Tracey Ramsey

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member speak about interactions he has had with family members and others in the community. He mentioned an organization for concerned parents.

I think it is a fundamental mistake to not go back to the beginning of addiction for people in Canada, A lot of that addiction crosses all socio-economic boundaries. There is no designation of only young people being addicted. The middle class and people from all economic standings in life are addicted for many different reasons, partially because of the over-prescription by doctors of certain opioids that have been deemed safe by our own Health Canada, which we now know is not the case. These prescription medications are becoming a gateway, where people become addicted and then find themselves on the street. I had one such woman in my office who had two young children. Her husband had worked in a very physical type of job, found himself addicted to prescription medication, and is now homeless, living on the street, and addicted to meth and crack cocaine.

I think we need to go back to the root of addiction, which has to include detox and addictions treatment. Unfortunately, under the previous Conservative government, 15% was slashed in the budget for addictions treatment. Does this member now support an increase in the upcoming budget to address the very alarming lack of funding for detox and addictions treatment in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is only one measure of success to be had in the opioid crisis and that is simply to have fewer people dying. That is the only measure, and what we are seeing is an increase month over month.

When the health committee conducted an emergency study into the opioid crisis, the very first recommendation that was made with all-party support was to declare opioid overdoses a national public health emergency. This would give the public health officer of Canada extraordinary powers immediately while Bill C-37 works its way through Parliament. This call was echoed by Dr. David Juurlink, who I believe lives near the member in his riding of Beaches—East York, the keynote speaker at the Minister of Health's own opioid summit, and now by B.C. health minister Terry Lake and stakeholders across Canada.

In the face of a mounting death toll, does the member for Beaches—East York agree that we should declare a national public health emergency so that we can start saving lives today?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague for her speech today on such a critical, important issue, certainly for her riding in B.C. but also across all of Canada. I can say that in my riding of Essex, in southwestern Ontario, we also see this impending crisis coming our way. People and families are very concerned, very worried. We are going to be holding a round table this month to address the issue to prevent possible deaths, to prevent addiction, and to provide all of the contacts and the outreach the member is talking about.

Would the member not agree that the best way to do this is to declare a national health crisis so that we can have the funding find its way down to these levels and have the education set from a national directive, as opposed to right now municipalities and provinces trying to patch together things to help those who are impacted by the crisis?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 30th, 2017]

With regard to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA): (a) what are the government’s estimates of the financial impacts on (i) prescription drug costs, (ii) provincial and territorial health care systems, (iii) the fisheries and fish processing industries, (iv) the dairy industry, (v) all other industries in Canada that will be affected by CETA, according to sectoral analyses or assessments of costs and benefits completed by the government; (b) has the government received or solicited any third party analysis on the potential impacts of CETA on any sector in Canada; (c) what is the exhaustive list of Canadian public services, at municipal, provincial, territorial and federal levels of government, to which investors would have market access, including (i) transportation infrastructure, including maritime transport, (ii) telecommunications, (iii) postal services, (iv) waste management, including wastewater, solid waste and recycling, (v) water supply networks, (vi) public transportation, (vii) electricity, (viii) education, (ix) emergency services, (x) environmental protection, (xi) health care and associated services, (xii) military, (xiii) public banking, (xiv) public broadcasting, (xv) public libraries, (xvi) public security, (xvii) public housing, (xviii) social welfare; (d) above the threshold of 200 000 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) for goods and services, 400 000 SDRs for procurement by utilities entities, and 5 million SDRs for construction services, will minimum local content policies or practices in government procurement be permitted at the municipal, provincial, territorial or federal level; (e) has the government completed a study or assessment of the economic and employment effects that procurement provisions will or may have on the ability of municipalities and provinces to tender contracts locally and, if so, what were the results of this study or assessment; (f) has the government undertaken any consultation with Canadians on CETA and, if so, (i) on what dates, (ii) in which cities, (iii) with whom did the government consult; (g) does the government plan on holding consultations with Canadians, independently of the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade, before CETA is ratified; (h) how many (i) labour, (ii) environmental, (iii) indigenous groups or individuals has the government consulted with on the potential costs, benefits and other impacts of CETA, and (i) what were the names of these groups or individuals, (ii) on what date and in which cities did the government consult with these individuals or groups, (iii) what were the results of these consultations; (i) has the government undertaken a study of the impact of having increased entrance of temporary workers and, if so, which sectors or industries has the government considered, and what are the results of these studies; (j) does the government intend to table in the House of Commons all sectoral assessments of financial and other costs and benefits, completed by Global Affairs Canada and other government departments, of the impact of CETA on Canadian industries; (k) does the government intend to table an explanatory memorandum related to CETA, as required by the Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament, (i) if so, on what date, (ii) if not, why; (l) did the ministers of Foreign Affairs and of International Trade seek an exemption to the Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament from the Prime Minister with regard to CETA and, if so, (i) on what date was the request made, (ii) in what manner, (iii) what was the rationale for the exception; (m) does the government intend to complete the final environmental assessment of CETA as required by the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposal, (i) if so, on what date, (ii) if not, why?

[International Trade, December 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, CETA will dramatically increase foreign takeovers of Canadian companies by raising the threshold for reviews from $600 million to $1.5 billion. This will apply to EU companies as well as American, Chinese, Russian, and many other foreign companies.

The EU is years away from fully ratifying CETA. Why is the government moving full steam ahead?

Instead of permitting more foreign takeovers, the Liberals should be standing up for Canadians by tightening the rules. Will the Liberals support the NDP's amendments to remove these dangerous provisions from CETA?

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Windsor West for his passionate speech here today in the House. As he is the former trade critic in our party, I thank him for all the work he has done throughout the years to ensure that we have responsible, respectful, thoughtful trade that is coming through this Parliament and that is looked at on balance.

The member for Windsor West was talking about this being a type of trade deal that we can support, and largely because this is a bilateral trade deal, we were able to sit down and advocate for Canada in the best possible way, because we were only dealing with one other country.

The way we see trade deals going forward in this country, which we are pursuing under this government and the previous government, is as large multilateral trade deals. These multilateral trade deals mean that we have to sit down and look at a whole bunch of other countries, and often, unfortunately, we seem to be getting lost inside of these deals.

I am wondering if the member would agree, as the former trade critic, that moving forward, it is important for countries to focus on bilateral deals rather than these multilateral deals that are sacrificing working class manufacturing jobs in Canada.

[Steel Industry, December 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, again, no answer from Liberals for working Canadians. When will the government start standing up for Canadian steel jobs?

China is unfairly dumping steel at prices that undercut and hurt Canadian producers. Our steel industry is urging the government to strengthen Canada's trade remedy rules. Instead, the Liberals are considering giving China market economy status, which will make it even harder for our steel producers to compete.

Why are the Liberals letting China off the hook and when will the government get serious about tackling unfair steel dumping?

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I share the concerns of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on the provisions in trade agreements. We are the most sued country in the world under chapter 11 in NAFTA. The experience has not been good for us when investors have been able to sue our country.

Initially in NAFTA, when we engaged in it, it was because of concerns about corrupt court systems in Mexico. It has not been Mexican corrupt court systems that have hurt us; it has been international corporations that have sued our government when we have attempted to legislate on behalf of all Canadians.

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is true that the minister herself has been talking about progressive trade and what that is. What we see today in CUFTA, in Bill C-31, is a bilateral agreement, an agreement that addresses labour concerns, that was tabled properly in the House, that talks about environmental assessment, and that provides all the pieces that are necessary. It also provides us with greater flexibility.

I was so pleased, when the department officials debriefed me on the bill, to know that they had created some specific language around phytosanitary and sanitary measures, because this is incredibly important to our agriculture. They told me that the reason they were able to do that in this agreement and not in others, like CETA and TPP, is that it is a bilateral agreement. It is more of an intimate conversation between two countries about what will benefit them.

The issue we have with large multinational agreements is that we become lost in the details. We end up giving up more than we are getting. We have to look at these agreements on balance. With CETA, Canadians will be paying higher costs for drugs. We will be giving up our sovereignty by having a new court system that will exist above our Supreme Court and that will be appointed by the minister.

There are so many flaws in these multilateral agreements, and it certainly is not reflective of the things we share in common with those countries. It is well known that we share great things in common with our European partners. The issue is the cost for Canadian people, Canadian jobs. There would be 30,000 jobs lost. The EU, in one of its parliamentary committees last week, said that they will not support CETA, because they are going to see 200,000 job losses.

We support CUFTA because we are able to have more leverage in our negotiations. This deal makes sense for Canadians.

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite has been in this House for quite some time past my own time here, but I would encourage him to be respectful of other members of the House, and I would appreciate that respect, please, as a member.

I would like to speak about the fact that New Democrats have supported two of the three pieces of trade legislation going through this House. As a matter of fact, I followed the procession for royal assent last night on Bill C-13. I was pleased to do so.

At the trade committee level, we have been working incredibly hard and asking difficult questions, questions the government, on the other side of this House, seems unwilling to address.

When we talk about CETA, the government will not speak about the impact on the cost of prescription drugs for Canadians. It simply will not answer. The minister herself visited the trade committee and refused to answer our questions.

Yesterday New Democrats stood proudly in this House debating a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-30, on CETA, the largest trade agreement we have entered since NAFTA. It is not just me who thinks that. The minister herself stated that in the previous Parliament.

New Democrats will always look at every aspect of a trade agreement. As for the TPP, I encourage the member opposite to read the 6,000 pages, because I can assure him, I have done so. I have done my due diligence as a parliamentarian. I have travelled with the trade committee to every province in this country and seen more than 400 people. I have held seven town halls on TPP. I promise the member that I am doing my due diligence as a parliamentarian on all trade agreements.