Libby Davies

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the debate on Bill C-15.

I want to say at the outset that my voice is a bit rough today. The NDP had a great party last night, with live music and great sociability. It went into the wee hours. I think everybody is feeling a bit rough this morning, but it was a good time to get together. Here we are back in the House this morning, ready to debate whatever is before us, so I am very pleased to speak to the bill.

I want to commend my colleague, the member for Newton—North Delta, who spoke just before me. She and I are both from metro Vancouver, so we represent ridings in Canada that are very urban. We face urban issues around affordability of housing, citizenship and immigration, poverty, transportation, infrastructure, and so on. We have a lot in common in terms of our ridings and the fact that we are both part of the metro Vancouver region.

However, I want to say that even though we are members of Parliament from the urban area, we have a sense of connection with our colleagues who represent ridings in the North, and certainly our colleague from the Western Arctic, who is the main critic on the bill we are debating today. When we visit other ridings and other communities with our colleagues, it is quite fascinating to learn about the experiences, the history, the culture, and the life conditions in those communities.

On the one hand, there are really vast differences, but on the other hand, there are incredible similarities. Every time I have visited the Northwest Territories, whether it has been Yellowknife or smaller communities, I have always been struck by how different the scene is from my community in Vancouver East, which is very densely populated. There there are 120,000 people living there. We have communities like the Downtown Eastside and historic neighbourhoods like Chinatown and Gastown. In the Northwest Territories, we are looking at communities that are hundreds and thousands of miles apart, communities that are very self-sufficient because they have to be. They have to deal with the very harsh elements in the North, yet when I get to know people and talk with our member from Western Arctic, we find that we are dealing with similar issues.

I know, for example, that one of the issues my colleague from Western Arctic has tackled in a very passionate way is the living costs in the Northwest Territories, an issue that I think is very relevant to the bill we are debating today.

In fact, he produced a 53-page report in November, just last month. In that report, he lays out, with great analysis and factual information, the concern of increasing income inequality in the Northwest Territories. That is an issue I face in my riding as well. Income inequality is growing between the haves and the have-nots.

He identifies that one of the key factors in the high cost of living in the Northwest Territories is the high price of food, particularly in smaller communities.

When I visited Yellowknife, I was very curious about this issue, so I went to the supermarket in Yellowknife, checking out the prices for milk, eggs, cheese, and vegetables and trying to compare them with my own community in East Vancouver. I was really surprised that there really was not that much difference. I remember saying to my colleague, the member for Western Arctic, “The prices are not too bad. Everything is available”. Then he said to me, “Wait until you get to the smaller communities. You'll see an incredible difference”.

In fact, in his report, he documents that a family of four in Yellowknife would be paying about $11,000 for food, but the cost of the same basket of food in a smaller community further north could increase by 13% to 210%. That really gives us an idea of what people are facing in the north. For example, the member for Western Arctic points out in his report that the same basket of food that costs $11,000 in Yellowknife would cost a family in Colville Lake more than $21,000.

It gives us an appreciation of how difficult it is, particularly for people who live on a low income. There are some people making good money in the resource industry, but there are people who are struggling to make ends meet. I know the member has frequently, in the House on behalf of his constituents, raised issues of, for example, the nutrition north food program and his concern that it is actually making food prices higher not lower. He has raised these issues frequently in the House. He has also raised issues around the cleanup of Giant Mine in Yellowknife, as recently as just a couple of weeks ago here in the House of Commons.

I would echo the words of my colleague from Newton—North Delta who spoke about the member for Western Arctic and his passion for representing northern interests and the interests of his constituents. When he presented his comments about Bill C-15, the bill that we are debating today, we were very interested to know what his thoughts were. Therefore, my comments today are very much based on the expertise, experience and knowledge of the member for Western Arctic who was elected in 2006. He was the mayor in Fort Smith, a small community in the Northwest Territories, from 1988 to 1997, so this is an individual who is very grounded in the local community. I have seen the member in action and how people know him and interact with him. His take on the bill and the expression of how we feel about the bill come from a place of immense knowledge and experience, and that is something that we very much rely on and trust.

As my earlier colleagues have said, we do support the bill in principle. That's what we are here debating today, second reading, which is the bill in principle. We have to examine the bill and determine whether the principles of the bill are enough that we think it should go forward to committee. Certainly for us in the NDP, the official opposition, we believe that the bill has made progress in terms of devolution from the federal government to the Northwest Territories. Therefore, it should be supported in principle. However, when it gets to committee there are numerous issues that would need to be looked at.

To look at the bill historically, we know that over the decades there has been a transfer of powers from Ottawa to individual territories, and that is a good and very important thing. In fact, the last major devolution of powers to the Northwest Territories was in the late 1980s, so it is not that long ago when jurisdiction over education, health care, transport and renewable resources such as forestry and wildlife were transferred.

The current process would transfer administration and control of public lands, resources and rights in respect to the waters of the Northwest Territories. That is obviously a major advance because the Northwest Territories is a very special place in our country. It is a place that is fragile. It is a place that has a history of people being close to the land, of people respecting the land and the environment, and understanding that the extraction of natural resources must be done in a way that is sustainable and protects future generations. Therefore, the bill before us, Bill C-15, which would move into the area of the devolution process dealing with natural resources, is obviously a key milestone for the people of the Northwest Territories, and the Government of the Northwest Territories has been supportive of this.

It is quite interesting to note that until this devolvement goes through, the Northwest Territories does not receive any revenues from resource development, and in fact it has to still rely on federal transfer payments and taxes to deliver public programs and services. That is something that really is outdated. We need to ensure that the Northwest Territories and its government, which is duly elected by the people of the Northwest Territories, has control over not only things such as health, education, transport and renewable resources, but also over natural resources.

Bill C-15 does address that. Under the bill the Government of the Northwest Territories would keep 50% of the revenues collected from resource development on public land up to a certain maximum, and then the Government of Canada would retain the remainder. This tells us that it really does not go far enough at this point. It is not a total devolution. Nevertheless, it is a milestone and based on the consultation that has been done, we think it is something that is worthy of support.

It is a complex agreement. It will require the amendment of 42 different pieces of legislation. That is a lot to take on. In fact, my colleague who spoke earlier pointed out that the member for Western Arctic has advocated and is suggesting that the bill should be split because there are concerns about the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. There are some major components in the bill that require very critical examination at committee. It would be a proper course of action to have the bill split.

Having said that, we have a very familiar pattern with the Conservative government where it likes to load everything up into omnibus bills and come up with these huge reports that one has to wade through. That is done deliberately. The Conservatives do not want transparency and proper scrutiny. How many times have we seen time allocation on bills?

Here today, we are debating this bill, a very important bill to the people of the Northwest Territories, yet other parties are absent from the debate. I find that quite incredible. The NDP is carrying forward the debate because New Democrats think it is important. We think it needs to be debated and aired in public and some of the issues addressed in public, before it is sent to committee. That is what we are here for. That is our primary job, to debate legislation in the House of Commons, to examine it and to hold the government to account. Bill C-15 would amend 42 other pieces of legislation. There may have been consultation and the government may feel there has been adequate scrutiny, but the House of Commons is elected to do due diligence. That is what we are doing here today.

One of our key concerns is that as a result of the devolution agreement, the amendments would replace the current structure of the regional land and water boards that have been created through the land claim final agreements. It was a very major process that was undertaken a number of years ago. This new devolution agreement would supercede that and replace the regional land and water boards with one single board. Immediately, that should raise some concerns because when there are regional land and water boards that means there is local representation on those boards. It means there are people who understand local issues in a vast territory. The idea that we could now rely on a single board that would be able to scrutinize what is going on is a tall order. This is something the member for Western Arctic has expressed concern about and something we would like to see addressed in the committee.

The amendments also reserve to the federal minister the approval of all land and water usage in the Northwest Territories, which would circumvent the powers transferred to the Government of the Northwest Territories through the devolution process. There is a bit of a contradiction there. We have devolution, yet the federal minister is still maintaining approval of all land and water usage. There is obviously a lot more to be done.

We hope that when the bill is sent to committee and the NDP brings forward amendments that those amendments would actually be considered on their merit.

I would like to take a couple of minutes to speak about that. I am on the health committee and I know that when we have had bills come forward, even private members' bills that were fairly straightforward, every single time that we sought amendments to improve the bill, not for some political exercise but to simply improve the bill, they have been voted down. Again, in talking to my colleagues, I know that this is basically what happens at every single committee. The Conservative members can act in a very arrogant way. It does not matter what amendment is put forward; it is shut down.

A bill such as this has far-reaching powers for future generations in terms of the way the Northwest Territories government can operate on behalf of its people. With the bill, particularly because it amends 42 different pieces of legislation, the process at committee of hearing witnesses and considering amendments will be especially important.

To my colleagues across the way, I really hope that when the bill gets to committee, they will actually consider amendments in the light that the bill could be improved. There are concerns that have been expressed, particularly from first nations. Through the parliamentary process, the democratic process and the committee process, and through hearing witnesses and expert testimony, I hope that some of the concerns in the bill can be addressed.

I hope that there is a commitment that the Conservatives will do this in good faith, and that we do not just see a repeat of what we have become so used to. It is really so disrespectful of the parliamentary process to dismiss whatever amendments are put forward.

In terms of the support for the bill, because it has gone through a process in the Northwest Territories, there are people who certainly support devolution. In fact, I would quote Robert Alexie, president of the Gwich’in Tribal Council, who said:

We don't have to fear devolution. It's a new beginning....

I would also quote Robert McLeod, who is the Premier of the Northwest Territories. He said:

This Assembly has a vision of a strong, prosperous and sustainable territory. Devolution is the path to that future. Responsibility for our lands and resources is the key to unlocking the economic potential that will provide opportunities to all our residents.

The Premier of the Northwest Territories made that statement in June of this year as the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories approved the agreement.

We also have the president of the Chamber of Commerce, who pointed out that it is a very “historic agreement and one which will provide the Northwest Territories with the long-awaited and rightful ability to manage and control public lands”.

However, there are still voices that need to be heard of the people who have concerns about the agreement. For example, Jake Heron, from the Métis Nation, in speaking about the consultation process, said:

It’s very frustrating when you are at the table and you think you’re involved, only to find out that your interests are not being considered seriously.

As this agreement was being negotiated, obviously there were concerns being expressed. We have the same from an MLA in the Northwest Territories, Mr. Bromley, who said:

The federal government’s proposal to collapse the regional land and water boards into one big board is disturbing, unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional. ...a single board does nothing to meet the real problem, failure of implementation.

There are clearly concerns out there.

In the time that I have remaining, I would like to underscore the NDP's support for the bill in principle at second reading. We are committed to working in good faith at the committee level to hear from people in the Northwest Territories and from experts who were part of this process. We are committed to making sure that this agreement is what it should be, that it is something that the people of the Northwest Territories can live with into the future and will address their concerns and allow them the measure of self-determination that we in the NDP all believe in.

Whether it is Quebec, the Northwest Territories or the first nations, we believe that people have the right to their own determination. Fundamentally, that is what this bill is about. Therefore, we will support it. However, we will work hard to ensure the bill lives up to those expectations.

[Health, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a new poll shows that Canadians are concerned that their health care system will not be there for them in their old age.

By 2036, the number of Canadian seniors will have doubled. We need a health care system that includes home care, long-term care, palliative care, and affordable drug coverage that is accessible to seniors.

Why is the minister lagging so far behind on a national strategy to address seniors' health?

[Health, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Health Council of Canada has panned the Conservatives for their lack of leadership. It has pointed to their repeated failures to meet clear commitments on the health accords. Last month the College of Family Physicians released an equally damning report.

The minister has had months to review these important reports by leading experts.

Does the minister agree that improvements are urgently needed, and what will she do, today, to uphold our public health care system to meet the needs of Canadians?

[Mandatory Disclosure of Drug Shortages Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, for bringing forward Bill C-523. It is a straightforward bill and one that is really needed. Basically, it would amend the Department of Health Act to oblige drug suppliers to advise the Minister of Health of any interruption or cessation of the production, distribution, or importation of drugs and oblige the minister to prepare and implement an emergency response plan to address drug shortages. It is straightforward and necessary.

In debate tonight, we have heard how serious the issue of drug shortages has been. There are thousands of patients and families across Canada who have suffered terrible anxiety, pain, and stress because they suddenly have found out that the prescription they require as a pain control measure or for epilepsy or a special condition is not available. It has had a huge impact on the medical community, pharmacists, doctors, anesthesiologists, and hospitals. By and large, the biggest impact on Canadians and what is causing the greatest anxiety and suffering is that their health and well-being have been compromised as a result of these shortages.

I am proud of the fact that the NDP has been monitoring and pushing for accountability on drug shortages ever since it became visible that there was a huge issue that was not being addressed by the federal government. In March of 2012, we brought forward a motion in the House of Commons for the government to, in co-operation with the provinces, territories and industries, develop a nationwide strategy to anticipate, identify and manage shortages of essential medications, require drug manufacturers to report promptly to Health Canada, and so on. It was adopted unanimously. It clearly laid out a course of action that needed to be taken. It was interesting that the government supported the motion in May of 2012.

We also tried to call for a review of that motion a year later to find out what progress had been made. We heard something in that regard from the parliamentary secretary tonight. A multi-stakeholder steering committee was set up with the provinces and health care organizations on purchases and supplies. We had a briefing in October of this year from Health Canada to find out how that work was going, and we still have significant concerns about drug shortages in Canada. As a result of that briefing in October of this year, I wrote to the Minister of Health on October 29 outlining some of the concerns we had.

Our major concern is that although the government has set up this multi-stakeholder steering committee and does involve the key players, there is still no system in place for accountability and to ensure that suppliers live up to their obligations. As we heard tonight, the system that has been put in place is basically a voluntary one, so there is no accountability to ensure it is being followed. As a result, it is left to regional purchasers such as hospitals, health authorities, and the provinces to chase after the suppliers to find out what problems there are and what they need to do.

The second concern I identified to the minister was that accountability should also extend to how the shortages were reported. I pointed out that there was only a voluntary system in place for companies to report shortages, and no consequences if they did not immediately report them, even in delays that would compromise patient health. This particular point is very much at the heart of my colleague's bill. We have been pressing for a required or mandatory reporting system. As we have heard, this is in place in the United States, New Zealand, and the European Union. It is a good practice and one we should be emulating.

The third issue that we have identified as a concern, as a result of hearing about the progress that has been made, is that there is no system in place that tracks systemic manufacturing violations. We know from Health Canada that it has identified approximately 46% of drug shortages are due to manufacturing issues, including safety violations, yet there has been no way to track which companies may be negligent in their production. In fact, Health Canada officials stated to us that they had not yet been able to address the root causes and the preventive measures that were required to address drug shortages. A system of accountability for manufacturing standards would also help in minimizing drug shortages.

Therefore, while I appreciate that the minister has taken some steps, frankly speaking, they are not adequate. They have not gone far enough. Out in the health community there is still an enormous amount of concern that we will face further shortages, that we will be scrambling as we did in 2012, that there will be yet another crisis. At the end of the day, it will be Canadians who are already in very difficult circumstances and who are already in many ways suffering, maybe in chronic pain, who will bear the brunt of a system that is not working properly.

The last comment I want to make is that we have studied this issue quite carefully. In fact, the parliamentary health committee had a study on drug shortages. The report issued by the committee was okay, it was adequate, but we felt it did not go far enough. Therefore, in the minority report from the NDP we made a number of recommendations, which I would like to refer to.

We urged the Minister of Health and the federal government to review the appropriate federal agency to assume responsibility for drug shortages notification website and to work with its provincial and territorial counterparts to set up and provide an investment for a public mandatory reporting system whereby drug companies would be required by law to report supply disruptions.

We also urged the Minister of Health and the government to convene an expert committee to identify critical drugs and require that any company marketing these critical drugs would have to give Health Canada a minimum of six months' warning of supply reductions.

Finally, there were other recommendations, but we also urged the Minister of Health and the federal government to convene a study to identify factors causing the drug shortages to determine if there were regulatory measures in addition to mandatory reporting that would identify and prevent drug shortages.

These are very extensive recommendations that we made.

I will finish with this. I was a bit aghast at the parliamentary secretary's comments earlier. On the one hand, she said that they were not going to support the bill because it sought to expand the role of the federal government and sought to expand the bureaucracy. She kind of trashed it. Then in the next breath she said that they would support mandatory reporting if it was needed. It seems to me that there is a contradiction. Conservatives supported the motion last year that came through the House as a result of an emergency debate.

Let us focus on the issue. Let us ensure that there is a system in place as outlined in this very good bill. It is very straightforward. Let us learn from what has happened in other jurisdictions and let us do a better job in Canada. We are not convinced the multi-stakeholder process that is in place now will actually do the job that is required. We urge members of the House to consider the bill and to support it when it comes to a second reading vote.

[Mandatory Disclosure of Drug Shortages Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in response to what the parliamentary secretary said, I wonder if she has thought about the fact that in the U.S. the FDA does not have to monitor the fines because it has a mandatory system. It is because of the mandatory system that there is reporting. The Americans have not actually had to use the fines. They are there as a penalty, but in talking with officials at Health Canada, my understanding is that the mandatory system in the U.S. has meant that they have not even had to use the fines. It is actually a positive thing, but maybe she has not thought about that.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we believe very much in the principle of polluter pay. In fact, one of the issues that is not properly addressed in this bill is that we should be raising the limit for cleaning up spills. There is something called the Ship-sourced Oil Pollution Fund, which does provide a source of funds through levies when there is a major spill; however, it is interesting to note that no levy has been imposed since 1976, and although that fund now has $400 million in it, which might sound like a lot, if there were actually a major spill, it would go in a flash.

Just to put it in context, the total cleanup for the Exxon Valdez was $3.5 billion. Of course, as I mentioned, we are now dealing with supertankers that are much bigger than the Exxon Valdez, so the Ship-sourced Oil Pollution Fund would really be just a drop in the bucket if there were to be a major spill. We believe the issues of polluter pay and of increasing the limit for cleaning up spills are very important priorities, but they are not addressed in the bill.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very pertinent question. After being here 16 years and after seeing a Liberal majority government and minority Parliaments as well, I can say there has been a very sad, slow, and steady decline in environmental protection and regulation under Liberal governments, and now that decline has escalated under Conservative governments.

However, regarding the moratorium I spoke about, certainly there were Liberal governments of the day and Liberal cabinet ministers from British Columbia. This is not an issue that has just appeared over the last couple of years. Tanker safety through coastal waters has been a long-standing issue. There were numerous opportunities to ensure that the moratorium actually meant something and to improve and enhance our environmental protection, but we have never seen it happen.

So here we are today at a crossroads. Now time is running out. B.C. residents have made it very clear that we oppose the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and oppose the supertanker traffic that is going to bring in millions of gallons of bitumen from the oil sands. These are very significant issues in B.C., and unfortunately we saw nothing from Liberal governments that would have laid the groundwork to ensure that we might have been better off today than we are.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the debate on Bill C-3. Many of my colleagues have spoken today, which is great, because this is a very significant bill that needs to be thoroughly debated both here in the House and in committee.

The first point I would like to make is that Bill C-3 is another omnibus bill that is being brought forward by the Conservative government.

Unfortunately, we have become used to receiving these mega-omnibus bills. This one is not as big as some of the budget bills we have had, bills that stripped away environmental protection and regulations and put everything in but the kitchen sink; this is a smaller one, but nevertheless, it is still an omnibus bill. It would make amendments to five different acts, including the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act, and the Canada Shipping Act.

I am not going to focus on all aspects of the bill today, because I have limited time to speak. I want to focus particularly on the Canada Marine Act and the aspects pertaining to marine issues because I am from British Columbia and this, of course, is a huge issue for us on the west coast.

First of all, I would say that there are some positive aspects to the bill. We have gone through it very carefully and we can see that, for example, it would require pilotage and increased surveillance for boats and tankers coming in, which is certainly a small step in the right direction.

However, we note that the bill is too limited. There is still a lot more to do. Certainly one of the things that needs to be done is for the government to reverse the effects that the drastic cuts in last year's budget have had on tanker safety on the west coast.

When we read Bill C-3, I think we can see that it is a pretty thinly veiled attempt to compensate, like window dressing, for previous inaction and the Conservative cuts to marine safety.

The measures that would improve safety in Bill C-3 are relatively small in comparison with the risks that are posed by closing the British Columbia oil spill response centre, shutting down the Kitsilano Coast Guard, and gutting the environmental emergency response programs.

We see a bill before us that would have some limited effect, but it does not address the serious and major issues facing British Columbia in terms of marine conservation, tanker traffic, and safety. The bill would not go nearly far enough. It would probably be 5% of what needs to be done.

I know many of my colleagues have addressed this aspect today, but I will add my voice to make it clear that we in the NDP are committed to ensuring that oil spills never happen on our coast. Maybe some people think that is not a realistic position, that it is really just about damage control and mitigation of problems and disasters, but we think the policy we should work from is to ensure that spills never happen.

That means taking a very different kind of approach. It means taking an approach based upon the precautionary principle. It would be an approach based upon the public interest. It would an approach based upon the fact that we believe the federal government has a critical role in making it clear that for marine industries, for tanker traffic, there have to be strong, clear, consistent rules that all the players adhere to so that oil spills can never happen.

Why would we take that approach?

We take that approach because the prospect that any of the incredibly beautiful and rugged British Columbia coastline could be spoiled by a spill is something that one does not want to contemplate. It is not only the disaster that occurs at that moment, but the impact.

I remember when the Exxon Valdez had its historic spill many decades ago. It was in the news for days, weeks, months. The devastation to the environment was enormous, while the response to the spill was very limited.

People learned a lot from that, not only in B.C. but globally. Public consciousness about the safety of tanker traffic and the risk of spills increased enormously.

That was many decades ago. Now we are talking about an environment and an industry in which supertankers with much greater capacity make the Exxon Valdez look like a mini-tanker. On the one hand we are told that safety provisions, improved design, double hulls, and so on have improved the situation, but in fact accidents and spills still take place even when the hulls are doubled, so we think that taking the perspective of the precautionary principle is important. As a result, we are committed to ensuring that there is legislation, policy, and regulation to ensure that oils spills never happen on our coast. That is something we are committed to.

I believe it was in 2011 that we debated an NDP motion that sought to put into effect the existing verbal agreement that has banned oil tankers off the coast of B.C. for the past 40 years. This so-called moratorium came about as a verbal commitment with the Province of B.C., but nothing was ever put in writing.

It was a very good motion and a very good debate. The motion to have the moratorium put into legislative effect passed in the House at the time. Unfortunately, the government never followed up, so we still have this very uneasy situation in British Columbia: on the one hand we have this 40-year-old moratorium, but on the other hand there is no paperwork to show that it exists.

The Government of Canada website states:

There is a voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone off the B.C. coast that applies to loaded oil tankers servicing the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System between Valdez, Alaska, and Puget Sound, Washington. This zone does not apply to tankers travelling to or from B.C. ports.

It is very clear that it is limited. Basically, it is a very particular exclusion zone, and it is voluntary. That is the basis of the moratorium.

That is not good enough. It needs to be enshrined in a proper legislative process. If we are to protect future generations, then we owe it not only to residents of B.C. and our global community today but also to future generations to ensure that such protection does exist.

The NDP's call to ban oil tanker traffic through this corridor is supported by first nations; local, regional, and provincial politicians; environmental groups; tourism, recreation, fishing, and other potentially affected industries; and over 75% of B.C. residents. Members can see that this is a huge issue in our community.

I stated at the beginning that in principle we support this bill going to committee. However, when it does go to committee, there are many issues that we will be raising. For instance, we want to see reversal of the Coast Guard closures, including the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, which was done in an appalling way. Basically it was a unilateral decision to close the station despite an uproar in metro Vancouver and the fact that its closure would not serve the community well.

We also want to see a cancellation of the closure of B.C.'s regional office for emergency oil spills. It is unimaginable that we do not have a regional office for emergency oil spills and responders. To me that is incredible.

To sum up, we feel that a number of issues are not addressed in this bill and we will be following up on them at committee. If we are to have safety on the west coast in terms of tanker traffic, this is imperative if the bill is to have any meaning at all.

[Health, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the only person suffering from addiction and who the Conservatives seem to have compassion for is the mayor of Toronto.

It is inexplicable that the minister went against her own department, attacking the experts. She chose to recklessly put lives at risk. No wonder her decision is now facing a court challenge.

Did the minister not learn anything from the Supreme Court decision on InSite? Will she reconsider providing this needed treatment?

[Health, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health made a heartless decision to prevent those who need access to medicalized opiates from having it.

She ignored her own experts and she ignored those who provide treatment when she changed the special access program.

Is it too much to ask of the minister to put ideology aside and support a method of treatment that is scientifically proven to be effective?