Joël Lightbound

[Indigenous Affairs, May 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for raising this important issue. It is clear that the mental wellness of indigenous youth is a critical issue. Addressing and preventing indigenous youth suicide is and must always be a priority for our government.

It is for this reason that Health Canada provides over $300 million annually to support the mental wellness needs of first nations and Inuit communities. These activities include mental health promotion, addictions and suicide prevention initiatives, crisis response services and after-care treatment, and supports for eligible former students of Indian residential schools and their families. Funding for community-based mental wellness programs is tailored by communities so that they are rooted in culture and meet the needs of the people whom they serve.

Our government is responding to the mental wellness needs of indigenous youth by adopting an approach based on strengths and supporting community-based wellness initiatives that include aspects of language and culture, physical fitness, the arts, and on-the-land activities. We are improving access to mental health services.

Budget 2017 proposes an investment of $204.5 million over five years to increase support for first nations and Inuit mental health services, programming, and access to mental health professionals, including traditional healers.

I would like to remind the House that, on June 13, 2016, the Prime Minister announced approximately $69 million over three years to meet the immediate mental health needs of first nations and Inuit communities.

This funding is enhancing capacity at local and regional levels to provide essential mental health services that respond to both the current crisis and to prevention.

This funding will help to meet the following objectives: create new mental health crisis intervention teams; increase the number of first nations and Inuit communities served by mental wellness teams; provide training for front-line workers; support Inuit-specific approaches to mental wellness and suicide prevention; and, finally, provide access to a first nations and Inuit Hope for Wellness Help Line that respects the culture of these peoples.

In July 2016, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami or ITK released its national Inuit suicide prevention strategy. Our government invested $9 million over three years to help implement it. Our government is working with ITK and Inuit partners to determine further actions moving forward.

In addition, Health Canada provides coverage for mental health counselling services through the non-insured health benefits program. This mental health coverage is available to all non-insured health benefits clients, including youth, and is designed to provide coverage for necessary consultations with mental health professionals.

Budget 2017 proposes to provide new funding for the NIHB program, making it easier for individuals and families to access culturally appropriate health care, prenatal escorts, and expanding access to mental health professionals. As well, $15 million were announced for harm reduction measures as part of the Canadian drug and substance strategy.

There is more I could mention. Perhaps I will have more time in my rebuttal.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, May 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that providing timely protection to privately sponsored refugees is a priority for this government. The government remains committed, now more than ever, to resettling privately sponsored refugees.

Contrary to the member's statement, as we previously announced, by the end of 2017, we plan to admit 16,000 privately sponsored refugees, which more than triples average admissions prior to 2015.

At the same time, it is important for the government to maintain its government-supported refugee programs, which is why the annual levels plan has a target of 7,500 government-assisted refugees, plus 1,500 refugees through the blended visa office-referred program. This will ensure the long-term success of the privately sponsored refugee program, which is and will remain an integral part of Canada's immigration program, one which we are proud of.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, May 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for the question she asked on January 30, 2017, which I hope to answer today on behalf of the government. Once again, I thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to rise today on this important subject.

I want to assure the member that offering protection in a timely manner to government-sponsored refugees and those selected through private sponsorship is a priority for the government.

Like many Canadians, and like the member herself, I am sure, I was heartened to see the spirit of generosity with which Canadians responded to the government's call for support in our efforts to resettle Syrian refugees in 2016. Despite the program's success, it comes with its share of challenges, including the tremendous interest demonstrated by private sponsors. We received many more applications than we were able to process within the limits of Canada's annual immigration levels, and that reality is what led to longer processing times and the need to impose restrictions on the number of new applications we can receive.

Canada's target for 2017 is to resettle 25,000 refugees, from all populations. Planned admissions for resettled refugees in 2017 are double those established for 2015 and in preceding years. Canada will welcome one of the highest numbers of refugees and protected persons in Canadian history and that is something we can proud of.

An important measure to reduce the number of applications to process and the wait time for privately sponsored refugees is the government's commitment to meet its 2017 admissions target of 16,000 privately sponsored refugees, which more than triples average admissions prior to 2015.

By increasing the annual target, we could process more applications, which will help reduce the number of applications to process as well as the wait time. At the same time, it is important that the government maintains its refugee programs. That is why the annual immigration levels plan has a target of 7,500 government-sponsored refugees and 1,500 blended visa office-referred refugees, which the hon. member is certainly aware of. Most privately sponsored refugees have family or community ties with their sponsors.

Without government sponsorship of refugees, people who need protection and have no family ties with people in Canada, and for whom resettlement in a third country is the only option, could not come to Canada. These people need government-sponsored refugee programs.

There are almost 60 million refugees and displaced people in the world. Canada will continue to take action and welcome people, no matter their religion or ethnic origin.

We can also take action to help countries that are receiving large numbers of refugees, such as Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, or any other country. We can contribute by trying to resolve conflicts and wars that have forced so many people to become refugees. Canada is in a unique position that allows it to have all kinds of positive influence on the outcomes for refugees around the world. That is what we plan on doing and that is what we are already doing.

Once again, I thank the member for her question and her noble intentions.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there were three briefing notes. In the first, the title was “Plain Packaging--Public Consultations on the Appearance and Dimensions of Tobacco Packages and of Tobacco Products”. The date was March 25, 2016. The sender was the Tobacco Control Directorate. The recipient was the Minister of Health. The subject matter was the analysis of approaches to plain packaging and next steps on consultation. The file number is MECS 16-102070-125.

In the second, the title was “Plain and Standardized Packaging for Tobacco Products – Document for Public Consultations and Online Fluid Survey”. The date was May 31, 2016. The sender was the Tobacco Control Directorate. The recipient was the Minister of Health. The subject matter was finalization of the consultation document on plain packaging. The file number is 16-104605-507.

In the third, the title was “Publication of a Consultation Summary for the Regulatory Proposal on Plain and Standardized Packaging for Tobacco Products”. The date was January 13, 2017. The sender was the Tobacco Control Directorate. The recipient was the deputy minister. The subject matter was publication of a summary of the feedback received from the public consultation. The file number is 17-100314-730.

In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and certain information has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes cabinet information.

[The Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act, May 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to support private member's bill, Bill C-224, the good Samaritan drug overdose act, including the amendments made in the Senate. These amendments bring further clarity to the bill and they expand the circumstances where immunity would be provided to increase the likelihood that bystanders would seek emergency help during an overdose, expanding the opportunities for the bill to safe lives.

Simply put, the bill would help to address the systemic barriers that would prevent many Canadians from seeking help from first responders during an overdose. Their fear is that they may be charged and convicted of drug possession once first responders arrive.

I want to take this opportunity to commend my colleague, the member of Parliament for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, for bringing this important bill forward and for proposing a simple legislative change that would help save lives. His work on the bill is an honour to him, the House, and to the people he represents.

As everyone in the House knows, we are in a crisis situation. Opioid related overdose deaths in Canada have increased at an alarming rate and we must continue to act to save lives.

In British Columbia alone, there were over 900 overdose deaths in 2016, and so far the rate of death from drug overdoses in 2017 sadly shows no sign of decreasing. There were 102 overdose deaths in B.C. in February of this year. This is an average of 3.6 deaths a day for that month. These are not just abstract numbers. Each one represents a Canadian who has lost his or her life in a way that is preventable.

Most overdoses occur in the presence of others and, like many other emergencies, a person's chances of surviving an overdose depends on how quickly he or she receives medical attention. Calls to 911 during an overdose are typically either not made or may be delayed to such an extent that the victim can suffer irreparable brain damage or other harms.

A 2014 report from Ontario found that only half of those surveyed said they would call 911 in the event of an overdose and wait at the scene for emergency personnel to arrive. This is consistent with international research where studies have found 911 call rates for overdose events to be as low as 15%.

At a recent forum discussion on the future of drug policy, the Minister of Health pointed out that as one part of responding to the opioid crisis, we needed to call out stigma and reduce the discrimination associated with drug use.

The high rates of drug overdose deaths we are seeing in the country and the low rate at which Canadians are willing to contact emergency services when they witness an overdose are unacceptable and clearly point to an issue that is being made worse by stigma and fear, the impacts of which must be addressed before we lose more lives.

The Government of Canada is supporting the response to this crisis through the new Canadian drugs and substances strategy, a comprehensive, collaborative, compassionate, and evidenced-based approach. The strategy is built on four pillars—prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and law enforcement—and will also serve to improve the evidence base.

The good Samaritan drug overdose act is in keeping with our government's approach to drug policy. The elimination of drug possession charges for people seeking help for an overdose is a harm reduction measure that strikes a balance between public health and public safety. What is more, the implementation of this bill will provide the opportunity for law enforcement officers to strengthen their relationship of trust with drug users, a relationship that could put drug users in a safer environment and give them better access to treatment when they are ready to seek it.

As originally written, Bill C-224 guaranteed anyone experiencing or witnessing an overdose immunity from minor drug possession charges if that person contacted emergency services or law enforcement for help.

The Senate has made several amendments to the bill. Most of these amendments are meant to bring further clarity to the legal text so it can be more easily interpreted by law enforcement and the courts.

I will not spend too much time on these amendments except to say that the government supports them and that they certainly strengthen the Bill. For example, the proposed amendments make it clear that the law will protect those who call and leave the scene as well as those who arrive at the scene after the call has been made. In addition, the amendments clarify that witnesses to an overdose, as well as the person who has overdosed, will be provided with immunity under this proposed law.

The more substantive amendment proposed by the Senate would expand the immunity provided by Bill C-224 to include protection from charges for offences concerning a violation of a pre-trial release, probation order, conditional sentence, or parole relating to simple possession.

I understand that this broadened scope of the immunity provided under this good Samaritan bill may cause some of the members of this House to reconsider their support for this bill. However, we are in a crisis situation where preventable deaths are occurring daily. I urge all members of this House to maintain their support for this important piece of legislation.

The Government of Canada would not be the first to provide such immunity. In fact, 15 states in the U.S. have a good Samaritan drug overdose law that provides immunity from charges of possession as well as protections from probation or parole violations.

There is a simple reason why the Senate has proposed these amendments and why these 15 U.S. states have covered such violations under their good Samaritan laws. It is because fear of being charged for the possession of a controlled substance is only one reason why people are afraid to seek help during an overdose.

The Ontario report I mentioned earlier also looked at reasons why people were afraid to call for help during an overdose. The two most common barriers to calling 911 during an overdose event were fear of arrest, and being on parole. Of those respondents on probation or parole, only 37% indicated they would call emergency services and wait for help to arrive if they witnessed an overdose.

Extending the immunity guaranteed by Bill C-224 would increase the number of situations that could be a matter of life or death. However, this would not prevent law enforcement officers to focus on public safety and security efforts concerning the most serious offences, especially if officers were to discover the production or trafficking of controlled substances when they were called to the scene of a crime.

As many people have pointed out, fighting the current opioid crisis will not be an easy task. Passing the good Samaritan bill will not fix the whole problem, but it can be part of the solution and it is a big step in the right direction. I hope that all members of the House will join me in supporting this important bill.

I would again like to thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for his dedication and hard work. I am very proud to serve with him.

[Mental Health Week, May 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this is Mental Health Week in Canada. We all have friends, family members, or colleagues with mental health issues.

This week let us get the word out about mental health and take concrete action to stop the stigma.

I encourage all Canadians to #GetLoud or #Parlerhautetfort and join the online conversation.

Canadians are raising their voices. They want to receive the mental health services they need, when they need them.

Our government will provide $5 billion over the next 10 years to provinces and territories to support mental health initiatives, with a particular focus on youth and young adults. This will help as many as 500,000 young Canadians.

Budget 2017 also pledges over $200 million over the next five years to increase support for mental health services for first nations and Inuit.

Together, we can make sure that all Canadians have the care and the support they need to live full and healthy lives, because there is no health without mental health.

[2600 Rochebelle Cadet Corps, April 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Cadet Organizations is the largest youth program in Canada. Speaking purely objectively, the 2600 Rochebelle Cadet Corps is without a doubt one of the most dynamic in the country. Their motto, “challenges, discipline, unity”, summarizes the values of these young people who gather to forge bonds and develop their leadership skills and their civic engagement while challenging themselves physically.

This year, as we celebrate Canada's 150th anniversary, they are celebrating their 60th. I had the honour of marking the occasion with them on April 1. I would like to wish them a happy 60th anniversary, and I also want to thank their captain, Patrick Bélanger, for his dedication, as well as the parents, officers, and volunteers, such as André Picard, people who work every day to help mould these young cadets into model citizens who make a positive contribution to our society.

Cadets, we are proud of you. Sixty years is worth celebrating. I wish you another 60 years and more.

Happy 60th anniversary to the Rochebelle cadets.

[Formaldehyde Emissions, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to private member's Motion No. 102, which calls on the government to adopt regulations to limit formalydyde emissions from composite wood products intended for indoor use.

I also want to thank my colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, for all his work on this file and for bringing this very important matter before the House.

In addition to calling on the government to take action to limit the emissions of formaldehyde in indoor air, the member's motion further asks that regulations be developed that aim to be similar to those recently published by our neighbours to the south in the United States.

Our government agrees.

Our government supports the motion before us today.

Adopting regulations in that regard would build on a number of efforts that have been made so far to limit exposure to formaldehyde, which is a known carcinogen. Basically, it will help better protect Canadians’ health, and that is why we are here. The health implications of formaldehyde are well known, and have been for some time now.

The Government of Canada assessed it under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, CEPA , in 2001. Our scientists concluded that it was toxic to both human health and the environment and added it to CEPA's list of toxic substances, commonly known as schedule 1 of the act. Its toxicity is also recognized by a number of reputable sources worldwide. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as carcinogenic to humans.

Before going any further, perhaps we should answer this question. What is it? ·

Formaldehyde is a colourless substance that was commonly used as a raw material in many household consumer products and construction materials. Although the use of formaldehyde has diminished in Canada, the U.S., Europe, and Australia because of its hazardous nature, the main source of indoor exposure continues to be the release of gas from products containing formaldehyde.

This includes the composite wood products that the motion before us today is speaking to. Composite wood is used in many applications, including the manufacture of wood panels, such as particle board in countertops, decorative plywood for cabinets, laminate flooring, or finished products such as furniture. Composite wood products are created by binding wood particles together with resin or another kind of adhesive that often contains formaldehyde. It is the off-gassing of formaldehyde from these products that can contribute to increased levels of formaldehyde in indoor air.

As members of the House know, formaldehyde is also produced by the combustion of fuel and any other organic material. In light of that, formaldehyde emissions from motor vehicle engines and the possession of certain formaldehyde solutions have been regulated in Canada since 2003 under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

With respect to concerns about indoor air quality, which is where our focus lies today, the government has continued to take action.

In 2006, following a comprehensive risk assessment to determine safe limits of formaldehyde, the government published indoor air quality guidelines that are unique in North America and much of the world. Meanwhile, in the United States, a series of initiatives related to setting regulatory emission limits for formaldehyde from composite wood products was also beginning to gain steam.

These efforts truly began to pay off in 2007 when California adopted regulations to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood.

In 2010, the United States Congress enacted the Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, which required the United States Environmental Protection Agency, otherwise known as the EPA, to develop national regulations. These regulations were published on December 12, 2016, and set emission limits for composite wood, similar to those in effect in California.

As everyone likely knows, California is a very large market and companies that sell their products there also sell their products across the United States and North America.

In order to continue selling their products in California, the major Canadian producers made investments to comply with the California standards, and are already well positioned to sell to the rest of the United States when the EPA regulation comes into force this December.

These measures are clearly intended for an industry that believes it would benefit these companies to align with market requirements to sell these products in Canada and the United States.

That said, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, I want to take a moment to highlight the contributions that Health Canada has made to this process in support of the mandate to protect the health of Canadians.

Between 2012 and 2015, the department carried out the testing of hundreds of different construction materials and products, so we could know which products were off-gassing formaldehyde into the homes of people. Armed with that information and data from our air quality monitoring, which indicated a need to drive down formaldehyde levels in indoor air, Health Canada then engaged the Canadian Standards Association to lead the development of a consensus-based standard that involved wide representation from industry. The standard, which is voluntary, specifies health-based emission limits for composite wood products. It was also developed to align with the regulations in the United States and California.

That said, it is important to determine whether the current voluntary approach will be enough once the EPA regulations come into force.

As a government, we have a responsibility to review the changing landscape, assess the possible impacts that this may have on the health of Canadians, and ask ourselves if a voluntary approach in Canada is sufficient to prevent these possibly harmful products from entering our country, and indeed our homes.

Despite actions taken to date, research confirms that formaldehyde continues to be found in the emissions from composite wood products available in the Canadian market, which includes imports from other countries and the indoor air in Canadian homes. Additionally, at times it continues to be found at levels which can adversely impact the health of Canadians, especially in newer homes.

As part of a series of indoor air quality studies, Health Canada measured the levels of formaldehyde in 500 homes between 2005 and 2015 in different cities in Canada. Every house had detectable levels of formaldehyde in its indoor air and roughly 8% of the homes exceeded Health Canada guidelines on residential indoor air quality for long-term exposure.

In other words, concentrations in excess of Health Canada guidelines may cause irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat and may worsen asthma symptoms in children. The risks to human health are real and it is time to take action.

By supporting the motion, our government is proud to indicate that we support examining taking further steps to protect Canadians, and especially our children, from the risks of formaldehyde exposure.

The timing of this motion is auspicious. I am pleased to inform the House that Health Canada officials have already initiated discussions with various stakeholders and, together with Environment and Climate Change Canada, have begun drafting regulations to address this issue.

As the government moves forward in the consideration of regulations, I want to assure the House that we will consult with Canadian stakeholders and any interested Canadians to develop a made-in-Canada solution that will protect Canadians from the health risks associated with formaldehyde, which is my priority, but will also protect Canadian companies and the market from products that do not meet our high North American standards.

In closing, I would like to reiterate our government's support for this motion. It is an important and concrete way to protect Canadians' health and to support the growth and success of Canadian businesses. I understand that officials are eager move this file forward together with stakeholders and ensure that everyone is heard.

Today I have outlined the reasons why our government supports the motion. I would like to thank the member once again for bringing forward the motion. I look forward to working with all members of the House as we take action on formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products intended for indoor use.

Once again, and I believe it is worth repeating, I would specifically like to thank the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for bringing this extremely important issue to the House. He works very hard to protect the health of Canadians, especially children.

[Ethics, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Health has said in the House, the individual in question met with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and will not be lobbying this government.

[Ethics, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, all exempt staff hired know full well the responsibilities they must respect, both during their hiring and following their hiring. The rules are quite clear. We have no reason to doubt they will be respected, and in this case that they have been respected.