Tracey Ramsey

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, through Foreign Affairs, I believe.

I would like to address one of the things she spoke about, “this being the best possible deal”. With all due respect, that is not the case. Saying that they went around Europe to speak to people is absolutely true. There is clear evidence that they were in Europe talking to partners there about the implications; we see that in the side agreement that came forward. However, where was that happening in Canada? It did not happen at the international trade committee. It did not happen across all of the provinces. It did not happen in a consultative phase as it did with TPP. We certainly did not see any engagement with the public from the government around CETA. I think it is disingenuous to say that this is the best deal for Canadians when Canadians were not even a part of that conversation.

The Liberals like to speak about the positives of the deal, but I want to speak about the very real losses, because the losses are there. They exist and they will impact people.

Let us go coast to coast. Let us start in Newfoundland and Labrador. Fish processing plants will be impacted. There is still nothing from the government on what will happen with them. There is no compensation package, as was promised under the previous Conservative government.

Then we move to Quebec, where there are lots of dairy jobs. This will devastate them. Half of all the dairy farms are in Quebec. They will see significant losses from CETA. The money that came forward from the government is simply not enough to bear the brunt of that over the next five years, I would say. Within a generation, we will see a massive loss of family farms.

We see all of Canada being impacted by the increased cost of drugs. Everyone who sits in this House, everyone, will be impacted by the increased cost of pharmaceuticals that we are signing on to in CETA. Twenty-five per cent of this legislation has changes to the Patent Act for pharmaceutical drugs.

Then we move to the member's end of the country, on the west coast. I believe she sits in a coastal riding, so we are talking about coastal jobs. We are talking about maritime jobs where people take the work that they do very seriously. They are often the ones who first see an indicator of something that is wrong on the waters. They are the ones who call into the designated departments and say there is a spill or there is something happening.

This member represents cabotage workers, maritime workers. Where is the analysis from the federal government on the job loss, province by province and sector by sector, that will be incurred under CETA?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we have a conversation about maritime workers in our country. The member opposite asked me about the $2 per hour. This was a flag of convenience ship, which means that the flag belongs to another country and is sitting in our waters. It is bringing products into our ports, staffed with people who are having their human rights violated. They were being paid $2 per hour on that one particular ship. There were reports of being paid less, to be honest, and in a lot of cases, they are not being paid at all.

How are Canadians, working in this field, supposed to compete? Aside from ensuring that the health and labour standards of these workers are being protected, how are Canadian workers supposed to compete with workers at that wage in our own waters? This is in Canada. They are transporting things across Canada.

This puts our maritime workers at an extreme disadvantage and I fought at committee to remove the pieces from Canada's Coasting Trade Act that were being changed. The maritime industry was not consulted on this and it will lose jobs.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the trade committee with the member opposite. I am pleased to see her rise, because she was silent when all of these amendments came forward. She said not one word when all of these amendments came to the trade committee. Therefore, I am very curious as to why she is rising in the House today, when she was silent in the period of time when we were going clause by clause in committee before the House rose for the holidays. That is shocking to me. If there were legitimate concerns that she wanted to bring forward, why did she not do so when she had the opportunity with the minister and chief negotiators? Was she under a gag order? That is how it appeared on the Liberal side during clause-by-clause.

Even one of the European Union's standing committees released a report saying that it was against signing CETA because there were no economic benefits, there would not be jobs. Similar reports have come from think tanks here in Canada. Unfortunately, the studies we have on CETA predate the Liberal government, so we do not have current statistics on where we are at and, of course, this is post Brexit.

There are many moving parts in CETA. Trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. This deal can be fixed and these amendments speak to the things that could fix this trade deal in a way that would represent Canadians' interests. There was no attempt to do so in the negotiating phases. Therefore, as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to those we represent to bring forward the amendments that we feel will best benefit.

The other thing that shocks me about the member opposite is that she did not support my proposal to have more people appear before the committee. We heard from a very limited number of voices. In fact, the witnesses brought by the Liberals were all for CETA, so there was no balance in the conversation. There was an unwillingness by the government to listen to any opposing views or any concerned Canadians.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2017]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 80.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 91.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 92.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 94.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Schedule 3.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures. It is a very important piece of legislation, one that I fear has not been given due study or consideration by parliamentarians.

As a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I was dismayed to be the only member of Parliament who voted against a heavy-handed motion that restricted our committee from receiving feedback on this legislation from anyone but the few witnesses who were selected to appear.

It is vitally important that we hear from Canadians on the legislation that comes before us at committee. Shutting the door on the voices of Canadians goes against the spirit of openness and transparency, which should be the very cornerstones of our democracy.

With limited committee meetings and witnesses, there were many issues that the committee failed to properly address, such as the impact of CETA on mariners' jobs. Even of those few witnesses we heard from, groups that are supportive of the deal have concerns about how it will be implemented and how the government will support their industries in accessing potential new markets.

CETA has been called the biggest trade and investment deal since NAFTA. It covers a wide array of issues, including significant reforms to Canadian intellectual property rules related to generic and non-generic pharmaceutical drugs.

Deals like CETA are part of a new generation of trade deals, such as the trans-Pacific partnership, which include many controversial aspects that have more to do with investors' interests than the public's interest.

There is growing concern around the world, where people are questioning if these massive trade and investment deals are in the public's best interests. The Minister of Foreign Affairs claims that swift passage of CETA is necessary to send a message that Canada still supports these deals in the face of mounting public opposition to trade agreements. However, passing this legislation with little study of its impacts on the lives of everyday Canadians is the opposite of how we as legislators should be proceeding.

Much has changed in the world since CETA was signed. We are having many conversations about the trade agenda of the newly elected U.S. president and what it means to have fair trade or free trade.

I would like to read a quote from Angella MacEwen, senior economist at the Canadian Labour Congress, who testified before our trade committee:

There are market failures, distributional impacts, and very real concerns that workers have, because trade deals can increase inequality if you don't take proper action to make sure they don't. The answer isn't in rushing more trade deals through. The answer is in taking a minute to examine those very real concerns that people have and those very real negative impacts to see how you can mitigate them.

I agree that the proper response is not rushing more trade deals through. This is why I pushed at committee for more meetings, more study, and more input from Canadians on CETA.

I proposed various amendments at committee and I was pleased to see the Liberals agreed there need to be some changes to the bill's intellectual property rights. We agreed on several amendments to these provisions in the bill.

I also proposed amendments to limit CETA's controversial investment chapter. There is no reason Bill C-30 should have contained these provisions. European states, namely Belgium, have made it clear that investor-state provisions must be removed before it is willing to ratify CETA, yet the Liberals are asking parliamentarians to sign off on CETA as it stands, including these investor-state provisions. If these provisions will not be provisionally applied and will be rejected for ratification in Europe, why would Parliament sign off on them?

In the event that an investor court system is established as Bill C-30 proposes to do, there is an issue with how tribunal panellists will be selected. As pointed out by Gus Van Harten, these panellists will hold incredible power yet their appointments will be unilaterally selected solely by the Minister of International Trade. I proposed an amendment at committee that this process be opened up and I was disappointed to see that government MPs had no interest in debating my proposal.

I also proposed an amendment to remove the increased threshold for mandatory foreign takeover reviews. CETA includes a clause that would raise this threshold from $600 million to $1.5 billion, meaning foreign takeovers of Canadian companies under $1.5 billion would not be subject to review of whether such a takeover would be in our national interest.

I would also like to discuss the issue of how CETA impacts maritime jobs. CETA will, for the first time, legally allow foreign-owned vessels and foreign crews to transport goods between Canadian ports and will open up domestic dredging contracts to foreign suppliers. This will lead to the estimated loss of 3,000 Canadian seafarers' jobs. These are high quality, well-paying jobs. This industry as a whole supports 250,000 direct and indirect jobs.

I received a phone call in my office over the holiday period from a woman who was distraught over the impact on maritime workers. She was also distraught that her Liberal MP would not respond to her request to understand the situation he was putting their community in. These communities rely on these good-paying jobs, and this has simply been ignored.

I was shocked that the Liberals did not even say a word at committee during the debate around this motion. There was not one word. That is incredibly disappointing for parliamentarians who are committed not only to represent the people in their own riding but across the country, when they sit on such an important committee as the international trade committee.

We also know that CETA will allow foreign boats to bring in foreign workers, with no requirement for a labour market impact assessment. These workers can be paid as little as $2 an hour, and suffer from low safety standards and poor working conditions. Over the holiday period, there was a ship on the west coast that came in with workers who had not been paid and workers who had been on the ship a year beyond their contract and could not be released to go back home. These workers are being mistreated, and only when they reach Canadian ports and someone discovers this is happening are Canadians able to intervene on their behalf. This is an issue of human rights in our own waters.

I would also like to point out that by permitting more foreign flag vessels CETA encourages tax avoidance, since foreign ships registered in flags of convenience countries, such as Malta or Cypress, take advantage of tax havens and the cheapest labour available.

Today, at report stage, on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada, I am proposing amendments to delete clauses of Bill C-30 that would implement parts of CETA's investment chapter, implement changes to the pharmaceutical intellectual property rights, implement a host of new geographical indicators, raise the threshold for foreign reviews, and change the rules for coasting trade.

I want to go back to the geographical indicators for a moment, because the European Union was quite clear. It requested over 170 carve-outs for geographical indicators. Some in the House may be asking what these exactly are. These are things like cheese designation for Asiago cheese, or feta cheese. It is things like champagne or Darjeeling tea. These are things that Canadian producers will no longer be able to label with those names because they will own those geographical indicators in Europe. If Canadian suppliers or producers attempt to put the name on them, they will be in violation of CETA.

The interesting part about this is Canada received zero geographical indicators. Think about Nanaimo bars, Saskatoon berries, maple syrup, or Montreal smoked meat. None of these things are protected. That means European companies can continue to label their products in this way. This is a huge loss to all of these growth industries.

I look forward to further debating these amendments today, and I ask fellow parliamentarians to take a serious look at these proposed changes before the House moves on to the third reading of Bill C-30. There are many unanswered questions and outstanding concerns regarding CETA. As parliamentarians, we cannot simply turn a blind eye to the very real concerns that exist in this trade deal.

It is disheartening to me that the Liberals refuse to address the increase in the cost of pharmaceutical drugs that will impact every person in their riding, I believe it is a disservice to Canadians not to look at the good and bad in every piece of trade legislation that comes before the House. We actually are obligated to do that. We have taken an oath to do that. I ask parliamentarians to take that seriously today.

[International Trade, February 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs depend on trade with the United States, but the Liberals' silence on their priorities for NAFTA renegotiations is deafening. Canadians want fair trade that benefits all Canadians, not just a few at the top. The government's first priority must be protecting Canadian jobs in trade-dependent industries, like softwood lumber, auto, steel, agriculture, and dairy.

Today the U.S. has started the clock on renegotiations, so when will the Liberals come clean to Canadians about what is on the table?

[U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban, January 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my riding has one of the largest Syrian Canadian populations in Canada. We have embraced and opened our doors and communities to the Syrian refugees who have settled. In fact, other Syrian refugees are leaving other places in Canada to come to Windsor—Essex because of the success we have had. Therefore, we have our doors wide open. It should not be that the group of five has a limit.

There should not be a cap on any private stream of refugee support. The cap should simply not exist if people are willing to put the money forward. The group of five is simply people who cannot afford to do it on their own, so they should be able to come together to do that. There should not be a limit. For one person to be a single private sponsor is more difficult and there are fewer people in our country who can do that than the group of five method. Therefore, we should allow that.

If provinces have particular issues or communities that, for whatever reason, are unable to accept more, that is a different conversation. However, lifting the cap nationally is important.

[U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban, January 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. We should lift the cap.

If we have groups of five or if we have private individuals who are willing to put forward the money to sponsor and support new refugees coming to Canada, we absolutely should create a stream for them to do that. There should not be a cap on anyone who is willing to reach out beyond his or her own circumstance to help someone else. This is what and who we are.

This cap needs to be lifted. We need a strong, firm commitment from the government that it will lift the cap and allow privately sponsored refugees to enter our country, in particular, those who are being turned back at the American border. This goes along with the adoption of the safe third country if we do not do something about this issue. Are we waiting for someone to be impacted? Is that what we are doing? Are sitting back and waiting until the first person is denied, the first person is discriminated against, before we step in? We can step in right now, and we should.

[U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban, January 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we need to work with the international community. We need to step up to do our part. We have seen the great benefits. Many of us in this very room are descendants of refugees and immigrants. We cannot stand by and watch as people have no place to go. They are being denied by our closest neighbour.

Therefore, a number at this point cannot be attached and should not be attached. Is there ever a number that we reach where we say we have done enough? There is always more to do. Canada is always willing to step up to do more.

However, there is one thing we can do. Private sponsors who have money to bring in and support refugees should be allowed to do so. Get rid of the cap of 1,000 people because that cap is already gone. Canadians are generous. They have big hearts. They are opening up their wallets to help others. We should allow them to—

[U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban, January 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the Speaker for granting this debate tonight. It is a very important debate.

We all owe deep thanks to my NDP colleague, the member for Vancouver East, for her tireless work on this issue. Indeed, she and I were emailing all weekend long about the impact of this ban in our ridings and in our country. I am proud that we stand here tonight to challenge this ban as a result of an NDP emergency debate. We take this issue incredibly seriously, as it impacts the lives of so many Canadians, indeed all Canadians, because a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

We are here in the House in response to the extraordinary times we find ourselves in. We are here to debate the presidential executive order issued by President Trump prohibiting the travel of all refugees and individuals from seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa. I repeat this because it seems to me that there is some confusion among members of the House as to why we are here and why hundreds of people stood out in the cold tonight to join us in our galleries for this very important debate.

We have to let this sink in for a moment, because prior to Friday, I never imagined we would be watching our closest neighbour and ally descend into such a dark moment, seeing our fellow Canadians and their families who are from one of the seven countries struggling under the weight of this ban, a ban that is nothing short of discrimination against our Muslim brothers and sisters from the seven countries. We are not here to discount the good work that the government has done to settle refugees in this past year. No one is debating that good work. We are here to discuss action following the very serious recent executive order from President Trump. Canadians must reject any ban that is based on race, religion, or place of birth. This kind of ban promotes hate and intolerance.

In October 2016, the House of Commons unanimously endorsed a motion introduced by the leader of the NDP, the member for Outremont, condemning all forms of Islamophobia. Some 69,742 Canadians signed the petition and are among those who are now calling on us to follow through this very important step with action. They are likely among the hundreds who are sitting right now in our galleries, or who lined up earlier tonight, those who are at home watching us stand up to this discrimination, and the thousands who have flooded us with emails and phone calls since Friday.

I want to give a quote, because tonight, more is being asked of us. It is a quote from my friend, Dr. Maher El-Masri. He is chairperson of the Windsor Islamic Council. He said, “It is no longer enough to denounce Islamophobia. The rise of anti-Islamic sentiment has reached dangerous levels that threaten the very fabric of our society.”

This ban will have a disastrous implication for thousands of innocent travellers and refugees. Canada must step up and do its part.

We have heard many members tonight reference their family members, or in their past, people who have gone to fight for this country, to fight for the freedoms we enjoy, those who went and joined the allied forces in World War II in Europe. A debate took place in this very esteemed place where we now sit, and this was not an easy decision, but Canada made a choice to not sit back, but join the fight. We are now being called upon to do our part once again.

My riding of Essex is on the border with the U.S. We are very closely tied to our American friends and neighbours. Canada needs to secure greater assurances for those travelling to the United States who were born in or have dual nationality with one of the seven countries listed.

Our office in Essex has been dealing with a large volume of calls, emails, and messages from constituents, from early Saturday when the very first implications of the ban were taking place at our borders in Windsor and Detroit. Many people have been affected by this ban. Many professionals in our region cross every day to work and to visit family. They feel targeted and uncertain.

In my riding of Essex, and in particular the town of LaSalle, we have many Canadian families and permanent resident holders who were born in one of the seven banned countries.

This weekend, there was a lot of confusion at our border, and the limited information and directions that were given to our local Canadian border agents was not enough. We were notified that the U.S. officials were not providing the Canadian side with definite instructions, and there was confusion about who could cross. Indeed, people were being denied and returned from the U.S. back to Canada.

Meanwhile, our government was silent. We were searching for answers. We were looking for something. We could not find anything on any of the official government websites. I was up very late on Saturday night with my team in Essex going through these phone calls trying to answer people's questions, calling our CBSA chief in Windsor, calling the U.S. trying to find answers because we simply did not have them. It was extremely frustrating for us and very difficult for those in our region who were directly impacted, because they are dual citizens or permanent residents from one of the seven countries.

It was not until Sunday when I heard the new minister speaking at the press conference and I was pleased to hear the things that he was bringing forward and I was encouraged that we were moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, people were being turned back at our border, so no direction was being given. We listened to the minister in that press conference and today again, and we still have no written agreement with our U.S. partner. We do not know what this ban means. We do not know what they intend to do with it, what countries they intend to look at next. We have not sat down and had formal conversations that are necessary between the two countries to ensure that when people want to cross the border, they can do so confidently because that is not the case right now. People are heading across that border uncertain if they will be able to cross, nervous about whether they will be stopped, whether they will be questioned, what will be asked of them. This is not a situation that we can accept at our Canada border or from one of our greatest allies.

As I said, there was mass confusion and in the span of 24 hours we were flooded with individual emails and phone calls from people who were directly impacted. Canada needs additional measures to offer a safe haven for refugees fleeing violence and persecution and who have been shut out by the United States. We saw this across airports. We saw mass demonstrations at airports across the U.S. because people were being refused or detained. I remember watching a five-year-old who had been detained. I watched two senior citizens in wheelchairs who had been detained, because they were from one of these seven countries. To say that this has not had an impact on people yet, it has impacted people in our closest ally, in our neighbour. It will very soon come to impact people in our own country.

However, I hope that we can implement some of the things that we are bringing forward so that we do not have to have someone be impacted, that we can take the approach of being proactive rather than reactive to discrimination. We have all committed to do better. Our constituents and Canadians deserve that.

What can we do? We can lift the 1,000 application cap on privately sponsored refugees and fast-track refugees whose applications in the U.S. were previously approved. We can list hundreds of successful stories of refugees in my riding. I have heard it from all sides of the House tonight, so why not lift that cap and welcome more people into our country who have already been screened and vetted to the highest degree? We can certainly do so with safety. We should partner with our international partners to ensure that this happens. We have private groups that are ready and willing for this to happen.

The government must immediately suspend the safe third country agreement with the United States as we can no longer have confidence that the U.S. provides a safe haven for refugees. The member for Vancouver East has pointed this out repeatedly. This can be done immediately. I have yet to hear a commitment from the government to suspend the agreement to protect the most vulnerable who are caught in this web. These are dark days and we cannot turn our eyes away and pretend that this will not impact us.

In Windsor Essex, as I said, we are very close to our U.S. neighbours and we must stand up for everyone. I want to read a message that I received from one of my constituents: “This discrimination should not go silent. Canada should be a voice for the voiceless. Also grant entry to those that have already received the rigorous vetting and should come to Canada. Please, like so many Canadians, we call for humanity to come back”.

This is the call of Canadians tonight and there are actions that can take place above and beyond what the minister has mentioned so far. Again, we need to push further. This is who we are as a country. We do not sit back and watch this happen to our closest neighbour, to our friends and family. We stand up and say that we defy this ban. It is discriminatory and we will not accept it.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, January 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across for sharing her experience in her community around this crisis. I have shared some of the experiences in my own riding of Essex today in this House, and this is something that we need to get ahead of. Unfortunately, this is coming at a time when it is almost too late because of the number of deaths that we have seen. We need to get ahead of this now and we need to move faster than we are moving on this issue.

We in the NDP welcome the changes that are being proposed here and of course will support them, but we need to do more. In my riding, there is no access to any type of treatment facility. People have to travel from southwestern Ontario up to the Toronto region in order to get treatment, and they are waiting eight days to detox.

My question for the member is around the medical experts who have been very clear that there is an alarming lack of access to publicly funded detox and addiction treatments in Canada. I want to ask the member if budget 2017 contains significant new funding for addictions treatment.