industry. We thought we made that clear. Clearly, we did not because that is back on the table. It is another reason we need to have this environmental bill of rights.
In northern Alberta, where much of this industry is happening, that is where the indigenous communities need to have more tools. They need more tools to protect their communities from toxic pollution. They are counting on the federal government to protect their treaty rights.
We had chiefs from the Mikisew Cree First Nation. Chief Tuccaro came to committee and he said, during the hearings on the Kearl site seepage and spill, “One of the clearest lessons from this crisis that grew is that it has reconfirmed the AER is a captured regulator that is simply not a trusted partner in protecting federal interests in our community.”
I am only speaking of the province in which I live. In Alberta, there are so many gaps where people are not being protected and where industry is not being held responsible for the pollution that it is putting into our environment. The legislation that the member has brought forward is long overdue. I am delighted to support this piece of legislation. I strongly urge all members to stand with the NDP to fight for the human right to a clean environment for all people, now and into the future.
800 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is once again a real honour and a pleasure to rise here to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-219, the Canadian environmental bill of rights.
I would like to thank, once again, Linda Duncan, the former MP for Edmonton Strathcona, for drafting the bill and tabling it in, I think, four successive Parliaments, starting in 2009. She is such a real champion for environmental justice in Canada, and an environmental lawyer who knows how to draft bills, despite some of the aspersions we have heard tonight. This is a good bill and a really necessary bill. Her bill, the same bill, basically, passed second reading in 2010. The Liberals and the Bloc Québécois joined the NDP in supporting the bill, so it was passed at second reading. Unfortunately, it died when the election was called in 2011. I am hoping that the Liberals will join the Bloc and the NDP in voting for the bill tomorrow when it goes to a vote.
I would also like to thank everyone else who has supported the bill over the years, especially by helping me understand the legal ramifications of it. I know a lot about ecology, but environmental law is not my specialty. I would like to thank people like Lisa Gue from the David Suzuki Foundation, Stephen Hazell from Nature Canada, Josh Ginsberg and Melanie Snow from Ecojustice, Joseph Castrilli from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and many others.
Canadians are rightfully proud of their beautiful landscapes and clean environment. They do not want to have it degraded in any way. We have, of course, a number of pieces of federal legislation that protect the environment, including the Canada Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, which deals mainly with toxins. We have heard a lot about it tonight. There is the Fisheries Act, which speaks to aquatic ecosystems, the Pest Control Products Act and others that deal with biodiversity and other aspects of environmental health.
The revised CEPA, through Bill S-5, says that Canadians have the right to live in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, but that right in CEPA is restricted to the protections within that act. It applies only to CEPA and not to other federal pieces of legislation. Bill C-219 would not add any obligations to the federal government with regard to environmental health. It would merely broaden what is said in CEPA, in terms of the right to a clean and healthy environment, to cover the rest of federal government legislation.
The bill is long overdue. Canada voted in support of a motion at the UN General Assembly last year, which said exactly that, that a right to live in a clean and healthy environment is a human right. The motion passed unanimously. Canadians provinces, Ontario and Quebec, have very similar legislation. The courts are not clogged, despite the concerns I hear from the Conservatives, and the sky has not fallen, although I hope the sky is perhaps a little clearer in Ontario and Quebec because of the rights that are in their pieces of legislation.
I have had discussions with the minister of environment about the bill, and he had some concerns about its constitutionality when we first talked. Therefore, I asked the House of Commons legal team for an opinion, and they were clear in their opinion that this is basically a human rights bill that would add no obligations on the government regarding the environment, other than living up to the obligations set out in other federal pieces of legislation. Because it is based solely on federal legislation, it would not in any way infringe on provincial jurisdiction. It is clearly constitutional. I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois for standing with me on that. It would carve out CEPA, so there would be no conflict with the powers set out in that act, despite what I have heard from members of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party this evening.
I will close simply by saying that the vast majority of Canadians believe they should have the right to live in a clean and healthy environment. The government has international obligations to make this a reality, and my bill, the Canadian environmental bill of rights, would do just that. Let us get this to committee to make sure it works to ensure a clean environment for all Canadians.
742 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:28:08 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
- Dec/5/23 7:28:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:28:50 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:29:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on November 24, I raised a question relating to corrections. I would like to restate my question tonight. I will simply read what I asked at the time, and then I will read the hon. Minister of Public Safety's response. I said:
Mr. Speaker, also on the subject of corrections, on a recent visit to Joyceville Institution, I was informed that personnel at Correctional Service Canada had been trying to introduce red seal apprenticeship programs so inmates can re-enter the workforce with real job training.
After eight years of a Liberal government and of the Liberals' running Correctional Service, how many federal inmates are enrolled in red seal programs? Which programs are they enrolled in, and how many are enrolled per program? How many have graduated, and from which trades? Finally, is there a plan to assist inmates to finish their respective programs upon release?
To this, the minister responded:
Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to get those exact details and provide them to the member.
He then went on, adding the following comments:
I can tell him that, as the member of Parliament for Beauséjour, when I visited the medium-security prison Dorchester Penitentiary, I met inmates and CORCAN staff who work on exactly those programs. I share his view that if we can give inmates the skills and ensure that, for example, they complete their high school education or a trade, it will make them much more likely to successfully reintegrate into society when they finish their sentence. That keeps Canadians safe as well.
These are sentiments with which, of course, I agree. I would just observe that the nature of question period is that members get 35 seconds to ask a question and 35 seconds to give an answer. It goes without saying that it is not possible to answer the kind of detailed questions I was asking about Red Seal programs at that time. That is the purpose of these adjournment proceedings questions, where members have four minutes to answer, as well as some lead time to do the research.
Having said that, I am very hopeful that, tonight, we will learn something we cannot seem to find from the Corrections Canada website, which is the answer to those detailed questions:
...how many federal inmates are enrolled in red seal programs? Which programs are they enrolled in, and how many are enrolled per program? How many have graduated, and from which trades? Finally, is there a plan to assist inmates to finish their respective programs upon release?
That information would be extraordinarily useful in dealing with the critical problem of inmates returning to the community untrained, unprepared to find a job and, in consequence, likely to reoffend. This causes damage to the community as a whole and, of course, to those former inmates themselves and their families.
I do not blame the current government for the fact that Corrections Canada has done such a poor job of making these records available. I do, however, hope that we will have clear answers tonight to the practical, factual questions I have asked.
522 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:32:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this evening to participate in a discussion about the benefits that correctional interventions, including the employment and employability program, have for the safety of our institutions and for communities all across our country. I would like to remind the hon. colleague that the Minister of Public Safety has committed to following up directly with him to provide the information he asked for, and the minister will do just that. Hopefully it will happen relatively soon.
At all federal correctional institutions, on-the-job and vocational training, essential skills training and other employability-related training and services are offered to inmates. This includes CORCAN-operated training sites at 36 institutions across the country and seven community-based sites. In addition, training is offered through employment assignments under the supervision of the CSC areas, such as food services, institutional services and maintenance, as well as vocational training being offered at all its correctional institutions.
Through the CORCAN program, on-the-job training is specifically offered to inmates within five main areas: manufacturing, construction, textiles, services and agriculture. Vocational training is offered at all sites as either stand-alone training or integrated within the on-the-job training during employment assignments. These offer offenders the ability to learn and develop technical and essential skill sets that are transferable to the workforce in communities across the country, both urban and rural.
In 2022-23, on-the-job training opportunities were provided to 2,628 offenders within one of CORCAN's five business lines. During the same fiscal year, I am proud to note that a total of 16,445 vocational training certificates were earned by inmates of all backgrounds. CSC also offers over a dozen Red Seal programs for offenders, which include trade jobs such as carpenter, welder, plumber, electrician and automotive service technician. Since September 2020, a total of 147 offenders have participated in apprenticeship programs, 64 of whom have completed their certifications, with many more continuing to work toward it.
CORCAN utilizes extensive agreements and partnerships in its vocational training and employment services. They include agreements with universities and colleges, as well as private industry and organizations, across the country that provide established or developed curriculums to provide vocational training to offenders. CSC engages with the provincial trade associations to sponsor and facilitate tracking of apprenticeship hours in a variety of trades. Furthermore, CSC forms partnerships with indigenous communities to further increase project availability to provide indigenous offenders with additional on-the-job training opportunities.
The delivery of vocational certificates to offenders demonstrates their acquisition of skill sets that rely on curriculums mostly developed by or in collaboration with educational facilities or private organizations. It is not accurate to state that these are not relevant to employment when in fact many of these curriculums are delivered to individuals external to prison and who happen to live in our ridings all across the country.
I would like to assure all members of the House of the benefits associated with the CORCAN program. Employability programs provide offenders with meaningful correctional interventions and activities while they are incarcerated and upon their release. This contributes to building self-confidence and transferable technical skills, as well as improving their overall employability.
544 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:36:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, some key facts and some numbers were mentioned. I am grateful for those.
There was a specific number for the total number of inmates involved in Red Seal programs and a mention of similar programs. There was no breakdown of who is in which program. I wonder if I could ask for those details. I am aware the parliamentary secretary probably does not have those at his disposal at this minute, but I wonder if I could ask him to undertake to ensure that the minister or his parliamentary secretary will provide them at a reasonably brief interval from the present. I assume that this information must be present given that some partial information was provided tonight.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:37:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I say with all sincerity that I am encouraged by the member's interest in this area. It is an area that I have always had an interest in. I have been a very strong advocate of the Red Seal program. I think it is great that it has been incorporated into our correctional facilities. At the end of the day, we want to see individuals have better employment opportunities to be able to get back into our communities in a very positive and productive fashion.
The minister was very clear to the member, indicating that at some point in time he will get back to him in terms of some of the specifics. I think that is a good start. I would encourage the member, if there are some very specific aspects that he is looking for, to raise it with the minister.
I think there is good intent on both sides to get some real, tangible numbers that maybe the member across the way is looking to receive for whatever reason. It seems to me that the member is trying to do what he can on a very important, positive issue.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:39:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, last Wednesday, I informed the Prime Minister that 35 doctors and addiction experts had recently written to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, recommending significant reform, or outright abolishment, of the safe supply drug addiction strategy.
These were not cruel and heartless recommendations; far from it. The letter was a response to those who champion band-aid safe supply strategies. These misguided champions seem totally oblivious to a simple, scientific fact: harm reduction without treatment does not break the cycle of addiction.
In Toronto and across rural and urban Canada, the safe supply strategy is not working. It adds to, not reduces, addict deaths. I asked the Prime Minister to listen to what doctors and experts were saying. These were not some ideologically twisted individuals. They were caring health care professionals who specialize in addictions and substance use.
I further asked the Prime Minister to provide appropriate funding to municipalities hosting injection sites so that they can keep their people safe. Instead of taking my suggestions seriously, the Prime Minister repeated the alleged mantra that the government “will remain grounded in science, not ideology”.
The government is not following the science. Additionally, why blindly follow questionable science that supports a strategy that basically amounts to government-assisted suicide? Where is the ideology in questioning a dubious safe supply strategy? Are addicts’ lives changed for the better by a strategy that, in the final analysis, leaves far too many dead?
What do the experts say? In a forthcoming Macdonald-Laurier Institute report by Adam Zivo, Dr. Meldon Kahan, who recently retired as medical director of the Substance Use Service at Toronto’s Women’s College Hospital, said that most patients who are actively using fentanyl will be far more attracted to the tablets than to opioid agonist therapy, OAT. Unproven fentanyl tablet programs could thus well end up diverting people away from life-saving, evidence-based treatment. Dr. Martyn Judson, an addiction physician who pioneered the use of methadone in Ontario, said offering powerful, short-acting opioids is the last thing which should ever be offered because that encourages the destabilization of the nervous system and physical tolerance, contributing to individuals seeking ever more supplies of opioids.
In the letter to the minister, which I referenced in my question to the Prime Minister, the authors are all expert clinicians who have extensive experience in addiction medicine. They sent that letter because they are deeply concerned about the continuing rise in opioid-related hospitalizations and deaths, and Health Canada’s inadequate response to this crisis. They pointed out that Health Canada’s current focus on safe supply ignores opportunities to fund and support the implementation of accessible, quality opioid agonist treatment to help people across Canada break the cycle of addiction.
OAT is considered to be the most effective public health strategy for reducing opioid overdose deaths and opioid-related hospitalizations. Therefore, in addition to asking again if the Liberal government will listen to the experts on reforming or abolishing safe supply, will the Liberal government prioritize the safety of communities that host injection sites and provide them with the resources needed to keep them safe?
I also call for Health Canada to increase funding for projects that increase access to OAT and improve treatment retention rates of OAT programs.
558 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:43:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, substance abuse is shaped by complex factors, many of which are beyond an individual's control. These factors include experiences in trauma, physical and mental health, income and access to stable housing, and the ongoing effects of colonization and the residential school system on first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. That is why we need a comprehensive, integrated, evidence-based response that is grounded in the four internationally recognized pillars of substance abuse and use policy: prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement. It is not one or another, or one against another, but all of them.
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. Stigmatizing language, like that the member used, and talking about closing essential health services will just increase the harms. Creating false narratives is not useful to anyone. Through the investments we have made, we will continue to improve access to evidence-based treatment and life-saving harm-reduction services and supports for people who use drugs.
Since 2017, we have funded close to 400 projects across Canada at the community level through Health Canada's substance use and addictions program to support and build the evidence with respect to innovative approaches to prevention, treatment, harm reduction and recovery. These investments are part of our comprehensive strategy to address problematic substance use, to which we have committed more than $1 billion since we formed government.
Our approach to saving lives and protecting the health and safety of Canadians is rooted in evidence. This crisis is evolving every day and our response must follow the same pace. We need to look at all innovative solutions to put an end to this tragedy. We cannot be working in silos or through an approach that is not integrated. Offering treatment alone is not enough. Providing a broad array of care options and wraparound supports allows people to access the right services at the right time to improve their overall health and well-being.
Supervised consumption sites are essential to keeping people who use drugs alive by providing them access to a range of support services in a safe and supervised environment staffed by trained professionals and peers. They have seen over 4.3 million visits and have responded to 50,000 overdoses. Importantly, SCSs are responsible for over 256,000 referrals to health and social services. Above and beyond the lives saved thanks to these sites, countless illnesses and infections have been avoided, prevented or attended to.
All levels of government must work together to ensure access to these life-saving services in a manner that also respects community safety. The Supreme Court of Canada, experts, service providers and people with lived experience agree that supervised consumption sites save lives and often are the first step along the path to a healthier life. We remain committed to a collaborative, comprehensive, compassionate and evidence-based approach to addressing the overdose crisis.
503 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:46:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary says that they are following the science and following the experts, but I have cited experts who specialize in addiction and substance-use medicine, and what they are telling the government is that what is happening is not working. They can accuse us of stigmatization or of false narratives, but the reality is that, if government members would leave their ivory tower to walk the streets of the communities that host these sites, experts would tell them that harm reduction without treatment is not working. Let us look at the trend of deaths. It is unfortunately only going up. Why would we continue to do what is not working?
I have cited a number of times an injection site in my riding. If the parliamentary secretary does not believe that, that is fine. There is one in Toronto—Danforth, and I spoke to a constituent Brooke who said that the injection site is not harm reduction, but harm facilitation. The government needs to listen to the experts and either abolish or reform safe supply.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:47:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member's approach because, at the end of the day, he does not recognize the reality of the consultation and work put into ensuring that the right decisions are made. It is not a silo. We work with different levels of government, first responders and victims, and I will call them victims. We work with community members.
It is not one individual who makes the decision. It is not one individual who says he or she thinks it is a bad idea and that person happens to have “Dr.” in front of the name. That is not what dictates it. There is much broader consultation that needs to take place, and the evidence has been very clear in terms of the success of programs such as these.
I would hope even the Conservative Party of Canada recognizes that we are saving lives and that people are put on a healthier path into the future.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I previously asked a question about Bill C-234 and the exemption to the carbon tax that it would provide. My question has changed a bit because, earlier tonight, the Senate passed an amendment to exclude barns and buildings on farms from the carbon tax exemption. I will read the part of Bill C-234 that the Senate is now going to scrub from the act, which is in paragraph 3(3.1)(f), “property that is used for the purpose of providing heating or cooling to a building or similar structure”.
The environment minister went to the Senate and basically exerted his influence on the senators to get them to strip this bill bare; that way, it would provide a limited exemption for farmers. Farmers grow the food and have done way more to protect and steward the environment than the government will ever have a hope of being able to accomplish. That is what the government has decided to do. It was aided by the deputy leader of the progressive Senate group, the hon. Pierre Dalphond, who was the mover of the amendment that has stripped that part of the bill to exempt buildings and barns from the carbon tax. This is absolutely ridiculous.
Let us go back to when the carbon tax was first put in place and do the calculations on it. There are many farmers, ranchers and cattle feeders who use over 100,000 litres of on-farm fuels in a given year. Given the rate of the carbon tax right now on those on-farm fuels, that would be about $25,000 a year. The Liberals will say that there is a huge exemption for farmers and ask what everyone is complaining about. There is an exemption that applies in some cases, but not in every case, and certainly not for farmers and ranchers who are trying to keep their barns warm in the winter. As we know, winter is already here; it will be -30°C very soon. In the summers, it gets up to +30°C. With the wide variance in temperatures all across Canada, various temperature controls are needed in barns and shops for farmers to do their jobs.
If we think about the Prairies, with the snowstorms and blizzards that they regularly get, especially in calving season in February and March, farmers quite often have to bring their cattle into the barn. That way, they can calve without the threat of the animals being buried in snowbanks or freezing to death, never mind the threat of predators going after them and using the weather conditions to their advantage. A very important part of agriculture is farmers having these barns and buildings, yet the Senate has decided to gut this important key in the bill. It did so under the pressure that was put on it by the Liberal government, which is absolutely shameful.
When we look at the approach the government is taking, it is almost as though it were trying to reduce agriculture's impact and footprint in such a way that it will chase people out of the industry, much like what is happening in the European Union and other parts of the world. They have literally forced farmers and ranchers to reduce their herd sizes and the amount of crop they are able to grow.
What the government is doing is ridiculous. It is being aided and abetted by certain members of the Senate, and it is absolutely disgusting.
588 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:53:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member seems to be of the opinion that it is the government that has some sort of link, and that we are meeting with the senators and so forth, when, in fact, they are independent senators. The only ones who are politically affiliated are the Conservative senators. The Conservative caucus actually meets tomorrow, both the members of Parliament and the Conservative senators of Canada. They are the ones who get together on a weekly basis when the House is in session, in order to develop a strategy.
The Conservative Party is using the farmers to try to highlight its bumper sticker that says, “Axe the tax.” It is a political manipulation of the farmers. That is what we are seeing. It is just like when the Conservatives make reference to other aspects of the price on pollution. I get it. The Conservative Party of Canada has flip-flopped, for the 10th time, it seems, and most recently, its members are saying that they oppose the price on pollution; that is what they are saying today. I suspect that there is a good chance they will stick with that, because I suspect they already have the bumper stickers printed.
The world is leaving the Conservative Party behind. Even though the world recognizes that climate change is, in fact, real, the Conservative Party continues to say nothing about an environmental plan. What is somewhat shameful is that the Conservatives are picking and choosing in order to try to cause division on a sound policy. The member made reference to some exemptions. Yes, for the rural communities there is the top-up in terms of the rebates, and gas and diesel are exempt. However, at the end of the day, we are finding that the Conservatives are trying to whittle away here and there, but their objective is to get rid of a price on pollution. I look at it from the point of view that the price on pollution is something on which the Conservative Party stands completely alone in the House. Whether it is the Bloc members, New Democrats, Liberals or Greens, we all understand the importance of a price on pollution.
What is nice about the price on pollution that we put into place is that there is a significant rebate component. When the Conservative Party goes coast to coast to coast, going into communities like Winnipeg North and saying, “Well, we're going to axe the tax”, they do not say that they are axing the rebates also. In Winnipeg North, 80% of the residents I represent get more money back; they get a net benefit, but the Conservatives do not talk about that. Instead, they continue on the far right, which does not give a darn about the environment, and they continue to deny climate change. I think it is reckless, and it is bad Conservative policy.
490 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:57:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, only this member would think that higher grocery bills are somehow a net benefit. Only this member would think that higher energy bills are a net benefit. I wonder how that goes over with the residents of Winnipeg North.
I was messaging a family friend earlier today, and they were telling me a story about their son, who has actually started out as a young producer; he is raising cattle. He has home heating oil in his house. We have heard so much about the government's vaunted home heating oil program, but guess what? Yes, we can get the heat pump, but heat pumps do not work in Saskatchewan because of how cold it gets in the winter, and the government knows that. This producer cannot afford to buy heating oil for his house, so he has to use electric heat. It is costing him over $400 a month just to use electric space heaters to heat his house, and it is not even that cold in Saskatchewan yet. However, the member opposite seems to think that this is just fine because there is a rebate out there that is going to exist and make everything all better and rosy, and that this young producer should just be happy for his rebate cheque. Who does the member think should actually pay for that? Is it this young producer?
231 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:58:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member across the way, his leader and the Conservative Party of Canada would have a bit more credibility if they would share with Canadians what their policy is with regard to climate change and what, if anything, the Conservative Party of Canada would do. The best we can tell is that the climate deniers are prevailing.
The Conservatives do not care about climate change. They are in the only political entity in the House of Commons that feels it does not have to say anything to Canadians, as if Canadians have no right to know what the real intentions of the Conservative Party are when it comes to dealing with the climate issue.
The price on pollution is not unique to Canada. Maybe the U.S. as whole does not have it, but many American states have it. The Conservative Party needs to get with the times.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:59:36 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 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:59 p.m.)
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
