Debates of Feb. 8th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Amendment to the Constitution of Canada (The Saskatchewan Act)

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to participate in the debate on this important issue. In order to truly come to grips with the issue before us, an important question relating to the taxation of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I think it is important to take a moment to reflect on the evolving relationship between Canada and the Canadian Pacific.

Canadian Pacific, or CP for short, and this great country share much history, but in addition to our past, we also share a present and a future, for CP is and will continue to be, as we have heard, an important part of the Canadian economy as we continue to grow our economy for the benefit of all Canadians.

Let me say, I have my own personal history with Canadian Pacific. My grandfather, an immigrant from Scotland, worked by day in the CP Rail Weston shops in Winnipeg for over 40 years and by night was the icemaker and manager of the CP Rail Curling Club on William Avenue, where I grew up, and which subsequently became the Victoria Curling Club,.

The Canadian Pacific Railway originated in the years following Confederation when Canada's leaders saw the need to connect the vast territories that make up what we now know as Canada, as it became Canada's first transcontinental railway. I am certainly aware of the painful colonial history associated with those times, but that is for another speech.

Of course, since those early days, CP's network has continued to expand, along with its role and support of the Canadian economy. Through the years, though it was primarily a freight railway, CP was for decades the only practical means of long-distance passenger transport in most regions of Canada. Its passenger services were eliminated shortly after being assumed by Via Rail Canada in 1978.

Today, CP operates one of Canada's two national rail networks, owns over 13,000 kilometres of track in Canada in seven provinces of Canada, stretching from Montreal to Vancouver, and in 2019 had over $5.8 billion in revenues in Canada. CP plays a crucial role in the Canadian freight rail network that moved over 324 million tonnes of goods in 2020. It is through this rail network that CP has been able to situate itself as a key pillar of Canada's economy and facilitator of Canada's trade agenda. Whether it is moving bulk commodities like Canadian grain, potash or coal; inputs like lumber, steel or chemicals; or intermodal containers packed with the consumer goods we all take for granted, there is no doubting CP's significance both historically and in the present day.

However, it is not just a railway. The employees are hard-working members of communities across this country and CP, itself, makes important contributions to those same communities. Whether it is through its charitable contributions or its annual holiday train, we know that CP's contributions to Canada go beyond simply moving rail traffic.

Just recently, following the devastating flooding in British Columbia, we saw the commitment and co-operation of both CP and CN in working to find solutions to support local communities while also working 24-7 to restore rail service and get supply chains moving again in incredibly difficult circumstances.

Any relationship is bound to have its ups and downs, let alone one that has lasted over 140 years. Certainly the relationship between the Government of Canada and CP has had its share of difficulties, and we do not always see eye to eye, as a number of speakers have mentioned. That is healthy and indeed necessary. The federal government today has a crucial role to play in regulating Canada's railways to ensure they operate safely and effectively in a manner that respects our communities and our environment while also effectively supporting our economy.

This is a significant responsibility and one that our government takes very seriously. As we contemplate the proposed constitutional amendment put forward unanimously by Saskatchewan's legislature, we must not dwell on the past but instead consider what is in the best interests of Canadians moving forward.

We are not being asked to debate whether the significant government investments and tax concessions to support the establishment of Canada's first transcontinental railway were necessary and appropriate at the time. Instead, the question before us is whether these considerations are in the public interest now, in the year 2022.

Should a railway company with billions of dollars in annual revenues be exempt from certain taxes, even while its competitors and countless other businesses of much more modest means pay such taxes every year? Is it fair to deprive Saskatchewan of essential tax revenue necessary for the provision of services, thereby shifting additional tax burden onto the people of Saskatchewan? Is this what the legislators at the time imagined when they granted those exemptions 140 years ago? Could they ever have imagined that the CP Railway would one day be earning billions of dollars a year in Canada alone, let alone its earnings from its network in the United States? Those are the questions we must all ponder as we determine how to move forward on this important issue.

While it is true that the agreement reached in 1880 between Canada and CP included a provision, generally known as clause 16, that exempted CP from certain federal, provincial and municipal taxes along its western main line, the fact is that in 1966 the federal government reached an agreement with CP in which the company would begin paying taxes and agreed to forgo its clause 16 exemption as part of the modernization of transportation legislation. However, the Constitution was not amended to reflect this, in part because it had not been patriated at that time. As such, the tax exemption was never formally terminated and is, in effect, an outdated relic of a past arrangement.

Ultimately, as parliamentarians we will collectively decide whether this exemption remains in the public interest, but whatever we decide does not diminish the importance of CP Rail to Canada's past, present and future. It remains an important part of our history, plays a crucial role in Canada's economy and is a valued member of and contributor to communities across this great country.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for adding his voice in this chamber and for his support for this motion.

I have asked a question of a couple of Liberal members who spoke today, and I am wondering if there are other areas where we can support Saskatchewan with other measures in his file. We know the environment plan put forward by Premier Moe is very similar to those of other provinces, such New Brunswick and P.E.I., and those were accepted by the government.

In the spirit of collaboration, I am wondering if the member would be another advocate for Saskatchewan in trying to ensure that Liberals could take a second look at the environmental plan that Premier Moe and the minister of environment for Saskatchewan put forward. Maybe we could move forward together in this new spirit of happiness. They could take another look at it so that we can make sure Saskatchewan is once again being treated fairly by the federal Liberal government.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have been directly involved in environmental co-operation with the Province of Saskatchewan. The hon. member will know that through Western Diversification, now PrairiesCan, we did a water study looking not only at how we could protect the environment and adapt to climate change but also expand the agricultural footprint of Saskatchewan.

We know that Saskatchewan is an agricultural powerhouse. The protein industries supercluster that is located there is resulting in three major agricultural facilities plants on the order of $300 million, $400 million, $500 million, including Merit in Winnipeg and Roquette in Portage la Prairie, but I am forgetting the name of the one in Saskatchewan.

I think the hon. member will agree that we have had one of the worst droughts in memory and we need to get a handle on water, which can only come through co-operation among federal, provincial and municipal governments.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I got out of my colleague's speech was that he thinks it is important for us right now to look ahead, review the legislation from the 1880s that exempted Canadian Pacific from taxes, assess its relevance today and what benefits it might bring to the public, and then amend it as needed.

I think this is necessary, absolutely, and I think that everyone in the House agrees. I find it fascinating that we are debating amending a constitutional text that today is putting people at a disadvantage and making them unhappy, leading them to call for an amendment.

I want to ask my colleague about another potential constitutional amendment. In 1867, the British North America Act was passed, imposing a constitutional order on Quebec. The same thing happened in 1982, when another constitutional order was imposed on Quebec, an order that Quebec has never supported or endorsed. To this day people in Quebec are calling for change and openness.

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that the existing constitutional framework is satisfactory, compared to the old one, given our present demands and needs. Does he think it has been adequately adapted? If not, how does he plan to address this?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, as a previous speaker mentioned, the Parliament of Canada recognized Quebec as a nation, and we recognize its unique position in Confederation. Just so the hon. member knows, I am learning French later in life. Both my daughters are bilingual. Quebec adds so much to this beautiful nation we all call home.

Of course, I think it is the wish of all of us that someday Quebec will sign the Constitution. Hopefully like the member, I look forward to that day.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for speaking about the importance of the jobs that the CPR brought to this community and to our country.

My father-in-law, Rocco Zarrillo, came to Winnipeg in 1966 and worked in the north Winnipeg yards, which I think were called the Weston shops, for almost 30 years. He brought four kids with him and had two more here in Canada. I want to say how wonderful it is that he is still with us here and what a wonderful career he had with CP Rail. I know a lot of families in Canada started and were raised through CP Rail. I just wanted to make that shout-out to my father-in-law.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, let me echo that shout-out to the member's father-in-law. Perhaps her father-in-law and my grandfather knew each other. I would not be here if it were not for my grandfather and Canadian Pacific, so perhaps we can give a shout-out to CP.

When my grandfather was working on the railway, it was, for the most part, Scottish men, at least in our community in the Weston shops. It really is amazing how far CP has come as an employer. Its workforce is dynamic and diverse, and it adds so much to our community of Winnipeg. I know some of the senior executives. They care about our community.

Again, as other speakers have said, farmers in particular were not always happy with the railways for what they would charge and for the sometimes slow pace of delivery of our grain, but they really are part and parcel with our community and an important part of it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, in June of last year we talked about another amendment to the Constitution of Canada. It was for the Province of Quebec, after the leader of the Bloc party introduced an opposition day motion.

That day, the province of Quebec was highlighted, as well as the beautiful French language and how it has had such a wonderful and positive impact throughout our nation. Today we are highlighting another province, one that I know my colleague and friend is very fond of, the province of Saskatchewan. We have another opposition motion with respect to making a change to the Constitution of Canada. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on why it is so important, from Ottawa's perspective, to entertain it. If we can listen to how we can help facilitate that to make our country healthier, we should do just that.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think the Weston shops, if not in the member's riding, might be just outside, but certainly some of his constituents would work there.

I really miss Centre Block, because when we look up in Centre Block, we see the coats of arms of all of the provinces and realize what a special place on earth this is.

If I am not mistaken, I think the tiger lily is the flower of Saskatchewan. Indeed, I have been to Saskatchewan and the Prairies to see those beautiful flowers and the environments of Saskatchewan in person. I am a prairie boy.

I would say to some of the other folks from Saskatchewan who have spoken that we are doing so much together that I do not think we realize how much we do co-operate, such as in the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, which is producing the vaccines of the future for animals and humans in this country. STARS was also mentioned, which was championed by the Hon. Ralph Goodale, who unfortunately is no longer with us. I mentioned water as well.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleagues from Saskatchewan for introducing this motion.

On this day, great tidings of joy came to Saskatchewan when our premier announced he was ending the vaccine and mask mandates. By the end of the month, people will no longer have to wear a mask in Saskatchewan. We are thrilled to see these restrictions being lifted in our home province. Freedom is coming back to Saskatchewan, the first province in Canada to put an end to the government's interference and its overreaching into people's lives. We are very excited.

This motion is also making people excited, because they see an effective opposition. We may be on the verge of history here. I do not know that any opposition party has ever amended the Constitution of Canada. That is historic. When Saskatchewan sent 14 Conservative members of Parliament, it sent a message that Saskatchewan wants us to fight for its interests against this government's policies, which have so hurt our province. Therefore, I am thrilled and grateful to see that all parties will be supporting this common sense amendment to the Constitution of Canada. Whatever the reasons were for granting a rail company this kind of exemption so many years ago, it is certainly clear that there is no need for it today. It would represent a huge loss to Saskatchewan if this change is not made, so I am very grateful to have support from all parties in the House, which I hope is a sign of something new for the Liberal government.

One thing about the Conservatives MPs in Saskatchewan is that we can always be counted on to stand up for Saskatchewan. We are always on our province's side.

Let us look at what the current government has done. In the middle of an election campaign, the Prime Minister said he would claw back Saskatchewan's health care transfers. These are transfers that every province gets, yet he singled out Saskatchewan specifically. When our government proposed an environmental plan based very closely on New Brunswick's environmental plan, the Liberal government said no to Saskatchewan, even though it had said yes to other provinces.

I see that I am getting the signal that I have to sit down. I want to congratulate my colleagues in Saskatchewan. I am excited for this motion to pass so that we can ensure that Saskatchewan does not lose out on any of its fair share of tax revenue. This is a great moment for our province.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 6:30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

I see that we will require a recorded division.

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 9, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvas the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:45 at this time so we can begin the take-note debate.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to an order made on Friday, February 4, 2022, the House shall now resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider Motion No. 6 under government business.

I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

[For continuation of proceedings, see part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from part A]

House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 6, Mr. Rota in the chair)

The Opioid Crisis in Canada

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members of how proceedings will unfold.

Each member speaking will be allotted 10 minutes for debate, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments, pursuant to an order made Friday, February 4, 2022. The time provided for the debate may be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each.

Members may divide their time with another member, and the Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent. We will begin tonight's take-note debate.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

moved:

That this committee take note of the opioid crisis in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Yukon.

I join you today from the traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, where we honour all indigenous peoples who paddled these waters and whose moccasins walked this land.

I want to begin by thanking the member for Yukon for his unbelievable hard work and dedication, both as Yukon's former chief medical officer of health and now as its member of Parliament, to end the toxic drug supply and opioid overdose crisis in Canada. I would also like to thank him for advocating so strongly for this important national debate to take place here in the House of Commons.

Our hearts go out to all the loved ones in communities of those we have lost to the worsening toxic drug supply and to opioid overdoses. For decades, effective drug policy has had four pillars: prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement. Unfortunately, progress on harm reduction has met significant obstacles based upon ideology and not evidence.

Our government is working with provinces, territories and communities to develop a comprehensive, evidence-based strategy to address this ongoing tragedy. Over 20 years ago, Insite, the first safe consumption site, opened in Vancouver. It continues to save lives. The evidence is clear. Harm reduction measures save lives.

Since 2017, supervised consumption sites across Canada have reversed 27,000 overdoses without a single death on-site. Communities across Canada now have increased access to lifesaving Naloxone, including remote and isolated indigenous communities. Our government will use every tool at our disposal to end this national public health crisis.

People are dying from toxic substances in the drug supply, and we will not turn the tide of the growing death toll until we address that reality. The pandemic has led to an even more uncertain and dangerous illegal drug supply, resulting in significant increases in overdose-related deaths. The provision of a safer supply of drugs is essential to help prevent overdoses, and it is a vital part of our comprehensive approach to the opioid overdose crisis.

Our government has invested over $60 million to expand access to a safe supply of prescription opioids. We also need to divert people who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and toward supportive and trusted relationships in the health system.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada has issued guidance stating that alternatives to prosecution should be considered for simple possession offences. My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has also introduced Bill C-5 to get rid of the previous government's failed policies, which filled our prisons with low-risk first-time offenders who needed help, not to be put in jail.

This legislation would provide further space to treat simple drug possession as a health issue. Health Canada is also currently reviewing several requests from Vancouver, British Columbia, and Toronto Public Health for section 56 exemptions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to decriminalize the personal possession of drugs.

We are working closely with our provincial, territorial and municipal partners and with other key stakeholders such as the impressive network Moms Stop the Harm, with more than $700 million to reduce the risks, save lives and give people the evidence-based support they need.

Canadians can rest assured that fighting the opioid crisis remains a priority for this government. We will continue to do everything possible to save lives and put an end to this public health crisis.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since the government was elected, 25,000 lives have been lost in this country due to a poisoned drug supply. There was no mention of this in the Speech from the Throne, and nothing in the mandate letter to the health minister. It ranked sixth in the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions's mandate letter.

The courageous answer to this crisis is full decriminalization, regulated safe supply, record expungement, treatment on demand by a public health system, prevention and education. These are all things recommended by the minister's expert task force on substance use.

I have to ask the minister a question. We have had applications from B.C., Toronto and Vancouver for section 56(1) decriminalization exemptions sitting on her desk since last June.

This has had the formal support of council, public health officials and Vancouver police chief Adam Palmer. Hundreds of people have died in the city while the government dithers.

When is she going to give an answer to their applications? When is she going to put the expert task force's recommendations into place? Will she support an NDP bill that is a blueprint and a road map for her to take action on this crisis, which is not a crisis but an emergency? It is a national health emergency, and she needs to call it that. This government needs to act like it is an emergency, as they did with COVID-19. Where are the Liberals? Lives are at stake.

It cannot be about votes. This cannot be about votes and getting re-elected. We were elected to do the right thing. When it comes to saving lives, that is the right thing to do. She needs to act now.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his passion and for the private member's bill that he has now tabled, which we will be able to work on together. I look forward to being able to work on these things, particularly safe supply, as he knows. At this moment, the public prosecution service has given guidance that people possessing small amounts of drugs should not be arrested.

It is the toxic drug supply that is killing people. It is the need for safe supply. We have put $60 million into safe supply, but in terms of those 17 projects, we need to do more. That is what I heard when I walked in the downtown east side. People who use drugs should not die doing so. We cannot help people who are dead.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for starting off tonight's take-note debate. This is a very serious subject in my home province of British Columbia, as was raised by the previous questioner.

In 2016 and 2017, former minister of finance Bill Morneau put in his budget $50 million every year and touted this as a new approach for dealing with opioids. Just to break down the numbers, it was $50 million a year for five successive years, broken down by 10 provinces and three territories.

Places such as Princeton, or even more urban areas such as Kelowna, do not show that the resources from the federal government are being fairly distributed. Neither the new minister nor the new finance minister has put in place a comprehensive plan to deal with this.

I have a question for the minister. What has the minister done differently? I ask because people in my home province of British Columbia, especially during this pandemic, have suffered. Their families have suffered. I have been told time and again there are not the resources, and that no federal or provincial government cares about this problem.

Can the minister start off by addressing that?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that could not be further from the truth. My very first trip was to go and learn from the people doing this life-saving work every day in Vancouver and to listen to people with lived experiences. What they are saying is that we have to move forward on safe supply. We have to get the ideology out of this and have pharmaceutical-grade narcotics available for people using drugs.

We had put $700 million into this program, in terms of substance use and addictions, and another $500 million into the platform. We will get this done, but it needs to be a comprehensive approach with all of the modalities. All of the creative, innovative things that are happening across this country need to know they have a serious partner with the federal government.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

If I can have the hon. members' attention, I know we ran into a bit of a problem last night when we tried to get as many questions in as possible. I just want to ask hon. members, if they can, to be as concise as possible so everyone gets a chance to speak, not only with the questions, but also with the answers.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Yukon.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for allowing me to share her time. I thank her for all she has done so far in her new role as Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

Two days ago, there was another burial in Yukon after yet another fentanyl overdose death. This was not just a person. This was somebody's child. In the Yukon, mothers and fathers are burying their children. Children are losing their parents before they are old enough to know what is going on.

These people should not be dying. Parents should not have to bury their children. Children should not have to become orphans because of overdose deaths.

In Yukon last month, eight people died of an overdose. I can tell members that the scale of eight lives lost in rapid succession sent us reeling, and it is enough for Yukon to continue to lead the country by far in per capita deaths. We feel the pain of these deaths. We know that each of these deaths was preventable.

For very complex reasons, people took a single dose of a toxic drug and died. They often died alone. They died seeking a last high. They died without realizing that this high would be the last ever, or worse, they died not caring because the high was more important than the risk of dying.

In our small territory, we all know someone who has died, or someone who is close to someone who has died. Opioids have struck in urban and rural settings, in first nations and non-indigenous settings. The vulnerable and the known addicted have succumbed, as have successful sons and daughters, aspiring students, professionals and elders.

We are witnessing the death of all manner of people. No class, no race, no group of people has been spared.

In the past weeks in Yukon, some first nations, particularly Mayo and Carcross, and citizens of Vuntut Gwitchin in Old Crow, have been hit hard. People already grieving from pandemic strains and losses now have to endure the unimaginable grief of young ones lost to sudden, drug-driven deaths. In Canada, we have lost more than 25,000 people to overdoses since 2016.

Opioids kill 20 Canadians a day.

I was serving as Yukon's chief medical officer of health back in 2016, when the first fentanyl fatality occurred in the territory. Since then, we have introduced many improvements in prevention and care, and much of our progress occurred thanks to the work of community partners and the support of Yukon's government. Much of it was through federal spending and support.

In fact, if it were not for the array of solutions we have put in place since the onset of the opioid epidemic, such as better clinical management of addiction, increased awareness, take-home naloxone, and harm reduction measures, this crisis would have been far worse. We have also had groundbreaking interventions, such as the Kwanlin Dün first nation community officer safety program. It has saved lives in that community, and is a program that could be amplified around the territory, but we must do more.

The scope of the crisis exceeds our efforts to solve it. The opioid crisis requires intervention on the scale of the pandemic.

The debate tonight is an opportunity to share how this opioid crisis has touched our lives and our communities. It is an opportunity to share our concerns and our ideas of the steps we can take to address it. It is an opportunity to talk about best practices in Canada and around the world, and to consider where we can go from here.

No single government or body can solve this crisis alone. We need all hands on deck, including the voices of people who use drugs, to continue to keep us honest. We need everyone, every level of government, experts in addiction medicine, harm reduction and mental health, community and indigenous leaders engaged in a dialogue and looking to address this crisis.

Sometimes legislative and strategic changes are required as well as a debate about making the required changes.

I look forward to participating in those debates in the House, and we need every option on the table. We must learn for this country to handle simultaneous crises. Like a busy global emergency ward, we no longer have the luxury of only one emergency at a time.

What gives me hope is that we have successes around this country, and we have experts and evidence that tell us there is much more we can do to save lives and to protect our children. Let us work together across the country and protect Canadians from a toxic drug supply. We can work together, and we can save lives.