Debates of Sept. 26th, 2024

The Environment

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her ongoing advocacy for environmental causes in Canada.

Countries around the world are taking decisive action toward combatting climate change and protecting the environment, and Canada is no different. Tackling the climate crisis requires many innovative solutions, and one of the tools in the tool box is achieving a healthy environment, including a strong and effective Impact Assessment Act.

Last October, the Supreme Court of Canada issued an opinion regarding the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I have to interrupt the hon. member to make sure the phone is not near the microphone there. Something was vibrating.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last October, the Supreme Court of Canada issued an opinion regarding the constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act, stating that we needed to clearly focus on the areas of federal jurisdiction and underscoring that we work with provinces “in the spirit of cooperative federalism.” More specifically, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that decisions under the act must be tied exclusively to “adverse effects within federal jurisdiction” and that the definition of “effects within federal jurisdiction” must be clearly defined.

I am happy to say that last June, the Government of Canada delivered on its promise to quickly and meaningfully amend the Impact Assessment Act to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada and provide regulatory certainty for major project proponents, indigenous partners and Canada's investment climate.

The amended act clearly focuses on preventing or mitigating effects in areas of federal responsibility. It also provides increased flexibility and new tools to harmonize the federal process with those of other jurisdictions and facilitate greater co-operation. As a result, it reduces duplication and increases efficiency and certainty with the goal of achieving “one project, one assessment”.

The government is committed to ensuring that indigenous consultation is included in the work it does. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples remains integral to the Impact Assessment Act. As such, the act will continue to provide opportunities for meaningful engagement and the participation of indigenous peoples in the assessment process with the aim of securing their free, prior and informed consent, and ensuring their rights and interests are respected throughout the process.

The government is committed to ensuring that future generations are able to live in a healthy environment, and that is exactly what it will continue to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, if only there was a way I could tell the parliamentary secretary, in one minute, of the 40 years of work I have put into environmental assessment; how casually it was trashed when Stephen Harper came in; how clearly the mandate letter to former environment minister Catherine McKenna said, “Fix this”; how she did not fix it but instead kept the Harper model; and how, because of that, the court found it unconstitutional.

We had a system that worked. The expert panel on environmental assessment gave the government clear information on what to do. It chose not to do it. What that means is that right now a project clearly in federal jurisdiction could wipe out an endangered species. It would never hit a red flag. It would never hit a trigger. It would never get assessed, because we have abandoned the core principles we had for EA since 1993.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I admire this member, and I admire her passion. She is baiting me to defend the Harper government, and there is no chance I am going to do that, of course. I will defend the Liberal government's record on the environment. I will defend the former environment minister Catherine McKenna.

We have taken every step along the way to make sure that the assessment process works, that it satisfies constitutional requirements and the federal-provincial boundaries, and that there is no obstruction in getting projects approved. “One project, one process” is important to us. That is our goal, and that is what we are going to do.

Carbon Pricing

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the government during question period was about the cost of the carbon tax, what it was costing families, so I am going to read out a letter I got from James from Shoal Lake, Manitoba. He sent me a letter, and he wrote, “The carbon tax is making it harder to survive. It's getting to a point where I will have to sell my house and move in with family.”

What does this government have to say to James?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, my immediate reaction is that James should check his mail and look at the carbon rebate, but the Conservative Party seems to be obsessed with the idea of attacking the carbon pricing mechanism. Carbon pricing is a proven, effective method of reducing emissions in Canada. Whether someone lives in Toronto, in Manitoba, in Saskatchewan or in Nova Scotia, the fact remains that carbon pricing has been proven time and time again to be effective.

Eight out of 10 Canadians receive more money back than they pay out. That is undisputed fact, and the Conservatives can continue to spout this rhetoric about how carbon pricing is making life more difficult for Canadians, when in fact the opposite is true. What carbon pricing is doing is protecting our environment, helping us reduce emissions and making life more affordable through the rebate, which is something they continually, over and over again, fail to talk about whenever they talk about carbon pricing.

The rhetoric has to stop. I am prepared to have a reasonable debate with this member or any member opposite about reducing emissions through carbon pricing and other processes we can introduce to make the system more fair and effective to help Canadians create an environment where we are living in a cleaner Canada.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the actual response at first was “check his mail”.

I have another letter, from Jack and Donna from Forrest, Manitoba. They wrote that for them as retired members of the area, the carbon tax is making it harder to enjoy travelling and seeing family. What does the government have to say to Jack and Donna?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to be cute. This is a very serious issue. I live in Toronto. The price of gas at the pumps in Toronto is lower now than it was a year ago. It is about the same price as it was when carbon pricing was introduced a number of years ago.

The notion that it costs more to get in the car and travel is pure fallacy. It is political rhetoric to score some political points to help the Conservatives win an election. If they want to have a debate about efficient, effective mechanisms to reduce carbon in our environment, I am here. I will talk to them in the House, I will talk to them out in the corridor and I will talk to them in my office.

However, until the Conservatives cut back on the rhetoric, I am not sure the conversation is going to be productive.

Mental Health and Addictions

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.

I rise today to speak about the ongoing drug addiction crisis and its terrible impacts on residents in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country and across Canada. Overdoses are up; overdose deaths are up and addictions are up. Since 2015, overdoses have increased 184%, and that is nearly 45,000 Canadians who have, sadly, lost their lives.

The radical NDP-Liberal so-called safe supply drug experiment has done nothing to stem the tide of overdose deaths. It has instead flooded our streets, playgrounds, public spaces and even hospitals with dangerous illicit drugs. We have heard from expert witnesses that diverted so-called safe supply drugs such as hydromorphone are being resold and trafficked into our communities and used as currency in exchange for fentanyl. This fuels the drug trade even further.

A report commissioned by B.C.'s top doctor actually said that the program was “almost as good as giving [drug users] cash.” I have talked to first responders in my community who are, frustratingly, seeing the effects of these policies on our streets. The Vancouver Police Department noted that around 50% of all hydromorphone seizures were diverted from government, taxpayer-funded, drugs. Over 30 criminal charges were just made following a raid at a so-called safe consumption site in Nanaimo. We have heard that drug diversion is specifically targeting children.

We have already seen what happened when the federal addictions minister approved an open drug use policy. The federal government has also approved an open drug use policy in public spaces, including parks and playgrounds. Open drug use in playgrounds normalizes exposure to deadly drugs to children and was a contributing factor for the reckless policy to be backtracked when it was repeatedly called out.

There was a drug paraphernalia vending machine in British Columbia, distributing crack pipes and syringes. Only after much massive public pressure during a provincial election did the NDP provincial government stop it.

Unfortunately, the ideology-driven minister appears to show no signs of slowing down from implementing radical policies. In July, a memo to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions was obtained through an access to information request. The memo advised the government to “use all tools” at its disposal to address the crisis, including using national drug decriminalization. This means that the Liberal government is considering the legalization of hard drugs, like crack, meth and fentanyl, across the whole country. This reckless expansion cannot happen.

We continue to see the disastrous results of the NDP-Liberal drug policies in British Columbia. Recently on Vancouver Island, a tribal council representing 14 first nations declared a state of emergency over the ongoing opioid crisis. In British Columbia, drug overdoses have become the leading cause of death for children between the ages of 10 and 18. This is absolutely heartbreaking. We cannot afford to continue with these Liberal policies, nor can we afford to entertain the expansion of deadly programs that are flooding our neighbourhoods with drugs.

The taxpayer funding of dangerous drugs must end now. Therefore, common-sense Conservatives will end the failed NDP-Liberal drug experiment for good. We will instead bring hope and healing through addiction treatment and recovery to bring our loved ones home.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, the toxic drug and overdose crisis continues to have an impact on Canadians from coast to coast. People are losing their lives to the ever-changing illegal toxic drug supply. Many are dying because of it, but these are preventable deaths. We need to use everything at our disposal to save lives.

This crisis is complex, and we need to work with all orders of government, partners and stakeholders. We need to listen to our partners and do everything we can to save lives, improve access to health care services and maintain safe communities.

A strict law enforcement-only approach, with no acknowledgement that this is a public health crisis, drove Canada's response to substance use for over a century. Time and again, this has been proven to be ineffective. We hold it to Canadians to work towards solutions. Canadians suffering from addictions need health care, not jail.

This government's commitment to working with all orders of government to find local solutions is unwavering. Working in partnership is what responsible governments do. However, screaming slogans into the void is the only solution Conservatives offer. They like to talk about crimes and disorder, but the actual experts in law enforcement do not agree with them. They have been clear in their support of a comprehensive public health approach to addressing substance use harms. Police are looking for better ways to address community concerns around safety in public spaces, rather than arresting someone for a health care issue.

Cities across Canada are witnessing the compounding effects of the ongoing overdose crisis, with people managing mental health issues, the impacts of the housing shortage and the need for more affordable housing. If the Conservatives cared that much about public drug use, they would not oppose safe consumption sites. When these sites do not exist, the streets and our public spaces become consumption spaces.

There is no single solution to this crisis. It requires a comprehensive response with innovative actions to save more lives, and we are closely monitoring those actions so we can make adjustments along the way. We are working to ensure that Canadians have access to a full range of prevention, risk reduction, treatment and recovery services, as well as the support they need, when and where they need it, while also keeping communities safe. For example, budget 2024 announced a new commitment of $150 million for a fund to support municipalities and indigenous communities. This funding will help provide rapid responses to more heavily affected communities with urgent and critical needs related to the overdose crisis. This is in addition to the billions of dollars we have already committed to combat this crisis.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. After nine years of radical, reckless Liberal policies, the drug crisis has gotten worse, not better.

Even the B.C. NDP requested that the federal Liberal government recriminalize illicit drugs after the massive failure of their joint drug experiment. This is no wonder, given that B.C., sadly, saw a 400% increase in drug overdose deaths in the first year of the decriminalization experiment. Many of our residential neighbourhoods, where children used to be able to play and seniors used to be able to walk safely, as well as business areas with small businesses, have been taken over by crime and people openly suffering from addiction.

The Liberals' drug policies are not working. We need to give people hope by focusing on addiction treatment and recovery so that we can bring our loved ones home.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's approach to addressing the toxic drug and overdose crisis and substance use-related harms is comprehensive, equitable, collaborative and compassionate. It is guided by the Canadian drugs and substances strategy. This federal strategy outlines a continuum of care, including prevention and education, harm reduction, treatment and recovery.

Our government supports an evidence-based, person-centred, trauma-informed public health approach that also offers culturally safe treatment options. That said, our government also wants to protect public health. We have invested over $1 billion since 2017 to address the overdose crisis head-on by investing in public health and public safety. This includes funding the RCMP to target organized drug crime and prevent the cross-border movement of illegal drugs and precursor chemicals.

We will continue to do everything in our power to stop the needless harms and deaths of Canadians due to this crisis, while also maintaining safe communities.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:52 p.m.)