Debates of Dec. 11th, 2018

Bill C-21. Second reading and concurrence in Senate amendment

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I give the Liberals credit for moving some of the deal across the goal line. We appreciate that. It is important.

We realize that there is a huge challenge with respect to tariffs. I understand that the government is working to try to address these issues. Why we continued to look at other trade deals when we were in government, and why the Liberal government is doing that, was because we were trying to reduce our reliance on the U.S.

The number, 15 years ago, when I first arrived in this place, was probably close to 85% or 90%. We see that number now at 76%. We need to look for opportunities with other countries.

I go back to my colleague and friend who talked about the fact that while we look at trying to diversify, and why it is important to do, the underlying challenge we still have as a country is competitiveness. It is regulation, red tape, skills shortages and taxation. It is a combination of things.

We need to always be mindful, as we move forward on this, that no matter how many trade deals we have with other countries, we need to make sure that we can compete. We need to be able to compete with countries like China, the U.S. and Europe. As I look at some of the results from CETA, I see that there are more goods coming into Canada than are being sent to Europe. There is an opportunity here. The minister has talked about finding ways to help our SMEs do a better job exporting. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done to take advantage of these deals.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his work, especially on the trade file.

Earlier this year, in late spring, I had a number of coffee drop-ins in my riding, where I asked constituents what their concerns were. Based on the feedback from a small number of constituents, maybe a couple of hundred, I sent out letters to every household in my riding, and over and over again, these issues came to the top: trade issues and immigration, which is always right near the top, especially as it relates to illegal immigration.

My constituents are concerned not only about the cost of the illegal immigration Canadian taxpayers are being forced to bear but about legitimate refugees who have been languishing in UNHCR camps for years, not able to get in line to have access to the protection Canada would offer.

I wonder if my colleague from Niagara West has also experienced input from his constituents. He is much closer to the border than I am. I would imagine that he is hearing from his constituents too as it relates to the integrity of our borders.

All of us on this side of the House welcome immigration. We welcome refugees who are in legitimate need of our protection. I have had refugees living in our home. This is something we care about. We have to be sure that it is well managed, that it is orderly, and that it is fair.

I wonder if my colleague is hearing from his constituents in this regard as well.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we had a chance to do a round table in Kitchener in the summertime. A lot of the concerns I talked about during my speech, and that I have been talking about since the House came back in September, were issues that, quite frankly, the member has had to deal with and that we have heard about on a regular basis in terms of concerns about the future, etc.

In terms of immigration and refugees, one of the things I have found that we as a government did, and that as Canadians we do well, is when we sponsor refugees. When churches and community groups decide to reach out, instead of refugees being government sponsored, they are privately sponsored.

One thing that challenges us on all sides of the House is when refugees come in and we just throw them in government housing and do not talk to them or try to help them integrate into society. That creates some problems.

Our party has always been about legal immigration. Our party has always been about looking out for those who are in distress, who need help, and who are less fortunate. As a country, we have always punched above our weight when it comes to accepting refugees.

One of the things the government struggles with is that it believes that the answer to everything is more government spending or more largesse. Conservatives believe that there is this thing called personal responsibility. We also believe that individuals and communities can do a much better job of helping these immigrants.

I was at a Christmas dinner last year, and I am sure I will be going to the same one this year. We had a chance to meet some families that had been brought in by a couple of local church groups. What was great was that there they were, at this community Christmas dinner, with the sponsors and people from, I believe, the church. Other organizations have done amazing work as well on these things. This was all so new. They had come from another part of the world. They did not know anyone and did not speak the language.

I can assure the House that this was the result of an orderly process, a process that does not believe that government can do everything and believes that citizens can actually make a difference and do a great job. I really believe that as a result of the love and care and the sense of community this community group provided, the integration of these refugees into my community of Niagara West has been a good experience and will continue to be because of the love and support of the people who brought them into the country.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his intervention. He does such great work on the trade file. I know how knowledgeable he is about the relationship between Canada and the United States and some of our other trading partners.

He have talked about this relationship. He and I had the opportunity to go to Washington last year to discuss some of the negotiations that were going on for NAFTA. One of the things we heard, time and again, from business owners and stakeholders that have relationships on both sides of the border was their concern about the direction of the NAFTA negotiations. They were based on the five priorities the Liberal government put on the table to start off those negotiations. They included climate change, gender equality, cultural protections, right to work, and indigenous issues, issues they were very concerned did not belong in an economic trade agreement. They were concerned that the Liberal government was not taking these off the negotiating table. They were, in their words, hills they would die on.

That put us in a very precarious and weak negotiating position when it came to renegotiating NAFTA. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on where this went off the tracks early and on the impact it has had on our relationship.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, we were in Washington last January, but we were also able to do some round tables where, once again, we heard about the devastating impacts of tariffs.

I will comment quickly, because I realize that I only have about 20 seconds left. All these things the member mentioned I do not see anywhere in the new USMCA. Not that these were not important things, but to my colleague's comments, this was a trade deal. The U.S. was talking about a renegotiation of NAFTA. Quite frankly, those would have been best dealt with at another time. We should have been very serious about the things that were important to us.

As a result of our delaying and looking at other things, it was the Mexican government that worked behind our backs to negotiate most of the deal we had to sign on to until we got to the other chapters.

It was so important to be at the table and be treated as a serious partner. These things did not help our case as we were starting out and trying to manage the relationship and get a good deal for Canada.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to stand in the House and speak as we get close to coming to a conclusion in this place.

December 11 is an interesting date for us in the House. It is the 87th anniversary of the Westminster Act. It began with the scandalous King-Byng affair, which began in 1925. Mackenzie King, the prime minister at the time, wanted to call for dissolution, but the governor general refused. He tried again, and eventually the Conservatives, under Meighen, came in power. Again, it did not work, and again, Mackenzie King was in a situation where the governor general had no choice but to dissolve.

This led to a lot of study and a lot of work that ended in 1931 with the Westminster Act. It changed the role of the governor general in Canada. What we do in the House and the Senate changed significantly because of the debate in the House through those years, which ended with this particular act. It re-established the authenticity and power of the people who make decisions in the House. Therefore, this is a significant anniversary as we wind up this particular place and review what happened 87 years ago for the Statute of Westminster.

We have the press gallery, which is significant in reporting on what we do. We have incredible names from history, such as Charles Lynch, who has a press conference room named after him. He was significant in his reporting on what we do in the House. The press gallery is an incredible part of what we do here, as it reports on these activities. In those times, the reporters sat in the chamber as there was no TV. It came in 1978, and I think drastically changed what happens in here. Bruce Hutchinson is another press gallery reporter. He is also an incredible writer of Canadian history. These people brought the flavour of what we did in the House to the Canadian people as they wrote it in the media. The press gallery continues to be an essential part of how we function in our country, democracy, and what we bring to it. There were significant people in the press gallery in the past.

Other changes have occurred here, such as simultaneous translation. We have had debate here in recent weeks and months on legislation to allow other languages to be translated. However, simultaneous translation happened in the 1950s when Diefenbaker was prime minister. Up until that time, we had the blues, which we would read many hours later to see what people said in the House, and we would talk about it the next day. We now have simultaneous translation so that we can hear the proceedings in both official languages, and we are talking about possibly allowing translations of other languages. These are things particular to the House.

As we wind up this place, we see the significance of the architecture. We have heard members refer to “take it outside the doors”, but if we go outside the doors, we see the portraits of prime ministers on both sides of our main entrance. There is significance of the location of two portraits, Borden's and King's, who were our wartime prime ministers, which is why those two portraits are located just beside the entryway into the House of Commons. The other prime ministers' portraits are in the hallway.

Some members might want to talk about the debates we have had. An interesting one was during World War I on the War Measures Act, which was adopted, and power was turned over to the executive. There is not a lot of debate when we do that. The Second World War came and, again, power went to the executive and was not debated here. However, there is one debate many people might remember on the War Measures Act, which happened around two o'clock in the morning in 1971. Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, at the time, implemented the War Measures Act. Was it debated here in the House? No it was not. Members were debating the Fisheries Act, because under the War Measures Act, power went to the executive and was not for MPs to debate in the House. Things were a little different under that particular legislation, which had been established in World War I. However, there were significant things debated in this House by many politicians over the last 100 years.

The carillon is a part of this building. Many of us have heard the carillon being played. Dr. McCready is a famous carillon player and we have the opportunity to go to the Peace Tower. Its 100th anniversary will be in 2026. Hopefully, there will be a way for people to access the facility; otherwise that will only happen in 2026. I know the building is going to be undergoing renovations. However, that is a significant piece of what goes on here in the building.

I know that my time must be coming to an end. Therefore, I will say at this point that it has been a great opportunity to talk a bit about history to wind up my time in the House today.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments. Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

I wish to inform the members that because the proceedings on the motion, which was subject to time allocation, have concluded, Government Orders will no longer be extended by 30 minutes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. at this time so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Member of Parliament for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Before we begin private members' hour, I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 26, 2018, by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley regarding the attendance in the House of Commons of the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

I want to thank the member for having raised the matter in the House, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, and the members for Chilliwack—Hope, Yukon and Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for their observations.

The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley explained that, since announcing his resignation as a member of Parliament in April of this year, the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has failed to fulfill the requirements of Standing Order 15 by not attending sittings in the House. All the while, he continues to receive his salary and benefits. Although acknowledging that valid exceptions to that rule exist, he believed that this prolonged and unexplained absence offends the reputation and dignity of the House and, thus, constitutes a contempt.

For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader argued that the question of privilege was not raised at the earliest opportunity, as is required, and that it is the Board of Internal Economy that has the necessary powers and authority to deal with this type of administrative matter.

The member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel provided an explanation about how he has in fact been fulfilling certain parliamentary duties during his absence. Furthermore, he claimed in this statement to the House that he has not been receiving his salary as a member of Parliament during this time.

In terms of the issue of “first opportunity”, the Chair is satisfied that, in this case, a certain latitude is required to bring this matter forward given its evolving nature.

At the core of this matter is the obligation for members of Parliament to fulfill their parliamentary duties in part by attending sittings in the House. This seemingly simple statement carries with it enormous responsibility, from which even larger expectations emanate.

The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 218, states:

…the presence of Members in the Chamber is largely a function of politics, not procedure or law.

While it may be hard to deny this reality, procedure and law do play their part. In fact, as noted by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Standing Order 15 states:

Every Member, being cognizant of the provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act, is bound to attend the sittings of the House, unless otherwise occupied with parliamentary activities and functions or on public or official business.

This rule and the law on which it is based are straightforward, and they are sustained by valid expectations. They also come with a certain degree of latitude and, in cases of non-compliance, a need for understanding as to why. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley offered his interpretation of the current situation, one that, at least to some degree, was speculative. While it is true that the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel had not been present in the House for some months, the reasons for his absence remained unclear to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

In the past, when the House has had cause to question the right of members to continue to sit in the House, it has been for very different reasons, including allegations of violations to the Canada Elections Act and even accusations of sedition.

The charge of contempt against the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel is that he continued to receive his salary during an extended absence that remained unexplained. Even without knowing with some degree of certainty the reasons for a member's absence, it would be difficult to conclude that an absence is, in and of itself, sufficient justification for a finding of contempt, especially when this must be weighed against the accepted understanding that there are indeed valid absences.

In fact, during interventions on this matter, the House was asked to remember that there can be legitimate circumstances that require our understanding, even compassion, during a member’s lengthy absence. We were also called to remember that there is a necessary fluidity in the way we fulfill our responsibilities as members of Parliament.

The member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel provided the House with his reasons for his absence. While the Chair finds that there is no prima facie question of privilege, it needs to be clear that any latitude exercised by members in meeting their obligations should not be taken blindly as an acceptable approach. It cannot be used to hide behind the technicalities of our rules. To allow this would be a disservice to our fellow citizens whom we represent, as well as to other parliamentarians.

Finally, there is an administrative aspect of this matter, as has been suggested by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, one over which the Board of Internal Economy has authority, as derived from the Parliament of Canada Act. More specifically, the Board of Internal Economy is mandated to act on all financial and administrative matters respecting the members of the House of Commons, including their sessional allowances. This then makes it the proper forum to discuss such questions and for any relevant determinations to be made. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley remains free to bring important issues of this nature to the attention of the board, as required.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Standing Committee on Health

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

moved:

That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on the level of fitness and physical activity of youth in Canada and provide recommendations and report on: (a) strategies to increase the level of fitness and physical activity for youth; (b) the economic, social, cultural, and physical and mental health benefits associated with increased fitness and physical activity among youth; (c) the impact of increased fitness and physical activity in relation to anti-bullying; and (d) that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than June 2019.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour, as always, to rise in the House of Commons, and it is especially honourable today as this may be the last hour of Private Members' Business before this glorious chamber is shuttered for 10 to 15 years while it receives much-needed renovations. Very soon, it will be shut down for that long.

In my opinion, it is fitting that such an important subject as the physical activity of youth could be the last topic for Private Members' Business. It is my sincere hope that when this magnificent building reopens in 10 to 15 years, we would have in place a solid federal framework for promoting Canadian youth to be physically active.

Mr. Speaker, you have read my motion. It seeks to do three things. One is to develop strategies to raise the level of physical activity of youth. The advantages of doing so are economic, social, cultural, physical and mental. Improving the mental health of children also helps make them more resilient in the face of bullying.

This motion, for me, comes from a personal place. I am the father of two young children. I am also the son of a phys. ed. teacher. My father, unfortunately, passed away the year I was elected to the chamber and did not get to see me as a member of Parliament. In part, this motion is a tribute to his memory and the fact he always taught me to be a good sport, to take part in physical activity and to make sports part of my childhood, and for that I will be forever grateful.

Physically active youth have always been known to be healthy, but only recently have we realized that the health benefits of physical activity go beyond strong muscles and strong bones. The social benefits are innumerable. New evidence shows that the mental health benefits are almost as great. Children who are active are more resilient to bullying, less prone to bouts of depression and have fewer suicidal thoughts in adolescence and adulthood. Those are all noble goals that the House should pursue.

My motion directs the health committee to study the benefits of physical activity in youth. There is a large amount of evidence out there and it continues to grow. This evidence needs to be brought together by the committee. The committee, in my assessment and opinion, should then make recommendations to the House to indicate what role the federal government should play in making sure there is an adequate federal framework to encourage health promotion in our children.

I grew up many years ago and I was always involved in sports, as I mentioned. However, I always also played outside with my friends. The norm was that we left the house as soon as we could, either on our bikes or running to our friend's house, and as long as we were home when the street lights were on, everything was good. We had lunch at whoever's house was closest to us while we were playing road hockey or baseball in an open field or soccer, or some other game that we invented.

It is these activities that help a young child's brain develop, and not just develop to play sports but also with other motor skills. It helps them deal with social situations. It helps them develop conflict skills. As members know, all of these things are important when people move from childhood to adolescence and adulthood. The evidence, as I said, is copious. It needs to be harnessed and it needs a federal push.

We have done some good work federally in this field. We recently funded Participaction to do some research and promote these activities. Also, just recently provincial-territorial and federal leaders and their ministers of sport came together and came up with a great report entitled “Let's Get Moving”, which has a great number of suggestions and a framework in which the federal government has a role to play. I suggest this type of evidence should be before the health committee when it decides what recommendations to make to the House.

Although, in my humble opinion, the benefits are indisputable, we just are not getting to where we need to be, for whatever reason. The health committee could help get us over that hump. Participaction recently came out with a report card grading many countries around the world. In overall physical activity, Canada scored a D+. Active play was a D, active transportation was a D-, sedentary behaviour was a D+ and physical fitness was a D. Schools graded well at B-. Community and environment scored a B+ and family and peers scored a C+. The average was C-. I think everyone in the House would agree we need to do better.

The importance of health, activity in youth and this subject comes home doubly when we see throughout Canada issues around mental health. We are starting to acknowledge the issues of mental health and the destigmatization of mental health issues. Mental health is a serious issue in this country. I think everyone in the House would agree. It is also particularly serious among our youth. A recent study from the Toronto District School Board compared stress levels of students in the last five years. They have increased significantly, so much so that some are unable to cope with the environment of being in school.

There is a problem that needs to be addressed. I do not think I will get much disagreement on that. However, the evidence is also starting to clearly show that physical activity in young people equips them well to deal with stress, mental health issues and even PTSD. An American study from a few years ago came to the same conclusion. The doctor of that study, Dr. Sibbold, said:

Given the substantial current focus on antibullying campaigns, it seemed to us that safe, cheap, and efficacious options are sorely needed to mitigate this growing problem. If we can prevent even one child from depression or self-harm, this is worth it, hands down.

I could not agree more with those sentiments. Bullying is a problem in our schools, as Dr. Sibbold alluded to. In my area we have a group that is very active against bullying, and it does a lot. Bully Free Community Alliance in York region does great work. It knows that physically active youth are less bullied, and just as importantly, are more able to cope when they are bullied. I think everyone agrees this is important.

As I said, there is much evidence out there. I had the opportunity to speak to a lot of stakeholders as I was going through this motion and before our first reading debate here today. A very active group in my riding, Activate Aurora, provided a lot of information. I spoke with people from the Nova Scotia fitness centre, Active for Life, Participaction and Recreation Canada.

Also, I had the pleasure just last Sunday of meeting Lisa Bowes, who is now a children's author. Some may remember her days as a sports reporter on TSN. She has come out with a new line of books entitled “Lucy Tries... ” and whatever sport it might be. It may be hockey or luge. There are a number of books out in the series. These books encourage youth to get involved in sports and to try new sports, which I think is key.

All of these people are working hard toward the same goal. Unfortunately, as is the case in many organizations in a country as big as Canada, they are not necessarily working together. The phrase “they are working in silos” applies.

If we seize this matter as a federal government, direct the health committee to do a study, then it can break down some of these barriers between these groups, share evidence and best practices and make some great recommendations that will make Canadians and Canadian children healthier.

Canadians love organized sports, and there are many great sports associations in all our ridings. I encourage all students, all children to get involved. However, it does not have to be organized sports. There needs to be a cultural shift in the country, where students play all day, like I did many years ago as a young child growing up in Queensville, Ontario just north of the riding I represent now, Newmarket—Aurora. They play without rules, without organizations and without structure. Some have used the phrase “free range children” in today's nomenclature, but it was the norm back then.

Too often today we have moved away from that to a norm of children not leaving the house, children needing to stay at home where they are safe and protected. We hear of incidents where children are walking down the sidewalk, perhaps going to the local park, and neighbours call the police to say that a nine or 10-year-old old girl is walking down street without her parents, as if that were some kind of an emergency.

I am not necessarily faulting the caller, but we need to have a cultural shift where that is the norm, where it is great, where it should be encouraged and where the person who sees that child walking down the street does not phone 911, but calls the parents to thank them for having an active child. If people are concerned about the child's safety, perhaps they could watch her for the 80 metres to ensure she gets to the park safely. That kind of culture engenders physical activity in students.

We can look at countries like Japan. Japan does not build schools any further than four kilometres apart from the students who go there. Every student in Japan walks to school. In Canada, I believe it is less than 20%. We have geographical limits that Japan may not. However, in areas where a school is less than three or four kilometres away, children should be encouraged to walk to school, or to bike to school and do it in groups. There is this concept of walking buses, where a group stops at everyone's house and picks another child up as it walks to the school.

We need to make this more of the norm and less of the exception. As I said, it is not just because we need children to be physically active, it is not just because we want children to be healthy physically; it is because we want them to be well-rounded adults. We want them to be able to cope with the stresses of real life.

A big issue that exists even now that did not five, 10 or 15 years ago, and I deal with it every day, especially with my seven year old, is screen time. Getting those tablets out of children's hands is almost impossible without strict discipline. Those who have children, especially seven year olds, will know how stubborn they can be. My sons Kolton and Kash can both be a little stubborn when it comes to this. However, we have to set the guidelines. I am not here to lecture people on parenting skills. I do not profess to be an expert in that field by any stretch of the imagination.

However, I can see first-hand that the problem is real. There is more distractions for children now than there was when I was a child. I think I had four or five channels to choose from, and I might have watched TV on Saturday mornings when Scooby-Doo was on, and it was not black and white TV; it was colour.

These are the types of real-life issues children are facing today. When we are replacing it with screen time, instead being physically active, then it makes that problem worse.

My request is a simple one. I truly do hope the House can rally around it. It is a completely non-partisan one in my humble opinion. However, we need the health committee to study this, bring the evidence together and come up with recommendations to ensure the federal government plays its role in ensuring our children are healthy, mentally, emotionally, socially, and they are getting to have a fulfilling life.

We as a federal government should set that framework to make that as likely as possible. I look forward to debate on this matter. I am hoping to have support across parties. If my motion is successful, I will look forward to the great work the health committee will do.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for bringing forward this motion on physical fitness. It is a very worthy motion.

I am not sure why the member did not just suggest to one of the Liberal members on the health committee that we should do the study, because we get offers to do studies like that all the time.

I am particularly interested to know why the member thinks that being physically fit makes people more resilient to bullying.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to hear from my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton and I appreciate her work in the House and on the committee.

First of all, on the health committee, I wanted something a little more binding to get it done. If the House orders a committee to do something, it will do it. However, agendas and priorities sometimes change and the session is coming to an end, so I wanted to make sure something was done before the session ended in the spring.

With regard to being physically fit and active as a defence mechanism toward bullying, some of the studies I have researched, including the Participaction study that also came out recently, “Canadian kids need to move more to boost their brain health”. That is the name of the study. It showed the clear association between physical activity, brain health, mental health and resilience to stresses in the everyday life of our children.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that action is needed urgently to promote physical activity and to reduce sedentary living in Canada for all citizens, particularly young people. I am wondering if my hon. colleague is aware that the very questions set out in his motion were recently addressed comprehensively in a May 31, 2018 report, just six months ago, produced collaboratively by the federal government working with the provincial and territorial ministers. The report is entitled “A Common Vision for Increasing Physical Activity and Reducing Sedentary Living in Canada: Let's Get Moving”. It contains 46 comprehensive strategic comparatives for action.

I am wondering if he is aware that the content of his motion that calls for action has been exactly covered by a report just issued by the government six months ago. Would he not think it would be better instead of taking up the health committee's time, to press his own government to actually implement the 46 recommendations that his own government just signed onto?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I alluded in my speech to that exact study. I have it here and I am abundantly aware of it. I have read it from cover to cover. It is a great study. It is a much broader study than just focusing on youth and all Canadians. It is great that the territorial and provincial ministers and the federal Minister of Science and Sport together came up with a report, but it is just a report and there are a lot of recommendations. However, there is other evidence and they did not necessarily encompass all the components that I want the health committee to study, including putting more of a focus on mental health, anti-bullying and perhaps a change of culture in some of the broader concepts that I alluded to.

I suspect that the health committee will do its due study. It will reflect and carry a nice weight in its report, hopefully because it is good work, but I believe we need to focus more just on youth.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Health, it is a great pleasure to have this motion before us. I am very supportive of studying this. When I was in the military, we knew that physical activity was very important to the mental health of soldiers. It is something that needs to be learned throughout a lifetime.

The member for Newmarket—Aurora mentioned how children walk to school in Japan. My children have the opportunity of walking to school, but most of their classmates, in fact, do not. While many of us might have walked to school in our youth and walked barefoot, it has fallen out of the norm. That is quite sad. We need to find ways of ensuring when we create physical environments and infrastructure and recommendations related to that, and when we actually build schools, that they are built so they are walkable for our children and that we make communities which are walkable.

Only 37.9% of children are physically active and there are a lot who are not. Could the member comment on that?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to walk more, to get active and get outside more certainly should be a component of any healthy lifestyle. The study also shows that there are a lot of subgroups or populations that are even worse than the 37% of youth that are active. If that is broken down by gender, it is actually only 26% of females and 47% of males. We need to take all this into account as we consider how to get Canadian kids moving.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Motion No. 206.

I will begin by reading the motion:

That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on the level of fitness and physical activity of youth in Canada and provide recommendations and report on: (a) strategies to increase the level of fitness and physical activity for youth; (b) the economic, social, cultural, and physical and mental health benefits associated with increased fitness and physical activity among youth; (c) the impact of increased fitness and physical activity in relation to anti-bullying; and (d) that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than June 2019.

I am very pleased to be speaking on this topic because we know that physical fitness is very important. It is one of the key predeterminants of health. In setting the stage for this motion, let me describe the situation that exists right now in Canada.

Obesity in children has doubled since the 1970s. Obesity in adolescents has tripled in the last 30 years. More and more young people are obese, and obesity is linked directly to conditions like diabetes. We know that 11 million Canadians have diabetes or pre-diabetes. This is a very difficult condition that, as people age, becomes even worse, increasing the risks of heart attack and stroke and numerous other chronic diseases. It is important to get at the root cause and to try to eliminate obesity in children and adolescents, and physical fitness is definitely part of that. The World Health Organization has called on countries to take specific action, so I am pleased this motion has come forward today.

Going by the wisdom of my past, and my past is likely lengthier than the past of the member opposite, diet and exercise are both important parts of being physically fit. There are initiatives for healthy eating and getting the nutrients people need, which is very important. In terms of exercise, a number of things were in place when I was growing up that have fallen by the wayside. When the health committee looks at recommendations and talks about what strategies to employ, it may want to consider some of these.

The first one I want to talk about is one that the member opposite mentioned, namely Participaction. That was present in public schools when I went to school. All children were tested, then did various physical activities and were tested again to show their improvements in physical fitness. If we could return to mandatory programs in schools, some of the terrible scores the member referenced would be improved. Canada is scoring a D on active play and D⁺ on physical activity. We should have mandatory programs at more than just the public school level. When I was in school, physical education was mandatory up to and including high school. That was good for a number of reasons, not just for students to be physically fit but also for the fact that it introduced them to the joy of team sports. Although I was usually chosen last, I improved over time and went on to embrace physical fitness in my adult life.

Some of the things the Liberal government has done have discouraged fitness in children. Eliminating the child fitness tax credit was not a good thing. It had allowed families to get their children involved in sport and activity that was very beneficial to them. That should be revisited and brought back as part of the recommendations of the health committee.

The second part of this motion talks about the economic social, cultural, physical and mental health benefits associated with increased physical fitness.

Let us talk about the economic, social, cultural, physical and mental health benefits associated with increased fitness and physical activity among youth. As the Conservative Party's health critic and vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Health, I have heard countless constituents, stakeholders and Canadians from across the country express concerns about the future health of our youth.

Chronic illnesses and their consequences have an enormous impact on our society and our health care system as a whole. The most effective way to prevent chronic illnesses such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease in our society is by educating our youth.

Chronic illness prevention through education will help our youth become healthier adults and reduce the pressure on our health care system. Preventing chronic illness is always better than treating chronic illness, especially among youth.

For youth, physical activity is also primarily a social activity. Team sports in particular have a tremendous social, physical and mental effect on Canadians' health. Young people in particular can use physical activity and group sports as a way of socializing with their peers, reducing stress, and maintaining and improving their physical health. We should encourage our young people to participate in physical activity from a very early age.

Canada has the necessary infrastructure and programs, but our youth are relatively sedentary and often do not meet the daily targets for physical activity. Canadians in general are fairly sedentary, and that tendency is even more pronounced among our youth. Because of screen-based forms of entertainment like video games, cellphones and television, young Canadians are spending less and less time outside and less and less time engaged in physical activity.

We can see the need to consider all the effects physical activity can have on youth. With respect to its relation to anti-bullying, I asked a question about this and I am not surprised to find that there is a relationship. I was the victim of bullying when I was growing up. I describe it as being chosen last. I was both verbally and physically bullied when I was at school. However, as I grew up, I became very physically active. I began to do triathlons, participated in many sports and received my black belt in tae kwon do.

I encouraged my children to do the same, and I found that they did not suffer bullying at all when they were in school. In fact, the opposite would be true, and one of my daughters was expelled on several occasions. However, physical fitness makes people more resilient, as the member opposite mentioned in his speech.

I am incredibly glad to see this come forward. It is worthy. We in this House struggle to keep a balance and maintain our physical fitness at this advanced stage. It is really important to set that diligence and those patterns in our young people. I look forward to seeing this motion come to committee, participating in the study and coming with strong recommendations so we will have physically fit young people who are sound of mind and body.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand on behalf of the health committee as the New Democrat critic for health and lay out our party's position on this subject.

This motion instructs the Standing Committee on Health to undertake a study on the level of fitness and physical activity of youth in Canada and provide recommendations. Unfortunately, this motion, in our respectful submission, is a redundant exercise proposing that the health committee replicate a comprehensive and collaborative report just produced by the federal, provincial and territorial governments earlier this year, some five months ago in June of 2018.

In addition, this motion violates the health committee's independence by attempting to dictate its agenda from this chamber without a pressing justification. This would be the third such study imposed on the health committee this Parliament. The first two proposals were accepted by this chamber. At this point, I say that as parliamentarians we need to defend the independence and integrity of the committee structure, which is supposed to be a master of its own agenda.

We have some 17 weeks of sitting left before this House will be dissolved before the next election. Let me tell colleagues what is on the agenda right now before the health committee.

We still have to review and finalize an in-depth report studying diabetes in this country.

We have to review and finalize a report on organ donation that is the culmination of a long study that we have undertaken.

We are presently two meetings into a multiple-meeting study on methamphetamine use and the committee plans on picking this back up in February and travelling, if we can, to Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver and Montreal, in order to visit stakeholders on the ground.

We have an LGBTQ2 health study, which is a major undertaking by the health committee. We are just today submitting our list of witnesses who will have to be scheduled for in the new year.

We have the issue of forced sterilization where we are calling the members of the health ministry to come before committee and begin the process of trying to get a handle on that appalling situation of women, particularly indigenous women, being sterilized against their will in this country as late as last year.

We have an outstanding motion of two years before the committee that would study community care. Anybody who is following the health portfolio knows that it is an absolute comprehensive structural issue in our health care system as we move from the acute care model into a community care model, based in our communities.

We have 17 weeks left to deal with all of those things and my hon. colleague would like to compel the committee to move to study this issue on a subject that has just been the subject of intense in-depth examination by the federal government, by provincial governments, by territorial governments, by indigenous governments and by a whole host of NGOs and stakeholders across this country.

New Democrats do believe that urgent action is needed to promote physical activity and reduce sedentary living in Canada among all age groups, and notably among children and youth. Just as the Liberals have done with pharmacare, they seem intent on studying an issue rather than taking concrete action for Canadians.

On this subject here, the questions set forth by this motion were addressed comprehensively in a May 31, 2018, report produced collaboratively, as I have said, by the different ministers titled, “A Common Vision for increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary living in Canada: Let’s Get Moving.” It deals squarely with the very issues contained in the motion before this House. It was informed and inspired by indigenous perspectives and input from many organizations and leaders. The common vision is the first ever call to action of its kind in Canada. Never before has Canada had a singular policy focused on physical activity and its relationship to sport, recreation, health, as well as other relevant policy areas.

The Common Vision responds to the call by the World Health Organization for Member States to develop national policies in keeping with the WHO Global Action Plan for Physical Activity released at the 71st World Health Assembly, held May 23, 2018, in Geneva, Switzerland.

What does that report do? It includes a pan-Canadian framework, from coast to coast to coast, with 46 strategic imperatives for action. Federal officials have pledged to work with NGOs, academia, provincial and territorial health officials, indigenous organizations and others to establish a committee to oversee, monitor and report on the implementation of the common vision.

The next meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers is scheduled to take place in Red Deer, Alberta, on February 14, 2019, just two months from now, on the occasion of the 2019 Canada Winter Games.

The NDP believes that the federal government should work with provinces, territories and all stakeholders and take immediate action to ensure that every child can develop the foundation for a healthy and active lifestyle. The way to do that is to implement the 46 recommendations that are sitting in a report, with the ink not yet dry, rather than undertaking yet another study to till the exact same ground that has just been comprehensively tilled by officials across this country, including the member's own government.

New Democrats also object to the frequency with which private members' business is being used to dictate the agenda and timelines of the health committee's work. The health committee has independently determined its priorities for the coming months, and the House should not disrupt this agenda without a pressing or urgent justification.

If we were dealing with the opioid crisis, or if we were dealing with the matter of forced sterilization of women or another pressing, urgent matter, I would feel differently, but this motion wants the health committee to take its valuable time to study an issue that has just been studied and is waiting to be implemented. That is not respecting the independence of the health committee's agenda.

I am going to tell the House what groups have said about the study that was just done by the federal government.

Participaction said the “Common Vision is Canada's first ever singular policy focused on physical activity and was developed with perspectives from multiple sectors, such as parents, non-governmental organizations and indigenous communities.”

The Canadian Parks and Recreation Association said:

CPRA is pleased to support the recently released “Common Vision for increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary living in Canada: Let’s Get Moving!” The Common Vision was developed by federal-provincial-territorial governments as a guide to addressing physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour among Canadians of all ages and abilities.

The Canadian Kinesiology Alliance said:

[It] salutes the Let's Get Moving report, the latest initiative from the Government of Canada to create a common vision where all Canadians move more and sit less, more often. [It] agrees that it is only through the collaboration of the community, the government and private and public sectors, that physical activity will be increased and sedentary living reduced across all generations.

Finally, the Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health said:

the Common Vision was recently released on May 31, 2018 and is another example of the collective momentum to address physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour for all Canadians.

The exact same subject of this motion was just studied by the federal government. When I put this question to the hon. member, he suggested that his motion deals specifically with youth. That subject was squarely addressed, the issue of youth, and all generations, in the report just issued in May of this year.

New Democrats absolutely support any initiative that would get young people, toddlers, infants, youth, teenagers and adults of all ages more active and more healthy, and the way to do that is for the Liberal government and the member to not waste the time of the health committee in a redundant study. Rather the member should press his own government to implement the 46 recommendations that really would achieve those objectives, that really would result in Canadians living healthier, more active lives.

No study; action. It is time. New Democrats will work for action.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House and speak to Motion No. 206, brought forward by my colleague, the member for Newmarket—Aurora.

The government is on the right track in helping young Canadians become more physically active. However, children are not active enough, and they are getting less and less active as they get older. According to a report conducted by the Region of Peel's public health department, 32% of students in grades 7 to 12 are overweight or obese, and a staggering 41% of grade 9 students score in the low-fit category of cardiovascular fitness.

I would like to take this opportunity to applaud all of the wonderful residents of Brampton who teach, coach and encourage our youth to lead a healthy and active lifestyle. In particular, I would like to thank David Laing and Kevin Montgomery, who lead the BikeBrampton group. The Region of Peel and the City of Brampton have partnered with BikeBrampton on events to encourage cycling, such as Bike the Creek, which has seen significant participant growth over the past four years. I would like to commend the entire team of the Union Street YMCA in Brampton, and in particular the general manager, Ivan Rabinovich, for his tremendous efforts in helping keep the youth moving.

While almost half of the children aged five to 11 are active for about an hour a day, that falls to about a quarter of youth by the time they are 12 to 17 years of age. Children in homes with lower incomes are also less active and are at higher risk of being at unhealthy weights.

According to the WHO, physical inactivity is the fourth leading cause of death, because it is linked to a number of chronic diseases, such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes. People who are physically active live longer, healthier lives. Active people are more productive and more likely to avoid illness and injury.

Canadians need to move more and sit less. Therefore, what are we doing to address this problem? Earlier this year, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for sport, physical activity and recreation released a new common vision, “Let's Get Moving”, to address physical activity and reduce sedentary living. Let's Get Moving was implemented in part by the principles and objectives under the “Global Action Plan on Physical Activity”, also released this year, by the World Health Organization. Let's Get Moving is an important new and collective way forward for government to help guide and address physical inactivity and chronic disease prevention in Canada. This work represented an important milestone for governments and was the culmination of three years of work by officials, including federal, provincial and territorial health officials, the non-governmental sector and indigenous organizations. This vision presents further opportunities to showcase the collective leadership of our government internationally as we support Canadians to move more and sit less.

This government is also supporting Canadian youth physical activity through many great programs and research initiatives. Through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR, this government is investing in research to better understand the linkages between physical activity and health outcomes in youth, including diabetes and cardiovascular health.

Over the past five years, CIHR has invested over $26 million in research related to physical activity and health, including over $9 million in 2017-18 alone. For instance, CIHR is investing in the work led by Drs. Mélanie Henderson and Matthias Friedrich at the Sainte-Justine University Hospital Centre in Montreal. The doctors there are studying the links between lifestyle choices, such as physical activity or sedentary behaviour, and the development of cardiovascular disease in children with type 1 diabetes.

The physical design of spaces and places also plays a major role in helping Canadians move more every day. Why do spaces and places matter? The design of neighbourhoods can influence our health. The rise of urban sprawl is a concern, as it has been linked to such things as driving more and eating less nutritious foods.

The relationship between the built environment, healthy living, people's behaviour and health status is complex. Indeed, in her 2017 report, the chief public health officer of Canada chose to highlight this topic because of the tremendous potential that changing the built environment has for helping Canadians make the healthy choice.

Our government has invested in several projects that focus on making changes to the built environment. In St. Thomas, Ontario, Southwestern Public Health is working to re-design their community so that people can walk, rather than drive, more easily and more safely. Another great example is the Canadian Cancer Society's Trottibus initiative. With this walking school bus, elementary school children have fun walking to school, under the supervision of adults who monitor their safety.

Canadians will also soon be even more motivated to get moving. Budget 2018 announced $25 million in funding over five years for Participaction to get Canadians moving more and sitting less. Participaction has committed to match our federal investment over the course of the five years of the “let's get moving” initiative through a combination of public and private sources, for a total investment of $50 million.

The organization will partner with municipalities, indigenous communities, schools, sport and recreation organizations, and community groups to involve Canadians in moving more, and sitting less. Participaction will communicate with Canadians to drive participation in community events across Canada, and implement a national multimedia campaign. Indeed, members might have seen a billboard or heard recently of Participaction's “better campaign', which encourages Canadians to get moving because “everything gets better” when people are active. The campaign shines a light on ways in which everything, such as thinking, mood and relationships to sleeping, can improve with physical activity.

However, participaction is only one of many partners. No one organization, including government, can work in isolation to tackle the problem of physical inactivity in this country.

It is recognized that through active engagement and partnerships, we can make progress to support and sustain behavioural change that will positively impact health. All segments of society, communities, academia, the charitable and not-for-profit sector and the private sector, must work together if we are to be successful in getting Canadians to move more and sit less.

A great example of federal, provincial and territorial partnerships is when ministers of health across the country endorsed “A Declaration on Prevention and Promotion” in 2010, presenting a shared vision for working together and with others to make the promotion of health and the prevention of disease, disability and injury a priority for action. The same set of ministers endorsed “Curbing Childhood Obesity: A Federal, Provincial and Territorial Framework for Action to Promote Healthy Weights” to make curbing childhood obesity a collective priority in Canada. Another example is the partnerships to develop and now to implement “let's get moving” initiative on physical activity and sedentary living that I mentioned earlier.

The Government of Canada, through its community-based programming, has invested millions of dollars to prevent chronic disease and to promote healthy living by partnering with the private sector, the not-for-profit sector, organizations within and outside the health sector, and other levels of government. Everyone has a role to play.

In conclusion, it is clear that our government can be proud of all the work it is doing together with its partners to promote physical activity in children and youth. However, the statistics are clear. There is still much more work to be done so that Canadians choose to move more and sit less. We need to ensure that all of the efforts around physical activity across the country are optimally addressing physical activity in Canada's youth.