Don Davies

[Business of Supply, March 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal environment minister recently said, “The solution to global energy problems is not to increase our dependency on fossil fuels”. He continued that the best way to improve the energy security of European countries is to simply reduce dependence on oil and gas “regardless of where it's coming from”.

I am glad to see that the minister recognizes that increasing our dependence on oil and gas is not the way to respond to the climate crisis. However, despite that recognition of the problem, the Liberal government is still giving billions of dollars of subsidies to the oil and gas sector and purchased a pipeline. It is also the only government in the G7 under whose watch pollution has increased.

Will the Liberals listen to their own minister and finally stand up to the oil and gas sector and hasten the transition to a clean energy future?

[Financial Administration Act, March 3rd, 2022]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-256, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (composition of boards of directors).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an important bill to Parliament. This legislation would amend the Financial Administration Act to require gender parity on the board of directors of Crown corporations and agencies.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for seconding this bill and for her tireless advocacy for gender equality.

Today in Canada, women make up only 27% of federal appointments to Crown corporation boards. Only 18% of director seats are held by women across all corporate boards in Canada, and 61% of boards are composed entirely of men. This is unacceptable and must change. By adopting this legislation, the federal government can lead by example and take concrete action to advance gender equality in Canada.

For systemic change to occur, we must change the system. I hope all parliamentarians will support this important and overdue initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Health-based Approach to Substance Use Act, March 2nd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I am deeply honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-216, the health-based approach to the substance use act.

I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, for introducing this legislation and for his tireless efforts to advance compassionate and evidenced-based drug policy in this country.

In the shadow of COVID-19, the overdose epidemic has rapidly worsened across Canada, and it is hard to believe that could have happened. In British Columbia, 2,224 died from overdoses in 2021 alone. This represents the deadliest year on record in Canadian history, and a 26% increase from 2020. December 2021 was also the deadliest month on record in British Columbia, with 215 people losing their lives that month alone from an opioid-poisoned drug death. That is the equivalent of about seven deaths per day. Across Canada, over 25,000 Canadians have lost their lives to the overdose epidemic in the last six years alone.

Although COVID-19 has fuelled this crisis, it did not create it. Decades of criminalization; a toxic, poisoned, illicit supply; and a lack of timely access to harm reduction, treatment and recovery services have caused this ongoing catastrophe.

The Liberal government claims that its response to COVID-19 has been evidenced-based and informed by science and the advice of public health experts. It is time to apply that approach to Canada's other epidemic. It is time to treat substance use addictions as the health issues they truly are. The legislation before the House today would do exactly that.

The health-based approach to the substance use act would comprehensively address Canada's overdose epidemic as follows: It would decriminalize personal drug possession; it would provide for record expungement; it would ensure a low-barrier access to a regulated, safe supply; and it would expand access to harm reduction, treatment and recovery services across Canada while also focusing on prevention and education.

Decriminalization is one of those issues on which I believe voters are far ahead of politicians. It is a policy area where public opinion more accurately reflects the empirical data than our laws do. That is because not a single community across Canada is untouched by addiction. Everyone has a mother, father, sister, brother, uncle, aunt, cousin, grandparent, partner, friend, neighbour, coworker, child who has struggled with problematic substance use or substance use disorder, or maybe it is even they themself. Indeed, Canadians understand intuitively something that is critically important to acknowledge in the House tonight: Those who are suffering are not criminals. Rather, they are vulnerable people experiencing tremendous pain.

In his years working in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, Dr. Gabor Maté, whom I consider to be an expert of global stature and a great Canadian, has found that childhood trauma and emotional pain lie at the root of addiction. Dr. Maté said, “This is not a war on drugs. This is a war on drug addicts.”

Addiction can never be understood if looked at through the lens of moralism and judgment. It is time, as a society, that we ask not why the addiction but instead why the pain. Indeed, if we accept that pain and trauma are at the root of addiction, then criminalization can only be seen as cruel and counterproductive, because it compounds the very problem it seeks to correct. Stigma, shame and abuse are the core emotional issues for those suffering from substance disorder, and criminalizing their behaviour exacerbates and deepens that shame and stigma. This is obvious.

Criminal sanctions are society's way of imposing maximum trauma on individuals. They get harassed by the police; they go through the indignity of arrest; they go into the very serious, intimidating context of a court; they go through a trial; they go to jail. This system is designed to impose the most serious pressure society can possibly impose. In other words, when we criminalize substance use, we retraumatize people who are already struggling to cope with trauma.

Moreover, decades of evidence have demonstrated that criminalization serves to keep people who use drugs away from prevention and early treatment health services due to fear of being arrested, labelled or outed. Criminalization also pushes people who use drugs to rely on an illicit and obviously toxic drug supply.

If criminalizing drug use worked, we would have eliminated it years ago, but instead we have spent billions of dollars, harmed millions of people, torn families and communities apart, ruined individuals' lives and achieved nothing. It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. If that is the case, decades of lawmakers in the House have been and are insane.

Part 1 of this legislation would end Canada's war on drugs once and for all by striking the prohibition against personal possession from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It would end the insanity of the war on drugs.

Furthermore, criminal records amplify the harms of criminalization by exposing people who use drugs to ongoing discrimination and create barriers to housing, gainful employment, travel and community involvement. This in turn leads to further stigmatization and marginalization.

The disproportionate impact of criminal records on racialized and indigenous communities has also been well documented. That is why part 2 of this legislation is so essential to a health-based approach to drug use. It would ensure that criminal records from previous offences related to personal possession would be fully expunged, so that someone does not carry stigmatization for the rest of their lives. Unlike the current Liberal government's failed policy on cannabis pardons, the process outlined in this bill would provide for an automatic, cost-free and complete deletion of records.

Finally, part 3 of this legislation would require the development and implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to address the harm caused by problematic substance use. It would get at the real cause of the deaths. This strategy would be developed in collaboration with key stakeholders, including advocacy organizations, frontline health care providers; and, importantly, individuals with lived experience. It would address the root causes of problematic substance use; ensure access to a safe, regulated supply; provide universal access to recovery, treatment and harm reduction services; and reduce the stigma associated with substance use. There is an urgent need for low-barrier access to a safe supply of pharmaceutical-grade alternatives to illegal street drugs of all types for everyone now. Given that the main driver of the overdose crisis is the fact that the illicit, poisoned drug supply is toxic and unpredictable, experts have been clear that the death toll cannot be abated without this evidence-based measure.

Although limited access to safe supply has been provided in some jurisdictions, existing programs do not come anywhere even close to meeting demand across the country. To emphasize, it is the toxic, poisoned street supply of drugs run by criminalized manufacturers with no regulation that is killing Canadians by the thousands. Any law that does not address this reality is not health-based; it is contributing to fatalities.

Some in the current government say they believe in treating addiction as a health issue and not a criminal one. I have heard three consecutive Liberal health ministers and a Liberal Prime Minister say this many times, but they refuse to act on this claim. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is the law that criminalizes drug use and addiction, and it is a federal law.

I am calling out every member of the House, especially Liberals, on that contradiction tonight, because this is a contradiction that kills. They cannot say they treat drug use and addiction as a health issue and leave it criminalized on the federal books to continue to kill people.

I hope all parliamentarians stop the insanity. Let us start treating drug use and addiction as the health issue that it really is.

[Emergencies Act, February 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I think the Emergencies Act is relegated to specific circumstances, and every time it is possibly invoked, it needs to be carefully studied.

I wonder if my hon. colleague is worried that the provinces might use the notwithstanding clause more often. Is he worried about a slippery slope? Of course, the notwithstanding clause is only engaged when there is an acknowledgement that the charter rights of citizens have been violated. Otherwise, we do not need to use the notwithstanding clause. That was my point, and I just wonder if he should have a conversation with his provincial colleagues in Quebec to warn them that using the notwithstanding clause may lead to a slippery slope if they are tempted to do it again. I do not think that is a valid—

[Emergencies Act, February 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a very important point, which is that the Emergencies Act is only supposed to be triggered when the current laws in Canada have proven ineffective in dealing with the current situation. I think the word “ineffective” is very important, and I will note two examples.

The current laws, for instance, have proven ineffective in stopping the flow of funds, money and supplies into the blockade in Ottawa. It is not a crime to walk down the street carrying a gas can full of gasoline. There is no law in Canada that would prevent that. However, by invoking the Emergencies Act and saying that anybody who is supplying the blockades is acting illegally, that now becomes a criminal act. That is an example where the Emergencies Act was necessary.

Another one is towing. I do not think it was an accident that this very well organized blockade used heavy equipment and machinery to block public roadways in this country. When towing companies and their trucks were being intimidated, there was no way to commandeer those companies to get them working to clear the roadways, except by the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

These are a couple of examples that I think make it is necessary to have that special power.

[Emergencies Act, February 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I hear two main points. The first one gives us an opportunity to again thank all of the frontline workers and health care workers in this country who, while we debate this legislation, are tasked with the critical job of dealing with vulnerable people, helping patients and getting us through what is still a pandemic. I think that is always important to keep in mind as our attention is taken elsewhere.

Second of all, it was a major part of my research and speech to note that the Emergencies Act was carefully crafted in response to the excesses of the War Measures Act and contains within it many parliamentary oversights, restrictions and careful parameters to ensure that the excesses of the War Measures Act are not repeated. I think that is also a very vital point to make to Canadians to assure them that their rights remain paramount, even with the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

[Emergencies Act, February 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, we come together today at a precarious moment in our nation's history. Over the last month a cascading series of intelligence, policing and governance failures have resulted in an unprecedented situation that no Canadian of any persuasion is contented with or approves. We have all witnessed a siege of our nation's capital, an economic blockade of our international borders and threats to the political stability of our society.

Ironically, Canadians on all sides of the issues feel abandoned. Public confidence has been shaken and communities are divided. The institutions citizens expect to protect them have proved unresponsive. They have looked for leadership from their governments that has not been delivered.

After speaking to many constituents in Vancouver Kingsway, two things are crystal clear to me. First, the current crisis has been badly mismanaged by the Prime Minister, who was virtually absent as it developed. Second, this situation should never have progressed this far, so it disappoints me profoundly to see that our Parliament has to debate the application of measures that are by design intended for the most serious situations of turmoil and danger.

Nonetheless, we indeed find our nation in crisis. As such, it is for us to determine the best course of action to restore public confidence, stability and security to our society.

I would like to state that this is also a time of great sensitivity and emotion. The issues engaged cherished principles that are equally valued and difficult to reconcile. I think that thoughtful people of good faith can rationally differ with views that deserve respect and careful consideration. I believe our nation could use a generous application of compassion and understanding.

At the outset, I think it is important to delineate what the present situation is and, just as importantly, what it is not.

First, we are not dealing with a peaceful protest. We are dealing with an economic blockade, accompanied by both threats and actual violence, with an attempt to force political change by mob behaviour and, in substance, hostage diplomacy. A review of the facts bears this out.

We saw a serious border closure at the Ambassador Bridge, interrupting some $350 million in trade every day and threatening Canada-U.S. trade relations. Canada's crucial auto industry and manufacturing sector in the Golden Horseshoe were affected at a time of already constrained supply chains.

A cache of weapons and murder conspiracy charges emerged in Coutts, Alberta. We witnessed a blockade for nearly a month in our nation's capital, with citizens threatened, workers intimidated and hundreds of businesses shut down.

Undercover intelligence revealed plans to expand the border blockade to other essential Canadian infrastructure, including airports and ports. An openly publicized manifesto calling for government change was released. We have seen foreign interference and funding in our domestic political affairs. There is far-right involvement, with clear connections to the same forces that led the charge on Washington last January.

We have seen threats to towing companies and drivers to intimidate them into not doing their jobs. We have seen the use of heavy equipment, tractors and trailers as weapons of blockade.

The events of the last two days further bear this out. Blockade participants refused to leave the parliamentary precinct when ordered to do so, assaulted police officers and tried to seize their weapons, threw bicycles at mounted officers, and spat upon and assaulted journalists. These are not the acts of peaceful protesters.

Second, this was never really about truckers.

This fact is rendered nakedly bare by the fact that not a single demand was ever made to address the very real issues truckers face, like low wages, long hours, fatigue, occupational safety, inadequate rest stops, poor road conditions and high expenses.

It was never truly about truckers' vaccine policies either. This is also easily seen by the fact that it is the United States that set a requirement that all Canadian truckers must be vaccinated in order to enter the country, and that nothing done in Canada could alter that fact.

Third, the legislation before us is not the War Measures Act. As a New Democrat, I have always taken tremendous pride in the moral courage that Tommy Douglas demonstrated in opposing Pierre Trudeau’s invocation of the War Measures Act, despite strong public support for the move.

In 1970, civil liberties were suspended, the military was deployed, and hundreds of innocent people were arbitrarily rounded up and held without charge. Habeas corpus was suspended by cabinet fiat, with no recourse to democratic institutions or the courts. None of that is occurring here.

Unlike the War Measures Act, the Emergencies Act does not suspend Canadians' civil rights. Emergency orders are subject to judicial review and must be charter-compliant. Indeed, in 1970, Canada did not even have a charter of rights with constitutional force. Unlike the War Measures Act, the Emergencies Act is subject to extensive parliamentary oversight and democratic protections. For example, this very debate we are having was triggered by the declaration of a public order emergency. Parliament will have the opportunity to affirm or revoke the declaration tomorrow. A parliamentary committee will be able to amend or revoke all emergency orders, and a motion signed by 20 MPs can trigger a vote on revoking the declaration. The truth is that the Emergencies Act has many legal and parliamentary protections, as it was expressly designed to have.

I also think it is important to note that the six measures applied under the act are targeted in scope, duration and purpose. It is critical to remember that they provide powers to address the current crisis that would not otherwise be possible, such as ensuring that towing equipment can be marshalled to clear heavy machinery used to block public roads, criminalizing the supply of goods to blockades that were crippling our nation's capital and interrupting the flow of foreign funding to interfere in our domestic political affairs.

On this latter point, I note that over 50% of the funds used to support the blockade came from outside of Canada. Hundreds of donors were Americans who have been linked to far-right groups or those involved in the attempted insurrection at the U.S. capitol last January. This constitutes direct foreign interference in Canadian domestic affairs that cannot be tolerated.

To my Conservative and Bloc colleagues who oppose the emergency measures used to intercept and freeze these funds, I ask this: If we substituted Russian for American donors sending money to try to change Canadian government policy, would they still have no problem with this? I know the answer. To me, it is imperative for the sovereignty and territorial and security interests of Canada that we act strongly and resolutely to address foreign interference in our internal political affairs.

Some have argued that invoking the Emergencies Act will set a dangerous precedent that could be applied in the future to disruptive protests that are otherwise peaceful. They say Parliament should not act lest it start down a slippery slope to irresponsible behaviour. Somewhat ironically, this is said by members of the Bloc Québécois and Conservative Party, whose provincial cousins have invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights to actually violate the rights of their own citizens, something the Emergencies Act does not do. Apparently, their concern for slippery slopes does not extend to their own sectarian interests.

I fundamentally agree that the right to peaceful protest is indispensable in a free and democratic society and must never be subject to unreasonable limitations. However, I categorically reject the assertion that we cannot act in appropriate circumstances because future parliamentarians may not do so. I also believe that every single parliamentarian today and in the future well knows that this legislation is extraordinarily targeted and reserved for the rarest of circumstances. I trust in their judgment, in the Canadian public and in institutions to ensure that happens.

Finally, others have argued that this crisis does not meet the threshold set out in the Emergencies Act for the declaration of a public order emergency. I have carefully read the act and agree that reasonable people may disagree on this point. While I respect those who feel otherwise, it is my view that, given the facts that have emerged over the last four weeks, the act is properly engaged. Further, I believe that the invocation of the act is already proving to be effective in resolving the crisis, paralysis and threats that so clearly have gripped our nation. I strongly agree with those who argue that the invocation of public order emergencies should never be normalized. Instead, it should be reserved only for rare circumstances such as this, where decisive action is needed to address urgent threats to the security of Canada.

If we hope to emerge from this pandemic as a strong and united country, then every member of the House must put aside their partisan political interests and work together to regain the public's confidence. Rather than wedge politics and polarization, Canadians need honesty, accountability and responsible leadership from their elected representatives. I believe it is time for all parliamentarians to provide just that.

[Emergencies Act, February 19th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by wishing my hon. colleague's mother a very happy birthday. I want to thank her for what I consider a measured speech. I must say I have always respected the tone that she brings to the House and the reasonableness and decorum that she shows. I want to thank her for that.

I want to shift gears a bit. About a week before the opposition day motion calling for a plan to end mandates, I gave a speech in the House that talked about the unfortunate polarity in our country between pro-vax and anti-vax, and how I really thought that two years into this pandemic that really does not work anymore. There are a lot of Canadians who have legitimate questions about this. Rather than end mandates, we should question every single public policy that we have right now, based on the data and science, and determine whether or not it is valid, and make changes if possible.

Would the member agree with me on that? Does she think that is something we should be looking at as a country going forward?

[Emergencies Act, February 19th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to my hon. colleague. She gave a very interesting description of the rural-urban divide in this country. I am not sure that it accurately reflects the full diversity of opinion in this country. I agree with her that there have been many jobs lost in the pandemic, due to the virus itself and some of the policy responses. One of the ironies is that the impact of the blockades in Ottawa caused other people to lose their jobs, small businesses to not be able to open and custodians to not be able to work. People working in sandwich shops and restaurants lost income.

How would the member feel if one of the communities in her riding was blockaded by, say, 500 trucks, so that all of the businesses in one of the towns she represents could not earn an income for three weeks, or even longer? Would that be okay with her residents?

[Emergencies Act, February 19th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, my hon, colleague paints a picture of the blockade participants in Ottawa as 90% of the people we would see at our local arena or Costco. In 24 hours, there have been over 100 arrests, described as intense clashes with the police, of those who refused to leave the area. Ottawa police are accusing protesters of assaulting officers and attempting to remove officers' weapons. Blockade organizer Pat King asked demonstrators to walk to Parliament Hill, even though they were being asked to leave by police, and for trucks to jackknife in front of tow trucks. He also threatened to find out which companies drivers belonged to, accusing drivers of career suicide. Finally, interim Ottawa police chief Bell said today that the municipal, provincial and federal levels are all being used to conduct arrests, and that “without the authorities being provided to us by these various pieces of legislation, we would not be able to do the work we are doing today.”

My hon. colleague has questioned the NDP's history. The Conservatives used to claim they were the party of law and order. They are now joining with the separatists and appear not to care about police who are being assaulted by protesters. How could he justify that?