Bob Saroya

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 20th, 2017]

With regard to government expenditures on bottled water by Environment and Climate change Canada since November 4, 2015: (a) what is the total amount spent; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) file number, if applicable?

[Cannabis Act, November 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I held town hall meetings last year and 98% of people said no to this legislation in Markham—Unionville. Many questions came out, such as how we would educate kids, what is bad, and how much the budget will be if it is legalized. After this legislation goes through, what happens if somebody has a glass of beer, smokes cannabis, and has an accident? The police cannot deal with what they are handling today; imagine the burden on police. What happens to a kid who eats a brownie at home that had marijuana oil, or other things in it? What if dope keeps going to schools? What happens to people who drive to work impaired and show up at work impaired? What about the accidents? Who will pick up the tab for police? According to the Colorado report, it tripled the cost for policing, tripled the cost for paramedics, and doubled or tripled homelessness.

The government has not done the homework. It is pushing the bill through quickly, it is not ready, police are not ready, and people are not ready, they are not educated. Conservatives are simply asking the Liberal government to go back to the table and rethink the whole thing. Why the hurry for July 1, 2018? We should be celebrating Canada's birthday on that day. Why is it being pushed through?

[Cannabis Act, November 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues in solving this problem.

The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest was the police chief for the metro police. He probably jailed 200,000 or 300,000 people. It was the honourable thing to make sure that the youth understood that this drug is bad, and it could be an issue with their mental development and many other issues.

I think this is more Liberal hypocrisy, since the Prime Minister smoked it, as he said. His brother and other family members smoked it. This is just pushing it down the throats of all Canadians. I think it is simply wrong to push through somebody else's personal beliefs. This is another reason we simply will not support the bill.

[Cannabis Act, November 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on an issue I care deeply about. I am thankful to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-45. This is a piece of legislation that pertains to an issue very close to my heart. Today, I am going to speak to why Bill C-45 cannot be passed.

I want to provide some context. Marijuana is a dangerous drug. With all the pro-marijuana publicity lately, it can be hard for many Canadians to remember that marijuana is indeed a damaging and addictive drug. Further, it causes harmful effects on youth brain development, and a greater incidence of psychosis and schizophrenia.

The Conservatives oppose this legislation on marijuana in Canada. Our opposition is based on the concerns we heard from scientists, doctors, and law enforcement officials, who said that the government's plan is being rushed through without proper planning or consideration for the negative consequences of such complicated legislation.

Most concerning is that this bill does not keep marijuana out of the hands of children, nor does it eliminate organized crime or address issues with impaired driving.

Canada will be in violation of three international treaties if this bill passes. The three UN treaties to which Canada is a signatory are as follows: the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. This legislation will be compromising Canada's integrity on the world stage. How can Canada hold other countries to account on their treaty obligations when Canada does not honour its own?

Almost daily, I hear about another new report on the harmful effects of marijuana, yet the Liberal government refuses to consider the mounting evidence and is recklessly pushing ahead with this legislation. The government claims it wants to protect our youth and that this legislation will be regulating the industry and eliminating the black market. However, Bill C-45 will not accomplish even one of these goals. The Liberal government is not listening to medical professionals. It is not listening to the police forces. It is not even listening to concerned Canadians who believe this bill is fundamentally flawed and is being rushed through Parliament in order to meet an arbitrary and irresponsible deadline.

For these reasons and many more, I am entirely opposed to this legislation. When it comes to our youth, I want to ensure that they are safe, and able to have a better life and more opportunities than we did. Allowing easier access to drugs does not achieve that.

Currently, the bill recommends the age of 18 as a federal minimum. However, the provinces are being given the power to set a higher age. If we look to our southern neighbour the United States, the states of Washington and Colorado, which have legalized marijuana, have used the age of 21 as the minimum. As of now, Ontario says it will set its minimum age at 19, and Alberta at 21. This is not safe. A number of medical professionals have testified that the brain continues to develop until the age of 25. According to the Canadian Medical Association, the increased use of marijuana before the age of 25 increases one's risk of developing mental disorders, such as schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety, by up to 30% compared to those who have not used marijuana under the age of 25. Is this what we want for our children? This is most certainly not what I want for my children, my constituents, or Canadians. For these reasons, the Canadian Medical Association and various other medical professionals recommended increasing the age at which a person can consume marijuana to 21 at the very least. The government would fail our children if it goes through with this proposed legislation.

The second goal the Liberals claim would be achieved through the bill would be regulating the industry. I will explain why they will not reach this goal either.

Bill C-45 would allow for four plants per household with no height restriction on the plants. If grown in optimal conditions, this could yield as much as 600 grams of marijuana. The vast majority of witnesses at the health committee spoke strongly against home grow in their testimony, including most medical groups and the police forces that appeared.

Allowing home grow will most certainly not regulate the industry. Further, the police have said before the health committee that, because they cannot see inside homes, they would be unable to enforce a four-plant household quota. Even more concerning is that a large network of legal home grows could easily become an organized crime network. This would not be regulating the industry. It would not eliminate the black market. It is internally inconsistent.

This brings me back to my worry for our youth. The bill would not keep marijuana out of the hands of youth, which is one of the stated goals of the bill in clause 7(a). If marijuana is in the home, youth will have access to it, not to mention the issue of impaired driving, which will increase as a result of legalization.

There is currently no instrument that can accurately measure the level of marijuana impairment roadside. Canada is unable to train officers at home on how to recognize marijuana-impaired driving. We do not have the technology or resources, so the government needs to send officers for expensive, lengthy training in the United States. Our police forces do not currently have the resources and the training required to manage the increased threat of impaired driving associated with the legalization of marijuana. This training currently has backlogs and wait lists. Canada is not ready for this.

As it stands, the proposed legislation is not what is best for Canadians. Canadian families expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children. Elected representatives can and should provide guidance on drugs to reflect the views of all Canadians. Let us all remember that we are talking about the health and safety of Canadians, and they deserve better.

There are only 233 days to go until the arbitrary date of July 1, 2018. Let us not rush through this proposed legislation. We need to do what is right for Canadians. The provinces, municipalities, and police forces are not ready to implement this legislation. I cannot support Bill C-45.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 6th, 2017]

With regard to expenditures at the Canada 2020-Global Progress Conference held in Montreal in September 2017, and broken down by department, agency, crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) what are all expenditures related to the conference, including cost of tickets and travel costs; (b) what is the detailed, itemized breakdown of all expenditures referred to in (a) including for each the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description, (iv) vendor; (c) which employees, ministerial exempt staff members, or ministers attended the conference; and (d) for which individuals referred to in (c) did the government pay the conference registration fee?

[Federally Funded Health Research, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak to Motion No. 132 regarding federally funded health research. The intention of this motion is to recognize the importance of health research. This is a motion of which I am proud to speak in favour.

This motion ultimately seeks to better health research in our country and to ensure that there is stable health research to keep Canadians up to global standards. When it comes to drugs, Canadians demonstrate strong support for health research. According to several polls conducted by Research Canada, Canadians overwhelmingly care about health research and understand the role that this research plays in improving health and, through innovation, finding cures for the future.

I want to take the next few minutes to highlight what this motion means for Canadians. First, Motion No. 132 instructs the health committee to study ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded health research. Second, the motion has a goal of lowering drug costs and increasing access to medicines both in Canada and globally. This motion would ensure that Canadians have access to innovative and state-of-the-art medicine.

The motion seeks to reach the goals of this study within the deadline of one year after it is adopted. While I am in favour of this motion, I want to highlight that the health committee has been studying national pharmacare for over a year, and the study is still ongoing. That is why I, along with my Conservative colleagues, would recommend amending this motion to remove the timeline. Further, because there is currently a study in the works on national pharmacare, it seems that this would overlap with the work already being conducted at the health committee. In order to give the study adequate time, I do not believe a one-year timeline is sufficient. From coast to coast to coast, every member would agree that we want what is best for Canadians. We want to ensure that Canadians have the best of the best when it comes to health care. That is why investing in health research is so important.

Canadian families expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children. We want the elderly to be able to afford their medicine. Health research is vital and leads to the better well-being of Canadians. I am a strong advocate for science and knowledge-based research that makes life better for all Canadians. I remain focused on the health and safety of constituents and understand how difficult it is for those who live with disabilities and illnesses. That is why the previous Conservative government was looking into bulk purchasing in 2014. The purpose of this was to ensure that drugs were less expensive for those who rely on them. We know that drug prices fall mostly under provincial jurisdiction. However, it is essential that federal and global health research be conducted. Canadians deserve this.

Fostering partnerships with the private and voluntary sectors, as well as with provinces and territories, will result in an even stronger health sector. Ensuring that we work with the provinces to integrate all partners into the development and implementation of a planned agenda for health research, as well as maximizing the impact of health research dollars, will mean our research and knowledge is the best it can be for all Canadians.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is Canada's federally funded agency for health research. According to Research Canada's third public opinion poll, 84% of people say health and medical research makes an important contribution to the Canadian economy, recognizing that the economy is the most important issue facing Canadians today.

Further, it noted that even in a recession, a large majority of Canadians would pay out of pocket to improve health and research capacity, and 89% of Canadians believe that Canada should be a global leader in this area. This is an issue people care about.

Budget 2016 invests in high-quality scientific research via $95 million per year in additional funding to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Budget 2017 invests $140.3 million over five years starting in 2017-18, with $18.2 million per year ongoing for Health Canada, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. This is all done with the goal of lowering drug prices. Canada is envied around the world when it comes to health research, but I know we can do better. We can always find new ways for knowledge to be translated more quickly to prevent disease, diagnose it more rapidly, and treat it more effectively.

Again, I am in favour of this motion. However, there is one recommendation I would like to make, and that would be amending the motion to remove the one-year timeline. The reason I suggest this amendment is twofold. First, this motion would lead to a study that would likely be studied at the same time as national pharmacare. National pharmacare does not currently have a timeline it must reach, therefore it would not be fair to set a one-year timeline to this motion. Second, there are a number of issues in the health portfolio that require immediate attention, such as the opioid crisis.

According to the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network, in Ontario in 2015, 734 people died of an opioid-related cause, averaging approximately two people every day. This number totals far more than the 481 people who died in motor vehicle accidents in 2014. Over 80% of all opioid-related deaths in 2015 were accidental. Almost 60% of the accidental deaths occurred among youth and younger adults aged 15 to 44 years. Fentanyl use increased by 548% between 2006 and 2015 and is now the opioid most commonly involved in opioid-related deaths. It is obvious that the opioid crisis is a pressing issue that needs immediate attention.

It is for that reason I believe setting a one-year timeline to this motion will not work. As it reads, the timeline would not allow for a full year of study of this issue, the reason being that there are other studies currently in the queue and issues that can and will arise that require immediate attention. I recommend the timeline be removed. This motion is well intended, and aims at studying ways to lower drug costs. This will benefit vulnerable Canadians who need them.

Ultimately, I support this motion. The nature of health research requires a long-term and sustainable funding commitment. It is important work that needs to be done for Canadians, and I thank my colleagues for presenting this motion. The work done by health researchers improves the financial and human burden that illness creates. Canadians deserve the best, and that starts with their health. That is why I am pleased to support Motion No. 132. I appreciate the member for Kitchener Centre bringing this forward.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today, 100 students from Ellen Fairclough Public School in my riding of Markham—Unionville are visiting Ottawa. I had the opportunity to attend a Remembrance Day service with the students and teachers before arriving here today.

We are forever grateful for Canada's veterans and their sacrifices. The generous service of Canadian Armed Forces members during times of war and peace have helped define and shape our country. I am thankful I was able to honour those who have served our country and thank those who serve in uniform.

I hope the students of Ellen Fairclough Public School leave Ottawa today with a greater interest and appreciation for our veterans and civic institutions.

[Transportation Modernization Act, October 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend makes it look so good, but my question once again is what is the compensation? We are looking for crystal clear stuff. This all depends on the minister or his staff, or the airlines. We are doing this now. Why would we want to go back again tomorrow? Let us finish the job once and for all and make it crystal clear what is in the bill, instead of the dance here, the dance there.

[Transportation Modernization Act, October 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure bank was created for small and medium-sized businesses. That money should be given to them. Furthermore, Bill C-49 is not supported by the stakeholders, neither the customers nor the railway lines. There are 50 flaws in the bill. I am strongly suggesting that we go back to look into the questions from the railway lines, the airlines, and the people who are questioning the bill. We should go back and re-evaluate the bill.

[Transportation Modernization Act, October 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there is very little to the airline passengers' bill of rights. If someone is stuck in Toronto international airport or somewhere else, what will the compensation be? Nothing clear-cut is said in the bill on what the compensation would be. The Minister of Transport and the transportation company would set it.

The point is that the infrastructure bank was created for small and medium-sized companies. It is a Liberal creation, and if the stuff is not moving, they are pushing it onto these things. There will be a huge infrastructure bill to pay to fix these railway lines and all of these things. If the $100 billion in infrastructure money is used or scooped up by the railway lines or rails, what will happen to the small and medium-sized businesses? These are the reasons we will not support the bill.