House of Commons Hansard #177 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was community.

Topics

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed will please say nay.

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The hon. Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting in favour of the motion.

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

Gord Brown Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply and will be voting no.

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and shall be voting against the motion, with the addition of the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Bloc

Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote in favour of the motion.

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Independent

Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU

Mr. Speaker, I too agree to apply and will be voting yes.

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I also agree to apply and will be voting yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #275

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Status of WomenAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, without pay equity, women are robbed of an estimated 23% of their earnings. The government is an accomplice to that robbery.

Thirteen years have passed since the 2004 Pay Equity Task Force report. It was a comprehensive blueprint for pay equity. It was a three-year study of a proactive pay equity regime, consisting of 596 pages and 113 recommendations. Again, that was in 2004 when the Liberal government was previously in power.

If those recommendations had been implemented in 2004, women would have had $640 billion more in their pockets, money they are now owed. The wage gap has cost Canadian women $640 billion in lost wages since 2004. Imagine for a moment the improved quality of life women would have had if they had not had to wait. Imagine the boost to the economy if that money had been in their bank accounts or spent in our communities that whole time.

As Barb Byers, secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress, who very recently retired, and I thank Barb, testified at committee hearings held a year ago:

Let us also be mindful that women have been waiting for longer than 12 years. We've been waiting for decades and decades, and while we wait, the debt owed to those who are caught in the wage gap continues to mount. These are women with children to raise, women who deserve a dignified retirement, and many are women who face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination both in the workplace and in the community.

In June 2016, almost a year ago, the Special Committee on Pay Equity, created by a New Democrat motion, tabled a report called “It's Time to Act”, but the government decided not to act. It is not a hard fix.

There is no reason for the delay. Women are still being denied pay equity. We have models and best practices within our country. There has been proactive pay equity legislation for public sectors for several decades: Ontario since 1987 and Quebec since 1996. Those regimes also include the private sector. Ontario and Quebec found that the cost of these provincial proactive pay equity laws was not significant and not as costly as employers had initially feared when the regimes were introduced. Plus it is a human right and it is the right thing to do.

This year, the Liberals sent a delegation to the 61st session of the Commission on the Status of Women. Interestingly, its focus was #stoptherobbery and #payequity was everywhere. The United Nations asked all countries to #stoptherobbery, but justice has not happened in Canada. We have just learned through the media that a senior ministerial staffer to the former employment minister lost classified documents going to cabinet that explained why pay equity legislation was still being hung up.

I want to know when the government will table those lost documents so we can learn what possible excuse the government has for failing to deny women legal pay equity.

Status of WomenAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Cape Breton—Canso Nova Scotia

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member's dedication and passion to this issue. She did give a shout-out to Barb Byers, someone I have worked with over the last five or six years. I have a tremendous amount of respect for her as an advocate. I appreciate her body of work over that period of time on the national scene. She has done a great job.

In preparation, I was speaking with Gillian Hanson, a good friend of mine, about this just before we came to the House today. We agreed it was important to make one thing clear: pay equity is not a point of contention. Our government agrees that women should receive equal pay for work of equal value. It is a human right that is entrenched in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Our government shares the member's determination and commitment.

I would like to assure hon. members of the House that our government is not delaying this initiative. It is quite the contrary. Our government has committed to tabling new proactive pay equity legislation for the federal jurisdiction in 2018. We are proud to be bringing forward legislation after years of inaction from the previous government. This commitment is explicitly outlined in the minister's mandate letter, and work is under way to achieve this goal.

Pay equity between men and women and fair treatment of all workers in the workplace are going to create economic growth and a thriving middle class.

Our government has had discussions with provinces to draw upon their experiences and lessons learned. We have begun targeted consultations with stakeholders to hear their views on the design of a new proactive pay equity regime.

The bottom line is that we need to create comprehensive and effective proactive pay equity legislation. This will address gender-based wage discrimination related to the undervaluation of work traditionally performed by women. Our commitment to this goal is unwavering.

I should mention that in addition to future pay equity legislation, the government will be working to reduce the wage gap between men and women. We will also work to increase the number of women in senior leadership roles and the representation of women in good-quality jobs in skilled trades.

Gender equality is high on our government's agenda. As outlined in budget 2017, we are committed to ensuring that every Canadian has a real and fair chance to succeed. We will make sure that our decisions deliver results that are more equitable and more fair for all Canadians.

Status of WomenAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, there was not a single witness at the pay equity commission that was held last year, a special committee, who asked for more consultation or asked for more time. It was the unanimous recommendation of the committee that the government table legislation in June 2017. That is two weeks away. There is not a single excuse to delay.

I repeat my question to the member opposite: why on earth is the government waiting? The debt of $640 billion is a big one, and the government is just building it. As well, can we please see this lost document that is now out somewhere in the public domain, the one that was lost by the former employment minister's staff, which explained to cabinet why on earth the government would betray its promise to Canadian women and delay pay equity legislation once again?

Status of WomenAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Mr. Speaker, the member should know, and I think Canadians know, that we are absolutely fully committed to moving forward on tabling proactive pay equity legislation by the end of 2018, and we are working toward that date.

Our government highly values women's rights in keeping with the principles of equality and fairness. Equal pay for work of equal value is a human right. We are actively working towards the goal of pay equity to address gender-based wage discrimination for women in the workplace.

Pay equity legislation will impact different organizations in different ways. As such, we must be mindful of these complexities and create legislation that is both comprehensive and effective. That is our goal. I assure the House, make no mistake; we will achieve it.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year in question period, I asked the government for immediate action on the opioid crisis. I said that we cannot afford to wait for Bill C-37 to wind its way through the parliamentary process. Ironically, months later, while this legislation has made progress, it has not yet received royal assent.

At the time, I asked the government to provide immediate and direct support to communities like those I represent in Essex which continue to grapple with this public health emergency. Unfortunately, this crisis continues to spiral. Front-line workers do not have the resources that they need. People in my community are frustrated and angry by the lack of response from the government.

Earlier today, the Minister of Health spoke about emergency funding to B.C. and Alberta. I would like to remind her that communities across Canada need emergency funding. Small communities especially are struggling to deal with this issue when there is not a holistic plan. We need care in this country that sees people from detox through transition and into rehab. That is very difficult to find in small communities. We need the government to step up with the resources necessary to bring this crisis under control.

In my riding of Essex, youth addiction is a significant issue. In fact, our county has the seventh highest rate of youth addiction in the province. People in law enforcement feel that their hands are tied and they are stuck in the cycle as well. They pick up the same person, bring him or her to the hospital, and then the person is back on the street again. They want to be part of the solution, but there is currently no way for them to participate in that.

Families are feeling desperate. When a loved one experiences an addiction, the parents and the family struggle so much. It is life or death. They try to support their loved one in getting help, but there are so many gaps in the system that it often feels like the system is working against them. Families are doing all they can to help each other.

This morning I spoke with a woman from my riding who was trying to help another family save their child. Fortunately, she was able to get her daughter into treatment and her daughter is healthy today, but this is not the case for everyone. If it were not for Narconon and family support systems that are popping up, we would have no formal way for people to be able to find out what treatment is available to them.

When someone with an addiction is ready to detox and then go to rehab, it is often the beginning of a frustrating experience of running up against the common problems of lack of beds, long wait lists, and a complete lack of resources. People with addictions simply cannot get the help they need and sadly, this can have tragic consequences. People not being able to get into help is heartbreaking.

I have met with some of these families. They have visited me in my office. It is a very emotional conversation with people who are struggling to get their loved ones the help that they need. I have heard their pain and sorrow, and more often, their frustration and anger. When families tell me that their only hope is that their loved one will somehow end up in jail so that their loved one can get the treatment that he or she needs, this tells us how incredibly broken our system is.

Since I held a round table several months ago, seven more people have died in our region due to opioid addictions. I implore the government to revisit its five point plan and reconsider the level of resources that this public health crisis deserves. I would like to ask what the government can offer to rural communities like those in Essex to assist with strengthening the response to the opioid crisis.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Ajax Ontario

Liberal

Mark Holland LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, our government is indeed deeply concerned about the growing number of unintentional opioid overdoses and deaths being reported in Canada, including those involving fentanyl and carfentanil. We know that this is a complex issue and that no one organization or level of government is going to be able to find a solution on its own.

Months ago, we recognized that there was an opioid crisis in Canada, and since then this government has taken swift and concrete action. We have been working closely with the provinces and territories, community organizations, academia, and international partners in all areas of response, from prevention and treatment to law enforcement and harm reduction.

We listened when nurses, doctors, pharmacists, patients, and parent organizations told us that removing the requirement for a prescription to access naloxone would allow for a more rapid response in a potential overdose situation, increasing the chance of survival. We applauded the decision of those provinces and territories that followed this recommendation and delisted naloxone in their jurisdictions.

Health Canada has also worked to provide access for Canadians to a single-use nasal spray delivery system for naloxone, which has already been approved for use in other countries. This provides our first responders and communities with an alternative to injectable naloxone that is easier to carry and administer in the event of an overdose outside a hospital setting.

In November last year, the Minister of Health co-hosted an opioid conference and summit, along with the Ontario Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, where participants from across the country, in a joint statement of action, committed to concrete actions to address this crisis.

The Public Health Agency of Canada is using tools at its disposal to deal with a national public health event of concern. A special advisory committee on the epidemic of opioid overdoses was struck to focus on urgent issues related to the opioid crisis. This committee is co-chaired by Canada's interim chief public health officer and the chief medical officer of health for Nova Scotia. Supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada, it includes representation of the chief medical officers of health from every province and territory. This federal, provincial, and territorial committee provides a mechanism for collaboration and information-sharing among jurisdictions focused on improving data gathering and surveillance, supporting harm reduction efforts, and addressing prevention and treatment options. To inform response efforts and to monitor the extent of the crisis, the committee is sharing, coordinating, and analyzing existing data on the public health impact of opioids in Canada. This includes examining indicators, standardizing definitions, and lending support to collaboration between chief coroners and medical examiners, led by the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

Special advisory committees have previously been established as a cross-jurisdictional mechanism to allow for timely decisions on public health operations and to facilitate policy advice to deputy ministers of health, including during significant public health events such as the H1N1, Ebola outbreaks, Zika, and the welcoming of over 25,000 Syrian refugees.

I could go on at great length. This is a very serious crisis, one the government is meeting with all available tools at our disposal.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

NDP

Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for expressing his concern, but without action, it is hollow and meaningless to people in our communities who are watching their loved ones suffer and die.

The government cannot focus only on big cities, because action is desperately needed in small towns like LaSalle, Amherstburg, Essex, Kingsville, and Lakeshore in southwestern Ontario, which have no ability to get into those beds, who call up the hospital and cannot get into rehab, because there are no beds available. Where does that leave them with their loved ones who are looking for a rehab facility that does not exist in our region, who have to travel out of town, who have to be on wait-lists? Rural communities cannot be left behind in the government's plan to address the opioid crisis.

How is the government helping rural communities that are being devastated? The government needs to show leadership and declare a national public health emergency.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax, ON

Mr. Speaker, in December, our government announced the new Canadian drugs and substances strategy. I certainly appreciate the member's concern for rural communities. It is one I share. This strategy will restore harm reduction as a core pillar of Canada's drug strategy.

The member also referenced some of the emergency funding put in place. We had recent funding announcements in February 2017 and in budget 2017, including $100 million over five years, starting in 2017-18, with $22.7 million per year ongoing to support national measures associated with the new drug strategy and the implementation of the opioid action plan. That, of course, would also affect rural communities.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to an issue that came up a few months ago when we first saw the immigration ban that the American administration had put in place, and our response to that. There was a lot of confusion at the time.

Fast forwarding to today, what I am concerned about, frankly, is the government's complete incompetence in managing the integrity of our immigration system, and now I feel that is bleeding over to border security as well.

I am going to be perfectly honest. The response that the government has had, not only its response to keeping the rights of Canadians intact as it relates to our American friends, but its response to virtually any immigration issue, has been “nothing to see here, folks”, and talking points about the Syrian refugee initiative. In fact, I think it is a disservice that the government said during the campaign that the Syrian refugee initiative is going to cost $250 million. It is well north of a billion dollars. When we look at provincial costs, it is probably $3 billion or $4 billion. Now we are seeing that the government does not even want to address the fact that the increase of asylum claimants from the U.S., coming across the border through illegal means, is an issue.

My question is very pragmatic. Canada is a nation that has been built on immigration. The question is on how we do it. I know that the government is going to have a serious public policy challenge five or 10 years down the road that is much more magnified than now, because it will have lost the social licence in Canada to see any further immigration. It has not thought about treating people who are coming to this country like people. We do not talk about long-term integration programming. It will lack social licence from a lot of Canadians, in that it refuses to look at issues such as border integrity.

I want to start from a very simple place tonight. Does the government acknowledge that there is a problem?

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Ajax Ontario

Liberal

Mark Holland LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, we monitor the situation on the border daily. We take a look at how those numbers compare. The reality is that if we go back to 2008 or to 2001, the numbers of folks who are crossing are actually lower than at that point in time, and the resources we have are higher. It is not just us who believe that the situation on the border is being handled effectively. The United Nations in fact oversees the happenings there and is reported to be very impressed. It says it is working very effectively.

To the broader question of what should be done, I would ask the member opposite what she specifically would do. When somebody crosses the border into Canada and arrives irregularly on Canadian soil, we are bound by both convention and, I would also articulate, a moral imperative to act, to assure that the person who has come across is in fact a legitimate refugee. If not, they are sent back. However, if they are a legitimate refugee, obviously we need to ascertain that. Simply turning them back at the border, as some in her party have suggested, would mean violating our international commitments, and I think would violate the very spirit that this country has operated in.

There were some questions with respect to the NEXUS program. I do not know if those are going to arise. I would happy to address them.

However, I would say to the member, if there are specific ideas or specific ways that she would like to see things done differently, I would love some specificity, because that is not what we have seen to this point.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the families in Emerson will take great comfort in the parliamentary secretary's comments that the UN has told them everything is just fine. I am sure they will take great comfort in that, when they have a multitude of folks knocking on their doors in the middle of night. I am sure that will bring great comfort.

With respect to my colleague's comment that his colleagues should come up with the solution, that is fantastic. If the government is looking to the Conservative Party for solutions, then perhaps we should have a Conservative government after 2019.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax, ON

Mr. Speaker, we have a solution, and it is bound by convention from the 1951 Refugee Convention and by other bilateral agreements, that when somebody lands on our soil, in Emerson or everywhere else, we ascertain the legitimacy of their claim. That is what we are doing.

My preposition is that if the member has a specific recommendation to the contrary, she should put it to the table, as opposed to just criticizing. I would say to the families of Emerson, to the community in Emerson, who have been so welcoming and so supportive in dealing with this, “a huge thank you” . It is our responsibility, obviously, as we see asylum seekers coming anywhere in this country, to deal with them appropriately, to make sure they are legitimate, and where they are not, to send them back.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

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 7:11 p.m.)