Sheri Benson

[Health, May 10th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, next week marks the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia.

Once again, the government issued statements of concern, but we see little or no action to back up these concerns. The Liberals promised in the last election to remove the five-year ban on donating blood by men who have sex with men, but instead reduced it to one year.

With no evidence to support the ban and a severe shortage of blood and organs in our health system, will the government now end the gay blood ban and eliminate this form of homophobia?

[Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, May 9th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pride to rise today in support of Bill C-354, proposed by the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

I am pretty sure there are a few mountains in that part of Canada, and because I made a promise to a childhood friend, which I could not keep, I do want to congratulate Cassie Sharpe, who won a gold medal as a freestyle skier, whose aunt I went to school with in Winnipeg. I said I would say hi, and I could not find her. She was mobbed by everyone. I congratulate her.

Back to the bill, it is a bill that makes so much sense on so many levels. Besides being one of the most well-liked members in the House, my colleague is also a renowned natural historian, and the author of a dozen award-winning books on the natural history of British Columbia. The member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay was also named Biologist of the Year in 1996, and has served on the board of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and worked with Bird Studies Canada coordinating surveys on the status of bird populations.

Anyone can see that the member's credentials are both impressive and credible. It is therefore not surprising that his private member's bill would propose and promote the use of a renewable resource, which we have in abundance, while at the same time, reduce our carbon footprint.

At a time in our planet's evolution when climate change is wreaking havoc on communities across the globe, while governments are struggling to meet their emissions targets and to make the shift towards more sustainable industries, this bill is a common sense solution that will help Canada do more and do better to meet our own emissions reduction goals.

Canada is and always has been a land of forests. Around the world, we are renowned for our natural beauty and our natural resources. One can hardly find a picture of Canada without seeing majestic forests, except, of course, when looking at a beautiful picture of the Prairies.

The bounty from our forests has supported for centuries the first peoples of this land, the earliest settlers. It has helped build towns, and turned them into cities. It has built our railroads, and telegraph and telephone poles, and so much more, to connect Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Our forests have given us so much. They have allowed us to be a world leader in pulp and paper production, spurring development in northern and rural communities, providing jobs and livelihoods for generations of Canadians, and the raw material for the publishing industry for decades. Through it all, our forests continue to provide for us a way to commune with nature, to marvel at the magnificence and the diversity of life that we have been blessed with.

Bill C-354 simply proposes that the Government of Canada give consideration to the use of wood products when building, maintaining, or repairing federally owned properties. Decisions as to which construction materials to use would take into account the costs of the different materials balanced with the greenhouse gas footprint of the materials. After this assessment, the government could decide whether it is best to use wood or other materials.

Testimony before the natural resources committee demonstrated that wood does not currently enjoy even so much as access to consideration in the market, but that similar policies in British Columbia and Quebec have led to the realization that the situation could be and should be corrected.

In fact, France, Finland, and the Netherlands, along with more than 50 municipalities in British Columbia, have brought in similar policies. Great advances have been made in tall wood construction, and it is now possible to construct large, safe wood buildings quickly and economically. Building with wood produces lower greenhouse gas emissions and sequesters more carbon than with other products, and so can help Canada reach our greenhouse gas emission targets under the Paris Agreement.

Innovations and emerging technologies, like those that allow and encourage environmentally responsible and sustainable construction, will ensure the future health of the forestry sector. As the largest procurer in Canada, the federal government can play a constructive role by using this cutting-edge technology right here at home. If we can continue to build our prosperity by using materials growing in our own backyard, so to speak, and by doing so reduce harmful emissions to ensure the health of our planet, why would we not?

I would like to end by thanking my colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, for his fine work, and by urging all members to support Bill C-354, which represents a win-win-win for the forestry sector, for Canada, and, of course, for our planet.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 9th, 2018]

With regard to Canada’s asbestos ban regulations (Prohibition of Asbestos and Asbestos Products): (a) which ridings have mines, companies, manufacturing or processing facilities or lobby organizations involved with asbestos; (b) what are the names and addresses of these mines, companies, manufacturing or processing facilities and lobby organizations; (c) what is the nature of the business or activity of these mines, companies, manufacturing or processing facilities and lobby organizations; (d) which mines, companies or manufacturing or processing facilities have applied for an exemption; (e) which individuals from these entities have met with the Ministers of Health and Environment and Climate Change or departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, and what are the details of all meetings related to the asbestos ban, including (i) dates, (ii) lists of attendees, (iii) locations, (iv) agendas; (f) which individuals from these mines, companies, manufacturing facilities and lobby organizations have corresponded with the Ministers of Health and Environment and Climate Change and departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, and what are the details of all correspondence since November 1, 2016, including (i) dates, (ii) senders, (iii) recipients, (iv) titles, (v) subjects, (vi) summaries, (vii) file numbers; (g) which individuals from these mines, companies, manufacturing facilities and lobby organizations have met with which Ministers, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, Members of Parliament or Senators, and what are the details of all meetings related to the asbestos ban, including (i) dates, (ii) lists of attendees, (iii) locations, (iv) agendas; (h) which individuals from these mines, companies, manufacturing facilities and lobby organizations have corresponded with which Ministers, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, Members of Parliament or Senators, and what are the details of all correspondence since November 1, 2016, including (i) dates, (ii) senders, (iii) recipients, (iv) titles, (v) subjects, (vi) summaries, (vii) file numbers; (i) which elected officials (municipal or provincial) in Quebec have corresponded with which Members of Parliament and Senators on the subject of exemptions on behalf of these mines, companies, manufacturing or processing facilities, and what are the details of all correspondence since November 1, 2016, including (i) dates, (ii) senders, (iii) recipients, (iv) titles, (v) subjects, (vi) summaries, (vii) file numbers; (j) which elected officials (municipal or provincial) in Quebec have met with which Members of Parliament and Senators on the subject of exemptions on behalf of these mines, companies, manufacturing or processing facilities, and what are the details of all meetings related to the asbestos ban, including (i) dates, (ii) lists of attendees, (iii) locations, (iv) agendas; (k) which elected officials (municipal or provincial) in Quebec have corresponded with the Ministers of Health and Environment and Climate Change, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, or any other government Minister and their Ministerial Exempt Staff, on the subject of exemptions on behalf of these mines, companies, manufacturing or processing facilities, and what are the details of all correspondence since November 1, 2016, including (i) dates, (ii) senders, (iii) recipients, (iv) titles, (v) subjects, (vi) summaries, (vii) file numbers; (l) which elected officials (municipal or provincial) in Quebec have met with the Ministers of Health and Environment and Climate Change, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, or any other government Minister and their Ministerial Exempt Staff, on the subject of exemptions on behalf of these mines, companies, manufacturing or processing facilities, and what are the details of all meetings related to the asbestos ban, including (i) dates, (ii) lists of attendees, (iii) locations, (iv) agendas; (m) which Members of Parliament and Senators have corresponded with the Ministers of Health and Environment and Climate Change or any other government Minister, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, regarding an exemption to the ban for a mine, company, manufacturing or processing facility, and what are the details of all correspondence since November 1, 2016, including (i) dates, (ii) senders, (iii) recipients, (iv) titles, (v) subjects, (vi) summaries, (vii) file numbers; (n) which Members of Parliament and Senators have met with the Ministers of Health and Environment and Climate Change or any other government Minister, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, regarding an exemption to the ban for a mine, company, manufacturing or processing facility, and what are the details of all meetings related to the asbestos ban, including (i) dates, (ii) lists of attendees, (iii) locations, (iv) agendas; (o) have any exemptions been granted? If so, when and to whom? What are the details of the exemption; (p) are there any pending applications for an exemption? If so, who are the applicants, and what is the status of these applications; (q) what, if any, management strategy will be in place to protect the health and safety of workers who will be exposed to asbestos?

[Petitions, May 9th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from citizens who request the Government of Canada initiate discussions with the provinces, ministers, and all stakeholders to develop a comprehensive pan-Canadian strategy for eating disorders.

[Petitions, May 9th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to table petitions and to help citizens' voices be heard in Parliament. Today I am tabling two petitions.

The first petition is from citizens who oppose the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

[Public Transportation, May 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I rose in the chamber to ask again what the government was doing, and the reply from the government was:

...we understand that having an efficient and functional transportation system is absolutely critical. We need to work together. We have to work together with the provinces and with the municipalities to make that happen. Those kinds of discussions are under way.

I believe in working together and there is a role for the federal government to help lead the way, with Saskatchewan residents, when it comes to public transportation. That is what I had asked the minister, and it was my understanding that the government was participating in looking at the Saskatchewan Transportation Company, or a public transportation system outside the urban areas.

It has been a year since STC shut down. I really would like to see the government step forward and work with the province to find a way to have a good public transportation system not just for urban people but for everyone in the province of Saskatchewan.

[Public Transportation, May 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in January, I asked a question in the House about the hardship brought on by the closure of the Saskatchewan Transportation Company a year ago this month, and was encouraged when the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development replied:

As the member knows full well, this is an issue that we are working on. We will work with her office to make sure we take the appropriate steps that are required and needed to address the issue in a meaningful way.

Having heard nothing from the minister or anyone else in the government, I sent a follow-up letter to the minister on March 14. Sadly, to this day, I still have heard nothing from the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development nor from any other minister.

The loss of STC is keenly felt by many people in Saskatchewan. If people do not have the means to own a car or they cannot drive, STC was the only affordable means of transportation. Without it, people in Saskatchewan are forced into impractical and sometimes dangerous alternatives. Women seeking to get away from domestic violence or to attend medical procedures are hitchhiking to get support and health care. Further, many families were not able to testify at the only missing and murdered indigenous women and girls hearing in Saskatchewan.

Last June, seven women's organizations from Saskatchewan sent a joint letter to the minister about the lack of public transportation for rural and remote locations in Saskatchewan. They are still waiting for a response. In March, at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women session in New York, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs was asked about the lack of response and promised to look into it. To date, these women's groups have not received a response.

If I may, I will share a story that will illustrate for my hon. colleagues just how important it is to bring back STC. Just last week, a constituent of mine who works at a trade school was contacted by one of her students. He was in Prince Albert with no means to get to Saskatoon in time to start his final year of trade training. He was not able to find a ride, and even if he did, he did not think he would have enough money to pay for someone to drive him. This constituent of mine could not bear to stand by and do nothing while all the hard work that this student had put into his training was wasted should he fail to be present for his final weeks of training. Therefore, she decided to drive to Prince Albert to bring the student back to Saskatoon. This is what people with few means in Saskatchewan are forced to do: rely on the goodwill of others or the kindness of strangers.

Saskatchewan has the second-highest rural population per capita in Canada. Seventy per cent of STC users were low-income earners and 60% of those were women. In Canada, one in five people who use public transportation is living with a disability.

Why is it that we see federal leadership, investment, and willingness to subsidize public transportation only in large urban centres? Public transportation is critical infrastructure in this country. Linking rural and urban centres, it is a sustainable, cost-effective way to connect people to health care, to education, to employment, and to family. It is a lifeline for indigenous communities and we need the federal government to lead the way.

Why will the government not act on its word and work with me and my colleagues to ensure that there is a safe, affordable, and reliable public transportation system in Saskatchewan?

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate the fact that many of the speakers this afternoon have talked about legislation and regulation as important steps, but that a cultural change on Parliament Hill, within our workplaces, is the work that we all still need to be doing. I wonder if my hon. colleague would like to comment on some of the things she would like to see us do immediately. We know that prevention and intervention are not enough and that we have to change the culture.

[Public Transportation, May 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it has been one year since STC was shut down, and the people of Saskatchewan are still without access to safe, affordable, public transportation.

After saying it would work with me to address this issue in a meaningful way, the silence from the government is deafening. I hope the minister was sincere when he said he would work with me.

When will the minister break the silence and get to work and find solutions for the public transit crisis in Saskatchewan?

[Health, April 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague to hold his government to account. It is unconscionable, given the statistics, to remove a third of the funding for these programmes without any real explanation or any other replacement in place. In the face of the undeniable evidence that HIV rates are rising in Saskatchewan, we should be investing more, not just sort of moving it around the province.

The government decided to cut funding to some of the most effective outreach and prevention programs that existed in the province. I believe the minister needs to answer for that, and so far, we have not received a one word of explanation. To add insult to injury, the government has done nothing to mitigate the devastating impact of the provincial government's move to sell off the STC.

On January 31, the hon. Minister of Innovation promised to work with me and my office to address this issue in a meaningful way. I have not heard a word since. How much longer do the people of Saskatchewan have to wait for the government to act?