Sean Fraser

[Transportation Modernization Act, October 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of sitting on the committee during the hearings on Bill C-49 and enjoyed the company of the hon. member for Bow River.

I took some of the member's comments to suggest that perhaps the bill would not go far enough to protect the interests of shippers. I cannot help but point out that the bill includes a number of pro-shipper measures, such as reciprocal penalties, adequacy of service, protecting the maximum revenue entitlement, enhancing data disclosure, improving the arbitration process, and a number of other things.

The member raised the measures included in Bill C-30, suggesting that they were preferred, according to the witnesses he heard. When I listened to the witnesses over the course of the entire study, many of them suggested that having remedies only for one industry and only for one region of the country was not the best approach and that the long-haul interswitching would open up a more efficient transportation system across sectors and across geography. Does the member support measures that would extend this improved service to new parts of the country and to different sectors?

[Taxation, October 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a lot to be proud of, including the Canada child benefit. Under the Conservatives, families got the same whether they earned $25,000 a year or $2.5 million. That is not right.

Our government has stopped giving Canada child benefit cheques to millionaires, and gives more to 9 out of 10 Canadian families. As I hear jeers from across the aisle, I know this program is lifting 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty.

Could the Prime Minister advise this House how we are enhancing this incredible program to deliver change for Canadians?

[Business of Supply, October 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague's remarks. He did a great job of highlighting some of the contributions the Finance Minister has made, which really focus on the Canadian people, including the consultation process over the course of the summer.

The issue of helping small business and adjusting some of the proposals that initially went out has consumed the public discourse for some time. When we started to release the adjustments to these proposals, I could not help but notice that the channel had been changed by the opposition.

Does my hon. colleague believe this is because the opposition knows these changes will be good for small business in Canada?

[Women's History Month, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, October marks Women's History Month in Canada, a time when we look to our past and celebrate the incredible achievements of women and girls who shaped the country that we know as Canada today.

This month, I am going to be reflecting upon powerful women who have made their mark in Canadian history in the riding I represent, Central Nova: women like Viola Desmond, who courageously challenged racial segregation at the Roseland Theatre in New Glasgow; women like Lucille Harper, a Persons Case award winner, who runs a women's resource centre in Antigonish; and women like Emma Kiley, a young entrepreneur who owns the Uprooted Market & Café in the rural community of Musquodoboit Harbour.

The theme for this year's Women's History Month is #ClaimYourPlace. At a time in our nation's history when gender equality continues to elude us, it is important that everyone, men and boys included, be part of this movement. I encourage all Canadians to join the conversation on social media and share photos, videos, and words of inspiration.

Young women, in particular, belong in leadership positions, so they should do us all a favour and claim their place.

[Federally Funded Health Research, September 28th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague and friend the hon. member for Kitchener Centre for introducing Motion No. 132, requesting a parliamentary committee to study the use of federally funded research to lower drugs costs and increase access to medicines in Canada and around the world.

I am very pleased to speak about how the Government of Canada's investments have contributed to create new medicines and other innovations that have the potential to improve the lives of Canadians. As members may know, the Government of Canada is supporting health research, primarily through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR, as we mostly know it. Each year, CIHR invests approximately $1 billion to support more than 13,000 researchers across Canada and trainees from across the country working in all areas of health. Using a rigorous peer review system, CIHR is committed to investing and supporting the very best Canadian health research. CIHR plays a leading role in supporting new scientific knowledge and enabling its translation into improved health and more effective health services and products as well.

CIHR supports ideas across the spectrum of research and captures ideas with the greatest potential to advance health research, health care, health systems, and health outcomes. Specifically, the CIHR's project grant program supports projects with a specific purpose and a defined end point. Project grants also encourage the inclusion of partners, where appropriate, to help facilitate bringing discoveries to the Canadian public. Commercialization projects funded by CIHR are designed to advance discoveries toward technologies that would attract new investment, create new science-based business, organizations, and initiatives, and ultimately improve the health outcomes of Canadians.

Through CIHR, the Government of Canada is committed to facilitating the advancement of health research in our country and bringing academic research to a stage that becomes accessible to the Canadian public. For example, the Government of Canada, through these institutes, supports the research of Dr. Cheryl Arrowsmith at the University of Toronto, who is helping to develop new drug targets. Starting in 2003-04, Dr. Arrowsmith received $2.8 million through the Canada research chairs program. This is a federal program that invests approximately $265 million each year to attract and retain some of the world's most accomplished and promising minds.

As part of her research program, Dr. Arrowsmith studies special proteins that regulate which genes in the body are active during a cell's growth, which can cause certain diseases. The action of these proteins is reversible, making them excellent potential drug targets. However, in order for drug development to occur, it is necessary to identify ways to alter the action of these proteins. This is exactly where Dr. Arrowsmith's lab is a world leader.

Her research involves special imaging techniques to determine the precise 3-D structure of these proteins. With this information, pharmaceutical industry researchers are then able to develop drug-like chemical probes, which will bind to the protein to slow or accelerate its actions. Through its collaboration, Dr. Arrowsmith's lab has helped create potential new treatments for certain forms of cancer.

In my riding, CIHR has funded professors Elizabeth McGibbon, Elsa Arbuthnot, and Agnes Calliste, making it the very first time in Canada that researchers are going to be able to scope out the state of Canadian knowledge about inequities in access to health services for indigenous and African Canadians living in rural areas.

A parliamentary committee study related to using federally funded research to improve access to medicines would help us understand the ways in which we could take research like this from bench to bedside at a lower cost to Canadians. Oftentimes, new discoveries are too expensive for Canadians to afford when they go market and are available for purchase.

For example, research conducted by Canada research chair Dr. Nabil Seidah and his team from l'Université de Montréal led to the development of a powerful but expensive new drug to treat high cholesterol. From 2003 to 2010, Dr. Seidah received $1.4 million from CIHR through the Canada research chair program. During this time, his team discovered a new enzyme that plays a key role in regulating receptors of low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, commonly known as bad cholesterol. I am going back to my human kinetics degree. This was an important discovery in the fight against cardiovascular disease, because this particular enzyme inactivates the receptors on the liver cell surface that transport bad cholesterol for breakdown. Without these receptors, more bad cholesterol remains in the blood, which could lead to an increased risk of developing heart disease or having a heart attack.

Thanks to this important work, a new drug was created that reduces the activity of this enzyme, which helps the liver clean out bad cholesterol from the bloodstream. This new drug reduces bad cholesterol levels by 60% for those who have high cholesterol. What is especially important about this discovery is that everyone responds well to this new drug, even people who do not usually tolerate the common drugs that are used to treat high cholesterol.

This new drug has potential life-saving benefits for Canadians. It was approved for use in 2015. However, the drug costs $7,500 a year. This cost makes it very difficult for Canadians who are at risk of developing cardiovascular disease to afford the medication that might save their lives.

This is why Motion No. 132 is such an important tool. It will help us examine the delicate balance between the economic gain of new discoveries and advancing federally funded innovations, and making them more accessible to Canadians in improving their health. In this regard, it is very important to note that advancements are made possible through widespread and barrier-free access to cutting-edge research and knowledge. Policies that facilitate access to the results of this research enable researchers, scholars, clinicians, policy-makers, private sector and not-for-profit organizations, and the public to use and build on this knowledge.

For example, numerous agencies and institutions are implementing open access policies. In Canada, CIHR has been working closely with two federal research granting agencies, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, NSERC, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, SSHRC. For instance, the three federal agencies do not retain or claim any ownership of intellectual property, and no copyright or investments developed resulting from the research supported by its agency funds either. This gives academic institutions the opportunity to commercialize research results to make them more readily available to the public.

Moreover, the three agencies have a number of policies in place to ensure that the knowledge gained from federally funded research is made accessible. For example, in February 2015, CIHR along with NSERC and SSHRC released their tri-agency open access policy on publications, under which “Grant recipients are required to ensure that any peer-reviewed journal publications arising from Agency-supported research are freely accessible [online] within 12 months of publication.”

The objective of this important policy is to improve access to the results of federally funded research and increase dissemination and exchange of research results. In addition, in June 2016, the three federal research granting agencies released their tri-agency statement of principles on digital data management as an important step toward strengthening research data management in Canada and maintaining our country's research excellence.

When properly managed and responsibly shared, digital research data enables researchers to ask new questions, pursue novel research programs, and test alternative hypotheses. It has the potential to advance science and support innovative solutions in Canada. The agencies believe that research data collected with the use of public funds belong, to the fullest extent possible, in the public domain and available for reuse by others. Therefore, the statement outlines the agency's overarching expectations for research data management and the roles of researchers, research institutions, research communities, and research funders in supporting data management.

I have highlighted a few examples of innovations funded by the Government of Canada that can improve the lives of Canadians living in our communities. I will also emphasize that these discoveries are often commercialized for profit and may be financially inaccessible to many Canadians. While policies are in place to ensure open access to innovations funded by the federal government, it is still important to study new ways in which research investments can deliver returns for Canadians.

As I previously mentioned, it is essential to strike a balance between the economic gains of new discoveries and the accessibility of federally funded research. A parliamentary study to improve access to medicines through federally funded programs would help shed light on how new health research discoveries can be affordable and make a difference in the lives of Canadians. That is why I am so pleased that the Government of Canada will be supporting Motion No. 132.

[Strengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians Act, September 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy participating in debates with someone who knows my backyard so well.

Unfortunately, not being part of the government, this is an area where I do not have the information the member is seeking, and I am not afraid to admit that. The bill was sponsored by Senator Harder in the Senate. Despite the fact it may not have started on the floor of the House, there is an opportunity to move quickly to save lives.

When I met with consumer advocacy organizations, their biggest request was to get this through. Every day that we do not have these laws in place, we risk the danger of having another motor vehicle that suffers from a defect, leading to a fatality in our country. That is not acceptable.

With respect to the oddities in procedure, as the member pointed out, I cannot answer why, but I am glad it started, no matter where it started.

[Strengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians Act, September 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to work the member opposite as well on the same committee I referenced previously.

Simple questions are best, although without having the Auditor General's report in front of me at the moment, it does make it a bit more difficult to answer in detail.

Bill S-2 is probably not going to create every possible safety measure when it comes to preventing defects from getting on to our roadways, but it is going to make Canadian society and our roadways safer as a result.

I look forward to working with the member on our committee, presuming the bill gets through the legislative process in the House in one form or another, so we can dig in and examine the Auditor General's recommendations, if he wishes, alongside the measures that are explicitly contained in the bill and make this the best possible legal outcome that protects lives of Canadians on our roads.

[Strengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians Act, September 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's kind remarks and her thoughtful deliberations, both in our shared committee assignment and in the House.

I do not hazard to speak for the government, being merely a member of the governing party and not a member of the government proper, but the ability to make public information about the quality of defects and the extent that it may impact Canadians is important. When we operate in an environment with full information, people tend to behave the way we hope they will behave. If I know the world is watching me do my job, and with the great audience we have on CPAC perhaps it is, we tend to be more conscious of our record. It creates accountability when we know the information about our safety record is being watched, particularly in an industry where safety is so important.

I do not mean to suggest that manufacturers today are not operating in a safe manner and being accountable to an acceptable degree, but we can always be better. Shedding a light on the information that pertains to different companies' safety records is going to help save lives.

[Strengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians Act, September 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to offer a few remarks on Bill S-2, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Before I begin, I was under the impression I would have 20 minutes, so I will give the Coles Notes version of a longer speech.

Before I get too deep into the weeds on this one, I will explain in broad strokes what the bill is about.

Currently, motor vehicle safety is a priority, and I think that is shared by every member in the House. When we look at the impact motor vehicle defects can have, there is a paucity of laws that allow the government to take action to correct a very serious problem. Over the course of my remarks, I hope to outline roughly the scope of this problem, that it is a priority, and then address three key points built into the legislative mechanisms that would help improve the government's ability deal with this problem, specifically dealing with the power to order recalls, compliance mechanisms, and, finally, the flexibility to deal with emerging technologies.

First and foremost, if I am to argue that this is a problem in Canada, I need to look no further than some of the very positive news coverage from last year that highlighted the impact that manufacturers' defects had on vehicles on the roads in Canada today. If I am to believe the content of a Globe and Mail article from December of last year, one in six Canadian vehicles is currently subject to a manufacturer's recall in Canada. That means millions of vehicles on are on the roads today that manufacturers have acknowledged are not safe enough to meet Canadian standards. I urge anyone watching, and I know that on CPAC during House proceedings there is a massive audience, to visit Transport Canada's website, use the searchable database, and determine whether their vehicles are subject to existing manufacturers' recalls about which they may not know. These things can fly under the radar when Canadians have other priorities and things to worry about in their lives. However, they are important and pose safety risks.

We can safely assume that manufacturers' defects are a safety concern in Canada today. The legislation proposes a number of things to deal with them.

Let me first deal with the power of the minister to order a recall when becoming aware of defects, which is a power provided for in Bill S-2. There are really two categories in which the minister would be empowered. One deals with consumers and the other with dealers, though perhaps I am simplifying it a little too much.

On the consumer side of the equation, right now the minister does not have the same power that exists elsewhere in the world, including the U.S., to order a recall. Importantly, the remedy would exist where consumers would not have to cover the costs of having their vehicles repaired or replaced. This is a burden that can and should be borne by the manufacturer responsible for the defect. This would enhance safety by allowing more consumers to have their vehicles fixed at no cost.

The second side of this equation has to do with dealers, and I will spend a little more time on this.

Right now in Canada, there is no law that says a dealer cannot sell a car with a defect. In fact, not enough information flows for dealers to know when defects may exist to ensure vehicles do not make it onto the roads. If I am dealing with a leaky roof at my house, the first thing I will do is find a bucket to stop the water from damaging my floor. The second thing I will do is try to fix the pipe causing the leak. If we are only dealing with the consumer side of the equation, we are going to maybe prevent more drops from hitting the floor, but we will have to keep replacing the bucket if we do not do something to prevent the sale of defective vehicles getting onto the roads in the first place.

This puts dealers in an admittedly difficult position. This could put dealers in a position where they are going to be left carrying inventory on their lots that they cannot sell, and that is not right. I want to draw attention to a discussion the upper chamber had on the issue and proposed amendments specifically on Bill S-2.

Before I do that, I want to extend my gratitude to our colleagues in the other chamber for their thoughtful deliberations on this legislation, and many others, and for drawing attention to an important issue that has caused me to think very deeply about this. However, I must respectfully disagree that the suggested amendment is the appropriate mechanism to correct the social harm we all want to fight.

The mechanism proposed in the amendment seeks to address compensation for dealers that are left with inventory on their lots that they cannot sell. The amendment proposes a 1% interest rate on vehicles, based on the price of vehicles, per month. If I do the math in my head, this becomes very expensive for manufacturers and does compensate dealers somewhat.

When I was trying to understand whether this was the right policy, I had to think back to some of my work before where I had the opportunity to work in a litigation practice with a bit of a constitutional influence and back to law school and what we have the authority to do in this chamber.

My first obstacle, and reason why I cannot bring myself to support the amendment, is a constitutional issue. I do not know that we have the constitutional authority to legislate the terms of a commercial arrangement between contracting parties at the federal level. Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution say what the federal government and provinces can do respectively and there is no question we can tackle issues that touch on public safety. However, when it comes to the contracting arrangements between commercial parties, this is exclusively within the purview of the provinces. In fact, there is a lot of sale of goods legislation in place in provinces specifically to deal with these issues. I cannot overcome this barrier and I cannot in good conscience support an amendment that I do not believe we have the authority to pass and adopt in the House.

The second and more practical stumbling point for me on the proposed amendment is the possibility we could be creating an unintended consequence that I do not believe our colleagues in the upper chamber had specifically drawn their attention to, again, with great respect and deference.

What we might be doing is creating an economic incentive for manufacturers to fix cars that are in dealers' lots today before they fix cars that are on the roads. If we assume. just to make the math easy, there is a recall that applies to 100,000 vehicles at a price of $25,000, we are looking at interest payments on the part of the manufacturer to dealers in the realm of $25 million a month. This is a great motivator for companies. If they are looking at a severe penalty like this, they are going to change their behaviour, and this might inspire them to fix cars sitting on dealers' lots more effectively. However, I do not want them to do that at the cost of cars travelling on Canadian roads today. Creating this incentive to deal with cars that have not yet been sold over cars that are owned by Canadians could pose a public safety hazard.

Finally, there are remedies available today for dealers. Bill S-2 puts dealers on the same footing that consumers are on. They will have access to have their vehicles repaired at no cost like consumers will. They will also have the protection of any negotiated provisions in a commercial contract that allocates risk as between the parties and they will have the protection outlined in provincial sale of goods legislation that deals with merchantable quality and fitness purpose for any goods that are sold in our provinces. Respectfully, for those reasons, I cannot support the Senate amendment, but I do believe the legislation is sound.

Very quickly in the remaining minutes that I have, the compliance regime put in place is going to replace one that more or less does not exist today. Today, if we want to enforce violations of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act when it comes to defects, there is an expensive and lengthy criminal prosecution, and many of the violations do not warrant a criminal prosecution. We are implementing a monetary administrative penalty regime that is going to be more like a speeding ticket. It is going to punish those wrongdoers and encourage them to change their behaviour, but often to the tune of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars per vehicle per day.

Though I do not have time to cover it, knowing we are on the precipice of emerging technologies in the motor vehicle sector, we want to ensure we do not stifle innovation, particularly when it comes to driverless vehicles. There has not been a disruptive technology in the motor vehicle industry in over a century. Knowing we are about to embrace this change, we need to ensure there is flexibility that allows the minister to encourage innovation in this exciting industry, without compromising our safety.

With these features in mind, I am very proud to support Bill S-2 because it will improve safety on Canadian roadways, with the caveat that I mentioned at length about the proposed amendment in the legislation.

[Business of Supply, June 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, before I address the question, I would like to say, to the extent you heard shouting, I heard some friendly conversation back and forth.

To answer the question from the member for Courtenay—Alberni, and I enjoy his passion for this issue, the forestry sector is strategically important to the Canadian economy. In the short term, there are issues we need to address, and I believe that the minister is on the right foot trying to address them.

I am of two minds when I deal with the specifics of how we protect the sustainable nature of this important industry. On the one hand, I believe that the private sector has a serious role, and to the extent that they are exporting some raw products, they may deem, with their own money, that it is in their best interest.

On the other hand, and perhaps this is an advantage I have of being one of the younger members of this House, I have the opportunity to look 60 years down the road and think it may be within my own lifetime, because that is how long it will take a forest to grow.

I have met with groups such as the eastern hardwood partnerships in Nova Scotia, which are trying to put together a plan that will help us take advantage of private woodlot owners and ask what kind of wood product will be a successful industry in 10 years that we could process locally. What will be successful in 30 years? To have that kind of foresight is something I very much enjoy. To the extent I can be supportive of creating a long-term sustainable forestry industry, not just in Atlantic Canada but across the country, I am happy to be an advocate to do so.