Agreed.
No.
House of Commons Hansard #67 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was health.
Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business
7:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business
7:40 p.m.
NDP
Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business
7:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yea.
Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business
7:40 p.m.
NDP
Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business
7:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Nay.
Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business
7:40 p.m.
NDP
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the recorded division is deferred until Wednesday, June 10, just before the time provided for private members' business.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Madam Speaker, on March 12, during the meeting of the 52nd session of the committee on narcotics and drugs, I rose in the House and asked the government to deal with the recent World Drug Report, which stated:
Urgent steps must be taken to prevent the unravelling of progress that has been made in the past few decades of drug control.
Unfortunately, the government continues to embarrass Canada on the world stage by refusing to back a drug policy that is evidence-based and in step with our international partners who support the four pillars of prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction.
According to the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, harm reduction is “any program, policy or intervention that seeks to reduce or minimize the adverse health and social consequences associated with drug use”. Harm reduction focuses on those policies, programs and interventions that seek to reduce or minimize the adverse health and social consequences of drug use without requiring an individual to discontinue drug use.
As we know, this is a government that favours ideology over evidence. At the WHO international AIDS conference in Mexico City last August, the former health minister shocked the medical and international health communities by saying that he had an ethical objection to harm reduction and therefore could not support it as a policy. Not surprisingly, the reaction from the scientific community was swift and unrelenting. Canada was called an embarrassment, out of step with any rational response, and out of step with the rest of the world.
A Toronto Star editorial chastised him for the ideology-over-evidence approach, say that his statements were “vociferous and illogical” and that they fly “in the face of World Health Organization support for such sites as part of a comprehensive approach to reducing HIV and other harms associated with injection drug use”.
At the time, I was compelled to criticize the former minister. Then, at the annual general meeting of the Canadian Medical Association, I was appalled to be sitting in the room as the minister spent his whole annual speech to the doctors of this country chastising them and calling into question their ethics if they participated in these programs of harm reduction.
It is insulting that the minister did not understand that 80% of the Canadian Medical Association members support harm reduction and that evidence shows that harm reduction has positive effects on poor health outcomes associated with drug use. The former president of the CMA, Dr. Brian Day, said:
In rejecting harm reduction as one tool of addiction treatment, the minister is abandoning the most vulnerable members of society.
Harm reduction also lowers the risk of disease transmission and provides education about drug addiction. We have yet to hear from the new Minister of Health on this issue, but I am concerned that as of yet the fourth essential pillar in drug policy is not in action. It is impossible to help someone who is dead.
There are already too many barriers to harm reduction. Individual barriers include the fear of prosecution, inaccurate understanding of the risks, and the fear of lack of confidentiality. Social barriers include the stigma attached to addiction and harm reduction services or cultural beliefs. There are also legal barriers, such as the arrests of harm reduction clients and volunteers. However, the one barrier that we as members of Parliament can work to combat is the political one.
We must give sufficient funding to harm reduction, stop the government from censoring reports that do not back up their backward ideology, and support the evidence-based policies that put the health and safety of Canadians at the forefront.
7:50 p.m.
Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles Québec
Conservative
Daniel Petit ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is very pleased to receive the political declaration and action plan adopted by the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs at its meetings in Vienna. One hundred and thirty governments, with the solid backing of Canada, defined the future of anti-drug trafficking strategies which are compatible with Canada's national anti-drug strategy.
The United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the policy-setting body of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in drug-control matters, adopted the draft political declaration and action plan on the future of drug control at the conclusion of its high-level segment this past March 11 and 12.
The governments, including Canada's, reviewed the progress in drug control since the special session of the United Nations General Assembly on drugs in 1998 and agreed on further steps to reduce the threat posed by drugs to health and security. The political declaration recognizes that countries have a shared responsibility for solving the world drugs problem, that a balanced and comprehensive approach is called for, and that human rights need to be recognized.
Governments also approved an action plan proposing 30 remedies to problems in the areas of concern, namely: reducing drug abuse and dependence; reducing the illicit supply of drugs; control of precursors and of amphetamine-type stimulants; international cooperation to eradicate the illicit cultivation of crops and to provide alternative development; countering money-laundering; and juridical cooperation.
The action plan places considerable emphasis on scientific evidence to support interventions; mainstreaming drug treatment and rehabilitation into national healthcare systems; and ensuring accessibility to drug demand reduction services.
The action plan addresses, for example, new trafficking trends and calls for greater exchange of intelligence, better monitoring of the impact of cyber-technology and effective data gathering. It also supports drug control and alternative development approaches as part of measures to alleviate poverty and promote sustainable development.
The Government of Canada feels that the declaration will be a valuable tool to spur national efforts the world over and to strengthen international cooperation. It will help Canada achieve the objectives of Canada's national anti-drug strategy.
The government recognizes that illegal drugs threaten the health of families and the safety of communities, feed organized crime and lead to the commission of minor offences.
On October 4, 2007, our Prime Minister announced Canada's new national anti-drug strategy, which provides a focused approach based on three action plans to reduce the supply of and demand for illicit drugs and to fight crime associated with these drugs. It will also improve the safety and health of communities through measures taken in three priority areas: prevention, treatment and law enforcement.
The strategy represents a focused approach that deals harshly with criminals and compassionately with drug users.
Through the national anti-drug strategy, the Government of Canada has implemented concrete measures to reduce supply and demand with respect to illicit drugs in accordance with the United Nations political declaration and action plan.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Madam Speaker, the hon. member has tried to change the channel in terms of the enemy being drug trafficking instead of what is a health issue around a comprehensive drug policy. In fact, there is a consensus around the world. There are four pillars in a comprehensive drug policy, prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction, which the hon. member clearly has left out.
On the issue of drug trafficking, I cannot help but remind the hon. member of the government's failure to deal with cigarette smuggling by exactly the same people who are smuggling drugs and guns. Since the government has been elected, cigarette smuggling in the country has doubled, a 100% increase in the amount of cigarette smuggling by exactly the same people that this flawed approach of the government has implemented.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Madam Speaker, as I just said, the government has implemented a number of concrete measures to decrease the supply of and demand for illicit drugs. The government has always been determined to increase the health and safety of communities.
Canada's national anti-drug strategy supports, in the three priority areas—prevention, treatment and law enforcement—steps set out in the political declaration and action plan. The strategy is a concrete measure to reduce the supply of and demand for illicit drugs.
The Government of Canada has added $30 million over five years to funding for the prevention action plan and more than $100 million over five years to funding for the treatment action plan. This money will solidify current prevention efforts and promote collaboration between governments and support organizations in order to improve access to drug treatment services.
June 3rd, 2009 / 7:55 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Madam Speaker, on April 29, 2009, Aérocentre YHU Longueuil announced a $20 million investment over three years to develop a new airport terminal at the Saint-Hubert airport, which is called the Aéroport Montréal Saint-Hubert-Longueuil, even though it is located in Saint-Hubert.
All of Longueuil was in attendance for announcement. There was a big outdoor party to finally celebrate the fact that the work would be going ahead. About 100 people came out on a Wednesday morning. That only goes to show how long awaited this news had been.
Aérocentre YHU Longueuil is a consortium made up of Dev-YHU Longueuil and DASH-L—a not-for-profit organization whose acronym stands for Développement de l'Aéroport Saint-Hubert-Longueuil—and the City of Longueuil.
In 2007, DASH-L applied to the federal government for a grant to renovate and lengthen the Saint-Hubert runway in order to accommodate larger aircraft, which would enhance airport activity, contribute to economic development and help complete the project to develop a new airport terminal.
I would even call the South Shore region the aviation region. In addition to the airport, there is the Canadian Space Agency, the Institute of Aeronautics and Aérovision, a very dynamic organization in Saint-Hubert that promotes aviation and aerospace trades, chaired by Lucien Poirier. Some of the major aerospace companies are also located there, such as Pratt & Whitney and Héroux DevTech, along with a number of subcontractors around the airport. It is the fifth busiest airport in Canada.
Last Saturday, I attended the day-long celebrations organized by Aerovision to mark 100 years of flying. We had a great day, with hundreds of young people and adults taking part. In the evening, the guest speaker was Charles Lindbergh's grandson, Erik Lindbergh. Many of those in attendance, including, to my surprise, Erik Lindbergh himself, have asked me to continue promoting the development of the airport in Saint-Hubert here in this chamber. I would like to pass this message on to the minister through you, Madam Speaker. Even Charles Lindbergh's grandson asked to do everything in my power in this Parliament to help the Saint-Hubert airport.
The project description and the grant application were submitted two years ago and there has been ample time, might I say, to review them.
Just recently, DASH-L submitted an application in the prescribed form to reflect changes in needs and demands. It is imperative that Saint-Hubert get a new airport.
The government, through the Department of Industry and many other responsible departments, is making considerable investments in Canada's aerospace industry in particular. But the fact is, as we know, that the aerospace industry is to Quebec what the automotive industry is to Ontario. Given the astronomical amounts of money this government is investing in the automotive industry these days, there is an expectation that it will provide assistance to the Saint-Hubert airport.
The minister's response in this House was that he was prepared to look into it. Might I remind the minister of the campaign promise made by his party last fall.
All the ingredients are there. What is the minister waiting for to make his decision known?
7:55 p.m.
Fort McMurray—Athabasca Alberta
Conservative
Brian Jean ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address the question of the member opposite, which she raised in April, regarding the Saint-Hubert Longueuil airport.
I understand the member's position on this issue because I represent Fort McMurray—Athabasca, as members know, which is 6% of the gross domestic product of the country. It has one single runway, which is the busiest runway in North America. Indeed, approximately 5,000 Quebeckers work directly, or indirectly, in the oil sands and use that airport from time to time, in fact, on a weekly basis, to bring home money and themselves to their families. Therefore, I do understand what the member opposite is talking about in relation to priorities and the necessity of keeping the economy going and investing in places that are necessary for the economy, especially during a time like this.
I am pleased to say that under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Conservative cabinet our government has made significant investments in Canada's airports through the airports capital assistance program. Under this program, as she knows, eligible airports can receive funding for capital projects related to safety, the protection of assets and the reduction of operating costs.
This program invests nearly $30 million annually and helps close to 100 airports across the country. In fact, in Quebec, the member opposite's home province, more than 30 airports have benefited from this funding, including the Saint-Hubert airport. This year ACAP will provide $8 million of financial assistance to airports in the province of Quebec. Other airports are in priority and are in line for this funding.
In the past two years, the Saint-Hubert airport has benefited from the airports capital assistance program. This allowed it to purchase important pieces of equipment, equipment it prioritized, in order to keep travellers safe and sound, which is the priority of this government. We want to keep Canadians safe and secure, and we are doing exactly that.
No other official request, at this time, for the rehabilitation of airport infrastructure has been received under this program. Transport Canada does evaluate all official requests received from any airport according to fairness and to the airports capital assistance program criteria, and Saint-Hubert is no exception, just as all airports across the country that serve Canadians from coast to coast to coast are no exception.
Funding is also available under the local and regional airports category of the building Canada and the infrastructure stimulus funds. In fact, there is more assistance available. This Conservative government continues to work actively with our partners in the provinces, territories and municipalities to identify such projects to be considered under these two funding initiatives.
The question is this. Why did that member and her party vote against that assistance? Our Conservative government remains committed to ensuring the safety and the security of all Canadians and treating all Canadians and all Canadian airports fairly. By investing in our airports through the airports capital assistance program and other infrastructure programs, we will be able to enhance and maintain Canada's already very great, enviable safety record and we will treat all Canadians fairly.
8 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Madam Speaker, I do not know why members are applauding. I thought that the parliamentary secretary had not understood a thing.
He tells me that the Saint-Hubert airport did not request funding under the airports capital assistance program. I do not know why he took three minutes to talk about that, because it is not what I asked him about. I asked him whether he had money for the Saint-Hubert airport in the infrastructure and building Canada programs. He said absolutely nothing about that. He did not understand a thing.
I am asking whether he received the Saint-Hubert airport's application under the infrastructure and building Canada programs and how he plans to handle it. That is what I am asking. It is not a difficult question.
In addition, I want to know when he will announce this decision, which, according to what I have been told, has been made.
He should stop playing games and beating around the bush and give a real answer.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Madam Speaker, no matter how aggravated the member gets, it will not change that. This government's position is to treat all airports fairly. In fact, we cannot move forward with this application until Transport Canada receives an official request for funding from the airport authorities. We have to treat all Canadians and all Canadian airport authorities fairly. We have to receive an official request for funding from the airport authority under the airports capital assistance program.
Once an official request has been made and has been received, this government will then be able to ascertain and be in a position to perform an evaluation of the project's eligibility within the context of the program criteria, compared to other places in Canada that are just as eligible, but the application has to be made.
I should also take this opportunity to remind the member opposite of the unprecedented work this government has done to improve our infrastructure in her home province of Quebec. In fact, just yesterday in Quebec City the Minister of Public Works and Government Services announced an agreement with the province of Quebec for $2.75 billion in infrastructure projects throughout the province over the next two years, which is great news. We do work in co-operation and we can get the job done, unlike the Bloc.
8:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, previously in the House, I raised concerns with the minister regarding continued delays in government action on climate change and the rising rates of Canadian sources of greenhouse gases. I asked the minister if he would finally move to impose legally-binding, absolute reduction targets for major emitters.
In reply, I was told that I was well aware of the clean energy dialogue purportedly ongoing between the Prime Minister and President Obama and that it was getting done there. In fact, regrettably, neither I nor, so far as I am aware, any other member of Parliament or Canadian citizen can say with any level of certainty what, if anything, is occurring in this apparent dialogue.
Contrary to the provisions of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation signed almost two decades ago by Canada, the United States and Mexico, critical deliberations on environmental policy are proceeding behind closed doors. This is despite Canada's commitment, pursuant to this agreement, to ensure transparency and participation by concerned Canadians in any environmental policy proposals.
If this is in fact where decisions on Canadian climate change policy are being made, will the government finally open up this dialogue and provide a place at the table for effective and concerned citizens and business leaders; will the government respect the will of the House, expressed clearly by the majority vote today, and impose binding, science-based targets and issue the final federal regulations needed to implement the promised cap and trade regime for major greenhouse gas emitter; and, will the government expedite these actions so that Canada will have something concrete to contribute to the global effort in addressing climate change leading to Copenhagen this December?
8:05 p.m.
Langley B.C.
Conservative
Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants to participate in the clean energy dialogue with President Obama and our Prime Minister. I do not think that will happen with the NDP because one would even question if it believes in climate change.
Our government takes seriously the climate change issue. We are very serious about it. We are acting and taking aggressive realistic measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Greenhouse gas emissions fluctuate from year to year for a number of reasons, but the long-term trend has been that greenhouse gas emissions in Canada have been rising since 1993 because the previous Liberal government failed to take action. Unlike the previous Liberal government, we are committed to change that trend and reduce Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050.
With regard to domestic actions, I would emphasize that we have already made significant progress in introducing measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have established, as the member has mentioned, the clean air energy dialogue with President Obama and his administration and our Prime Minister. The minister has made numerous trips down there. That dialogue will help us set out on a path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve the mid-term reduction targets.
Our environmental action continues with the introduction of Canada's economic action plan, which includes more than $2 billion of green investments designed to protect the environment, stimulate our economy and transform our technologies here in Canada, which the member and her party voted against. Why would a party do that unless it does not believe in climate change?
In addition, the measures laid out in the action plan are reinforced with complementary measures, such as our commitment to support the development and use of renewable fuels and our support for clean technology development. Our government is committed to ensuring that 90% of Canada's electricity needs are provided by non-emitting sources by 2020. That is huge. They are tough targets in Canada and one of toughest in the world.
Moreover, on April 4, the government announced that it would introduce tough new regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from the automotive sector under CEPA. These regulations will be aligned with the fuel efficiency standards of the United States, beginning with 2011 model year vehicles.
In the North American context, Canada will continue to work with President Obama and his administration to develop a co-ordinated approach that will advance our respective environmental and energy objectives and renew the North American economy at the same time. Canada needs good, green jobs.
On the international front, the Government of Canada is moving forward to support international action on the global fight against climate change. Copenhagen will be an important conference and Canada fully intends to play an active and constructive leadership role, with a view to achieving a comprehensive and ambitious global agreement.
8:10 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the reply but, unfortunately, it seems to be more of the same.
Perhaps our Prime Minister could talk to the President of the United States who might be more willing to open up the dialogue consistent with the North American agreement. I would encourage the Government of Canada to do so, which is its obligation under that agreement.
There has been a lot of talk about green incentives and support for a green economy and yet the budget, which I was opposed to for this very reason, cut funding to renewable technology. While the rest of the world moves forward, including our neighbour, the United States, which is investing billions of dollars in building its renewable technology to meet its climate change targets, we have done the opposite. Even the International Energy Agency has said that it is time for the world to move away from reliance on the fossil fuel industry and endorse the green economy.
At what juncture will the government finally change course?
I have had a chance to look briefly at the latest climate change action plan, which, from my brief look, appears to completely repeat the previous climate change action plan that was decried roundly by the Commissioner for Sustainable Development. I am talking about initiatives such as reliance on the public transit tax credits and reliance on a fund that money is simply put into, but none of these measures seem to be delivering real reductions in greenhouse gases. The government tabled a report yesterday indicating that greenhouse gases would continue to rise for some time in Canada.
Where within these measures is the action?
8:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Madam Speaker, I am shocked that the member and the NDP would demean people who use public transit. It is a good environmental practice. This government encouraged that and we provided tax breaks for Canadians to help them use public transit.
I am also shocked at her party's record. It voted against $1 billion for green infrastructure, against $300 million for the ecoENERGY retrofit program to make homes more efficient, and it voted against $1 billion for clean energy projects like carbon capture and storage.
We just came back from the oil sands where we heard how important it is that Canada continues to lead by providing funding for demonstration projects on carbon capture and storage. We are a world leader in that technology. The world is counting on us and we are taking leadership. The response from the NDP was to vote against that too.
With all this evidence, one needs to seriously consider whether the NDP really believes in climate change.
8:10 p.m.
NDP
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
The motion to adjourn the House is now 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 8:13 p.m.)