Debates of Oct. 18th, 2023

Child Health Protection Act

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is probably no one in this place who would disagree with the fact that I do not need to speak louder. I want to give a shout-out to our great interpreters and everybody who makes it possible for us to do the good work that we do in this place, including helping with some of those little technical issues.

I will get into some of the substance of the bill in just a second, but I was talking about Altario and the work people do there teaching kids. I saw an application letter that Principal Van Lagen shared the other day. It was incredible, because the applicant, who I believe was in grade nine, was applying to be the manager of the school farm. Can members imagine that? They are teaching kids and giving them those practical skills so they not only know how to eat healthy but also can be a part of that agricultural sector, which is pivotal in our nation.

When we come down to the root of this, we want Canadians to have access to healthy meals. I hope that every member of the House agrees with this, but when it comes to the practical reality of what the bill before us would accomplish, there are a few concerns I would like to highlight. One concern is that we need to make sure that we are, at every stage of the process, empowering parents to make the best call for their family in whatever their circumstance is. Whether they are part of an Inuit family in the north, a rural family in the area I represent or an inner-city family, every person needs to be empowered to make decisions that are best for them, and empowering parents needs to be at the root of this.

We also need to deal with things like food inflation. I will not speak at length about this, because I have in the past, but we need to address some of the challenges that are leading to food inflation, like the carbon tax and regulations that are adding some additional costs for farmers. That has to be addressed. Ultimately, we need to empower people to be prosperous at every step of the process. The best way we can ensure that people are healthy is to have an economy that is working for everyone.

I held a series of town halls, which I spoke about in a statement before question period today, and there are a lot of concerns that the folks from rural Alberta shared with me about how frustrated they are with the Liberal government. However, the number one concern brought forward at every town hall was the cost of living and the fear that people have for their future. I will highlight a couple of things that I believe need to be put on the record.

Legislation needs to be able to achieve its stated goal. Legislation in the province of Quebec, although it has regulations that address issues similar to ones in the legislation before us, has not done so. I am certainly concerned that the House would pass something that may not be able to be actualized in terms of a public policy objective. The regulations that are proposed in the bill are difficult to enforce. There is not very much clarity that it would be possible to see them brought about.

Something that has been highlighted specifically by a number of constituents, especially those who work very hard to do things like fundraising for school sports, is about sponsors, as in the case of Timbits hockey, for example. I would hate for the bill to accidentally limit the ability of Canadians to play soccer or hockey because of not allowing a company to sponsor kids to be able to do just that. It could be an incidental, and I hope not an intentional, part of the bill.

I have heard a great deal of support for the bill, and certainly there is widespread agreement that we need to have a plan to ensure that kids' and seniors' tummies are full. There is nothing more heartbreaking than when we hear a senior talk about having to limit their dietary intake. One tragic story is that a senior thought the only thing they could afford was pet food. We need to make sure we have a plan to address health and nutrition at every stage of the process.

Certainly, when it comes to the laudable objectives of the bill, healthier kids, it is great, but when it comes to actually delivering on those results, I am concerned that the bill falls far short of the mark that would deem it worthy of support in this place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I wish to congratulate the hon. member on his upcoming four-year anniversary this Saturday. I just celebrated the 15th anniversary of being elected this past Saturday, and I will take this moment to thank the good people of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for having put their trust in me for five elections.

The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has the floor for her right of reply.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to rise this evening in this House to bring forward once again my private member's bill, Bill C-252, which aims to prohibit the marketing of certain foods and beverages directly to children.

I would like to begin by sincerely thanking all my colleagues here for offering their opinions and contributing to the important conversation on Bill C-252, which has sparked very interesting conversations. It is abundantly clear from many of the exchanges that the issue of marketing of certain foods and beverages to kids is one that many of us care deeply about and is a practice we want to see stopped. I am grateful for the overwhelmingly positive and supportive comments made by my colleagues about Bill C-252 and remain confident that we will be able to pass this bill over to the Senate in the coming days.

I would like to take a second to acknowledge the importance of the leadership that Quebec, my home province, took on this issue in the 1980s and to acknowledge Senator Greene Raine's efforts in 2016 with a previous and different version of this bill. Simply put, we have had plenty of time to discuss the essence of Bill C-252 and its impacts. I respect all my colleagues for their work and their perspectives and enjoyed the opportunity to hear them speak to this issue at length.

Truthfully, we are past the time for debate and are very much at the time when action is necessary. In the intervening years while we have been waiting to act, things have only gotten worse. If we continue to remain idle on this issue, kids' health and the consequences of marketing foods rich in salt, sugar or saturated fats to kids will not improve.

Inaction will mean that our children will continue to be manipulated by this multi-billion dollar industry. Relying on powerful multinational companies to self-regulate and reduce their targeting of children has only been proven unsuccessful. Our children remain at risk and will continue to be unjustly influenced and led to develop poor eating habits that we scientifically know to be detrimental to their health. Rates of obesity will only continue to rise, and the burden on our health care system will only grow.

We can see plainly that we have more than passed the time for action. We must fulfill our duty as parliamentarians and, for many of us, as parents to protect our children's health. We must heed the calls of the United Nations and the World Health Organization, which have been resolute and unequivocal on the very clear harm that the marketing of certain foods and beverages to children can cause to their overall well-being.

As members may be aware, Norway's government just voted this past June to adopt very similar legislation. Norway is not alone in this endeavour, and a growing number of countries, including the United Kingdom and Spain, are also developing similar legislation after years of seeing the ineffectiveness of industries' self-regulation. The international community is moving in the right direction and taking steps and legislative measures to tackle the issue of marketing to kids. Let us draw a lesson from Norway and other countries that place the importance of children's health before the monetary interests of multi-billion dollar industries. Let us pass Bill C-252, but let us do it now.

I would like to thank the stakeholders and researchers who have advocated for the passage of Bill C-252 and to sincerely thank my colleagues in the House and at the health committee for their comments and questions. Voting in favour of Bill C-252 means supporting concerned parents across Canada who currently have to battle against the influence of a multi-billion dollar industry. It means supporting parents who are trying to teach their children to develop healthy eating habits. It means accepting the best science available on this issue and listening to the growing chorus of researchers and health care professionals who have been telling us for years that this legislation is needed. It means joining the international community in its growing efforts to improve the well-being of children across the world. In short, voting in favour of this bill means prioritizing children's health and the well-being of kids from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and across the country from coast to coast to coast.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

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

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Health

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to address the House on the critical issue of the opioid crisis. So many of our communities and families have been devastated by this metastasizing crisis, in terms of the use of dangerous opioids in our communities.

After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, it is very clear that the approach to this issue is not working. We have heard many people say that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, but that is particularly the case in terms of the human cost, not just the financial cost.

We hear members of other parties speak about the science, allegedly, and about their approach, which they posit is better than alternatives. However, it is clearly not working. We can see, in all of our communities, the real substantial human cost associated with the government's failed response to the opioid crisis.

Conservatives are proposing an alternative, a common-sense approach that opposes giving free drugs to those who are struggling. Instead, it seeks to bring home our loved ones drug-free. I would say that is a common-sense response.

The Liberal-NDP response, after eight years of providing more taxpayer-funded drugs to people, is not common sense, is not working and has an incredible human cost.

My question was about aspects of the background of the opioid crisis. Here is the background on this: A company called Purdue Pharma developed a new opioid product, OxyContin, which it intentionally marketed to as many people as possible. The company called it the drug to start with and to stay with. They ran a very effective marketing campaign. The goal of that campaign was very similar in its premises to the arguments for safe supply made today: This corporate seller of drugs, Purdue Pharma, pushed the idea that all one had to do was remove the stigma and make drugs available, and then everything would be fine.

Of course there was no stigma around this product when it was initially released, because it was a new product. The company sought to market OxyContin as being less risky, when in fact, it was more risky than opium and certain other available opioids. There was clear dishonesty and manipulation in the marketing of this product. There was no stigma at the time, but clearly the effect of making this dangerous drug available to more and more people was that many people became addicted. Because of the tolerance-inducing nature of opioids, people moved on to harder and more dangerous drugs, eventually moving on to things such as fentanyl in many cases.

As a result of the lies that were told at the time by Purdue Pharma and the fact that McKinsey, the consulting company that is so close to the government, was involved in supporting Purdue Pharma and that marketing campaign, these companies have been required to pay massive compensation in the United States.

However, when I put an amendment before this House, calling on the government to sue for all damages associated with the opioid crisis, it voted no. The government said it would eventually join provincial class action lawsuits to sue for some of the damages.

The federal government is not even contemplating suing for many of the different damages associated with these drugs. I believe that this is why it opposed my amendment. Why is the government still siding with big pharma, which is trying to sell drugs to people, instead of siding with the victims and helping us to bring them home?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be in the House tonight for an adjournment debate with my hon. colleague. I agree with the member that the unfettered marketing of opioids to people in the United States and in Canada has led to extreme amounts of harm. Our government is here to ensure that we achieve accountability with Purdue Pharma.

We are currently working with provinces and territories on the substance use challenge that our country faces. I do understand that the member has a different opinion on how to deal with substance use and addiction. However, we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

Substance use harms extend far beyond overdose deaths. The complicated and very multi-faceted nature of substance use harms and the intersection of the overdose crisis with several complex social issues such as mental health, homelessness, experiences of trauma and multi-generational impacts of colonialization means that the most vulnerable people in Canada are the most impacted by this crisis.

That is why we need a comprehensive, integrated and evidence-based response that is grounded on the four internationally recognized pillars of substance use policy, which the member opposite and the Conservative Party do not seem to understand. They are prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement. It is not one or the other, and not one against the other, but all four of those principles.

The toxic drug supply is killing people. People do not know what they are consuming. People fear criminalization, which leads them to use alone and die alone.

In 2018, the Province of British Columbia commenced a proposed class action suit on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments against 50 opioid manufacturers and distributors for allegedly acting inappropriately in the sale and distribution of opioids in Canada.

In addition, British Columbia commenced a separate proposed class action in December 2021 on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments against McKinsey & Company, which allegedly acted inappropriately in the course of providing consulting and advisory services to opioid manufacturers and distributors in relation to marketing and promotion of opioids in Canada.

The Government of Canada supports provinces and territories in their efforts to recover health care costs from any company that acted inappropriately in the marketing and distribution of opioids, and we will be a party to these litigations should they be certified.

I appreciate the interest of the opposition on this issue and his agreeing that it is an important thing to do. The accountability is absolutely necessary but they can see that we are already acting on the issue. I fully invite the member and his party to continue supporting us in ending the crisis instead of continually raising stigma. This litigation is an example of the significant co-operation that exists with provinces and territories as we work together to address the overdose crisis.

That is what this crisis is calling for, co-operation across party lines and across orders of government in collaboration with all of our partners. The health and safety of Canadians is our government's first and top priority. Since the start of this overdose crisis, we have taken significant actions and made commitments of more than $1 billion to respond.

We cannot end this crisis alone. It is our collective obligation and responsibility to work together as parliamentarians with provinces and territories and our community stakeholders to do what they can and what we can to respond to it.

What I would like to know is why the party opposite is continuing to oppose harm reduction. What would the member opposite say to the over 50,000 people whose overdoses have been responded to and reversed? They would otherwise be dead.

Does this party realize that the more than four million visits to safe consumption sites across this country represent four million contacts with a health care provider?

On this side, we want to save lives, not overly stigmatize addiction.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, there were aspects of that response that were, frankly, bizarre.

First of all, let us be clear. This NDP-Liberal approach is just not working. The member said that one is not entitled to one's own facts, even if one can have one's own opinion. That is true, of course, but all one has to do is look at the impact, the drug abuse, the disorder and the crime we are seeing in the streets, to see the impact of this failed NDP-Liberal approach over the last eight years.

He mentioned stigma. In fact, he accused me of trying to raise stigma. Let me be very clear. I do not think we should stigmatize individuals. I think individuals need help. We need to work on providing individuals with treatment and recovery. That is what our approach emphasizes, the common sense approach of treatment and recovery.

I do think we need to have an appropriate fear associated with dangerous substances. These are extremely dangerous substances that the government has decriminalized in B.C. and is giving away, with taxpayers' dollars, to people who are struggling. That is what is wrong.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will say this again. We are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. This is not a Liberal-NDP approach to solving the addictions epidemic by helping people who are suffering from addiction. It is an evidence-based response. It is one that is internationally recognized by all stakeholders.

I would encourage the member to perhaps schedule a meeting with Moms Stop the Harm or any of the many organizations that are advocating for more support for people living with addictions. Indeed, we must stand for the four pillars, all four, as I said, not against them, not choosing one or the other and not cherry-picking which ones we like best. All four pillars of addictions response are important, and not cherry-picking them is of the utmost importance.

We continue to be committed to ensuring that individuals and organizations who are legally marketing or supplying drugs are held accountable, while also supporting pathways to care for people who are experiencing or are at risk of harm from substance use. The people who use substances, their families and the communities around them need us. We must use every single tool at our disposal to provide compassionate care and maintain community safety.

The Environment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening in Adjournment Proceedings to discuss the question that I first raised on May 18 of this year. It was a question for the Minister of Environment on the topic of the Ontario Greenbelt and the potential for water policy and water governance to provide assistance and additional tools to the minister.

As many members in this place will know, since I asked that question in May, Premier Doug Ford of the province of Ontario has admitted he made a mistake. That is putting it mildly, but the point of my question remains relevant; it is not moot. I am afraid the point of my question was missed by the hon. Minister of Environment when he responded to me. I was suggesting to him that water governance and water law and policy present an opportunity for usable tools.

The Minister of Environment has not been looking at water governance very much and keeping it up to date, so I pointed the Minister of Environment in the direction of the Great Lakes annex, which is a legally binding agreement between Canada and the United States, as well as eight U.S. states and two Canadian provinces. It is an extraordinary and robust document that actually gives us legally binding tools.

At the time, the Minister of Environment raised other ways that he might be prepared to protect the Greenbelt, so in general we agreed, but I think it is appropriate now, in October, to raise issues about where we are in water governance and water policy, particularly the long-promised Canada water agency. We have made progress. We have heard a number of announcements and they have gotten increasingly specific. We now know that the Canada water agency will be based in Winnipeg, but after double-checking the Government of Canada website before our debate tonight, I found the same language: “Legislation will be introduced in 2023 to establish the Canada Water Agency as a stand-alone Agency.” Months have passed and we still do not have that stand-alone legislation before this place. We are still in 2023, so the Liberal government has part of October, all of November and part of December to table that legislation. I would like to remind the government of its importance.

When we look at water governance and water policy, what we should look at, which has been referenced through all manner of expert reports and blue ribbon panels, is the need to engage federal, provincial and municipal orders of government. As I said before, we need to look at them in terms of the basins in Canada and the U.S., the shared basins. We have to look at international law. We also have to really engage, which we have not yet done, indigenous nations and peoples in water policy and water governance. We have to do all of this with a climate lens.

We are the only country in the G7, I was surprised to find out the other day, that does not have any water agency to predict water events such as floods and droughts. This is about being aware that the climate crisis has a specific and immediate impact on water.

In the time remaining, I would like to use this opportunity, as I tried to do back in May in question period, to remind the government that water policy, water governance and the engagement of different orders of government are critical for moving forward. We have opportunities to coordinate and to ensure that we update our existing set of international agreements in order to take more into account of the climate and indigenous roles in the protection of healthy waterways, which is in all of our interests as we try to adapt to an increasingly warming world.

I imagine I will have a lot to discuss with the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely look forward to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' return to the House. I hope that my friend is doing well. I hope that she is recovering and feeling good. I look forward to having this discussion, hopefully, in person when she returns to the House of Commons.

I would like to focus the first half of my answer on the greenbelt. It is a moment to celebrate. It is a moment to rejoice. Indeed, victory on the greenbelt is a big win for Ontario. There are lots of groups that we have to thank for this.

I have the opportunity now to do something that I have never done before, which is to read directly from my householder that is going out to my constituents in Milton. The question resembled a question that I asked myself and my constituents were asking me, so I answered it in a monthly community newsletter. It is titled, “Victory on the Greenbelt: A big win for Ontario”, and it states:

Back in March, Canada's Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, [the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie] announced that our government would be investigating the real and potential environmental, economic, social and health impacts related to developing parts of the Greenbelt. Due to the Premier’s recent cancelling of his provincial government’s plan to develop parcels of the Greenbelt – we subsequently announced that we are suspending the urban park study indefinitely as it’s no longer necessary. This is great news. This reversal reflects the collective efforts of citizen advocates, independent journalism, researchers, environmentalists, conservation authorities, and municipalities who tirelessly voiced their objections. Their commitment has reaffirmed the significance of maintaining the Greenbelt’s integrity – this is a big win for our province, and I want to express my personal gratitude to these stakeholders and everyone who used their voice to safeguard this most vital natural resource.

I would add the leader of the Green Party, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, to that list.

The plan to develop luxury homes and create brand new neighborhoods in Ontario’s hinterland, as proposed by Premier Ford’s government, was never a sustainable approach for addressing our housing affordability concerns. The federal government will remain steadfast in our mission to protect the natural environment, including Ontario’s Greenbelt, toward a greener, more sustainable future for all Canadians. I will continue to call for responsible urban planning, sustainable development, and the preservation of green spaces to ensure the well-being of current and future generations, and I look forward to more details of how Premier Ford will strengthen the protections of all Greenbelt and ecologically vulnerable land in our region.

I would like now to turn to our work on water. I was very pleased that in budget 2023, we saw a historic $650 million go toward the maintenance and restoration of much of our Great Lakes. That is so important, not just because I love the Great Lakes and I spent a lot of time paddling on the Great Lakes, but it is important because Canada is really the water keeper of the world, particularly with respect to fresh water. These 24 new projects that we just announced on September 28 will restore water quality and ecosystem health in areas of concern. They will prevent toxic and nuisance algae. They will engage with indigenous peoples in Great Lakes restoration and protection.

That $650 million over 10 years that I referenced includes an investment of $420 million for the Great Lakes, which was announced by the Prime Minister, with a focus on accelerating Canada's implementation of the Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. It also includes $22.6 million over three years starting this year to support better coordination efforts to protect fresh water right across Canada.

Last, but certainly not least, is the new Canada water agency. It is the federal focal point for all fresh water. We will be working in partnership with indigenous peoples, provinces, territories and stakeholders to strengthen collaboration efforts on fresh water. It will deliver on key elements of the strengthened freshwater action plan.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I hate to disillusion the parliamentary secretary in terms of the levels of support the government is giving to water, but on the notion that $650 million is historic for the Great Lakes, back in the days when former prime minister Brian Mulroney made real strides in protecting the Great Lakes, that would be a small amount compared to the billions a year that was being spent.

We had an inland waters directorate in Burlington, Ontario, with several thousand staff. We need to rebuild our capacity in inland waters, fresh water and freshwater science, and that will take a stand-alone agency to create the Canada water agency. That legislation is due any minute.

Does the parliamentary secretary have an update for us? I would be grateful to know.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Again, Madam Speaker, I look forward to discussing this in person upon the return of my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Indeed, the federal government is making Canada's largest-ever investment in protecting the nation's sources of all fresh water, which includes the Great Lakes. Commitments recently announced by the government during U.S. President Biden's visit includes some of the over $650-million investments, but it brings us very close to the $1-billion commitment that we have aimed to achieve. There are other efforts that we can include in that long list of things that we are going to invest in.

I would add to the remarks I made earlier with respect to all of the investments that we have made over the past couple of years that I am enthusiastic about any further efforts to conserve and protect Canada's greatest natural resource. I know that work with the Canada water agency is under way. Indeed, the Prime Minister named the first-ever parliamentary secretary for water.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:49 p.m.)