Wayne Stetski

[Health, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, marijuana growers in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia have formed a co-op to advance their rights. They are concerned that the government will not license growers who farm outdoors and that licensing will go only to large corporate indoor growers. Indeed, Liberals on the health committee already voted down an NDP motion to allow provinces to develop production regimes that would support local economies.

As the government moves to legalize the recreational use of cannabis, will it stand with and support economically important, small-scale outdoor farmers across Canada and ensure that they have a future, yes or no?

[Parks Canada Agency Act, October 31st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will be speaking today to Bill C-315, but I want to start by reminding the House and Canadians that today is a day of prayer for peace in Ukraine and throughout the world. Initiated in 2014, Prayer for Peace is organized to pray for an end to the undeclared but active war on the eastern boundary of Ukraine as well as an end to conflicts around the world. As members know, there are more than 1.2 million Ukrainians in Canada, and some day there may actually be a national historic site, hopefully, recognizing the contributions of Ukrainians to Canada. That is where Bill C-315 comes into play.

Bill C-315 is one of three heritage bills to be introduced in this Parliament, and it is one of the reasons why the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has been looking at heritage issues this fall. While the committee's report is not yet finalized and therefore not public, I will draw on some of the testimony the committee has heard over the last few weeks.

First, though, I would like to speak about the background to this bill. I find it interesting and hopeful, quite frankly, that the bill was introduced by a member of the Conservative Party, because it was the previous Conservative government's cuts to heritage funding that contributed to the need for this legislation.

In the 2012 federal budget, the Conservatives cut $30 million from Parks Canada's budget, much of it aimed specifically at Canada's heritage programs, and1,600 Parks Canada workers were told their jobs potentially would be cut. For the Rideau Canal, this meant shorter operating hours, longer lineups for boats waiting to get through the 23 lock stations, the possibility of higher user fees, and critical maintenance and repair work delayed or cancelled. The Rideau Canal is 202 kilometres long, stretching from Kingston to the Ottawa River just below Parliament Hill. Many communities along its route consider it a major tourist attraction and depend on the money the canal brings in from boaters and other tourists.

That is why, when the cuts were announced, the group called the Friends of the Rideau made an offer to the government that the group would fundraise and privately pay for necessary repairs. The previous Conservative government refused the group. It said there was no mechanism that allows a citizen or group of citizens to donate money to the government and have it spent on a specific heritage site. That is what Bill C-315 intends to remedy. It would allow an individual or a group to fundraise toward the upkeep for improvement of a federal heritage site and the money spent specifically on that site. The bill would also encourage donations through a tax credit.

The government's current position is that this is all possible under current legislation, but it has yet to inform the House what that mechanism is or where it can be found. In fact, when the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women spoke to this bill on October 6, he lamented that public donations, “when spread over as many as 171 national historic sites across the country...would not be enough to make a meaningful contribution to conservation efforts.” The parliamentary secretary is clearly missing the point of this bill. Bill C-315 would not encourage donations to be used in the National Parks general account, but to be targeted specifically to a single historic site of the donor's choosing. That is the mechanism currently lacking in existing legislation.

This is a small bill that would have very little if any impact on the government's finances, but would help communities and individuals like those around the Rideau Canal to ensure that heritage sites are preserved. We have 18 UNESCO World Heritage sites across Canada, including the Rideau Canal, and each of them is a source of local and national pride and a place for Canadians to visit, to learn, and to enjoy.

The study we are undertaking in the environment committee shows there is much to be done to protect heritage in Canada. In fact, the standing committee has heard that Canada is one of the few developed nations that does not have a law to protect our world heritage sites, nor do we have comprehensive legislation to protect historic sites or historic places. Therefore, we certainly hope to correct that through our study and our recommendations to the House.

The result of this gap in legislation is clear: sites like the Rideau Canal and Wood Buffalo National Park end up neglected by government until, to our national shame, UNESCO has to step in and recommend corrective actions. That is unacceptable, and it must be addressed.

While Bill C-315 would not provide all of the funding or the willpower to protect and preserve our national sites, it would give Canadians the opportunity, which does not exist under current legislation, to support those specific sites that are important to them. That is a good thing.

I am happy to support Bill C-315. It is well worth the support of all members of this chamber.

[Workplace Safety, October 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on October 17, there was a terrible tragedy in the town of Fernie in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia. Three workers, Wayne Hornquist, Lloyd Smith from Fernie, and Jason Podloski from Turner Valley, Alberta, lost their lives due to an ammonia leak at the municipal arena. Ninety five residents living near the arena were evacuated from their homes for five days. My heart goes out to the families of the workers who died and to the citizens of Fernie.

It is estimated that there are over 3,700 ice arenas and curling rinks in Canada and that 65% of them use ammonia as their refrigerant. Since 2007, there have been over 50 ammonia leaks in Canada, many resulting in injuries and deaths. Carbon dioxide systems offer a safer and more efficient alternative.

Our most important role as members of Parliament is to keep our citizens safe. I call on the federal government to work with the provinces to help municipalities phase out ammonia-based systems to ensure there are no more tragedies like the one suffered by the people of Fernie.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians do not tune in to committee proceedings, so I am wondering if my colleague would share with us some of the more important amendments that would have made a great deal of sense to be included in the bill, but which Liberal committee members voted down.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, in 2008, the Conservative government introduced tougher penalties for drunk driving, and yet in 2011, Statistics Canada noted “The rate of impaired driving increased for the fourth time in five years...and was at its highest point in a decade”, so longer sentences certainly did not seem to deter drunk driving.

I am interested in how the member thinks we can best keep Canadians safe moving forward, given it looks as if the Liberals are going to pass this, and marijuana will be legal by next July.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will again bring attention to what the opposition day motion actually says:

That, given that millions of Canadians lack prescription drug coverage, and given that overwhelming evidence, including from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, has concluded that every Canadian could be covered by a universal pharmacare program while saving billions of dollars every year, the House call on the government to commence negotiations with the provinces no later than October 1, 2018, in order to implement a universal pharmacare program.

Nobody would disagree with the fact that millions of Canadians lack prescription drug coverage. We have heard a lot of interesting facts presented in the chamber over the course of the last couple of years. I would like to think the PBO is about as good as it is going to get for reliable information.

Earlier we heard questions about the federal government negotiating with the provinces. October 1, 2018, is a very generous date for the government to implement a universal pharmacare program. I think everybody is on board; they just do not realize it.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, we have had an interesting discussion today with my colleagues across the floor and down the way. They seem to be looking for reasons why they should not support the motion. They say that they are not really sure the parliamentary budget officer has it right. They claim to be already looking at this in committee. Nothing has been put on the floor by any other party that would provide a reason not to support the motion.

The committee is heading in this direction anyway, yet you talk about taking a collegial approach to a resolution. A collegial approach would be supporting the motion. It really is quite simple.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

Last Saturday, I attended the Forever Young Seniors Expo in Cranbrook, in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia. It was a wonderful event organized by Kootenay CARP in celebration of National Seniors Day. I spoke to many seniors at the event and to many advocates on seniors issues. There certainly are many issues facing retired people today. CARP, which is the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, has a list of 10 advisory items that it wants the members of the House to address. Let me go over them briefly.

The first is retirement income security. Pensions and the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS, must increase. As members heard in a question I asked earlier this week, it is essential the government consider how critical it is for payments like GIS to be made consistently, every month. Many Canadians do not have enough savings to carry them beyond one month if they miss a cheque. However, every time the Canada Revenue Agency decides to review a case or make a change to a file, it stops the monthly payments that many of our seniors depend on, including for buying prescription drugs. This leaves seniors and other pensioners forced to choose between their rent, groceries, and prescription medications. Consistency is important, and so is the amount of income pensioners receive.

CARP's second item is the transformation of our health care system. It recognizes that reductions in federal health transfers to the provinces are putting undue pressure on the entire system. At the same time, private clinics are working through the courts to overturn our cherished universal health care. This is extremely worrisome to today's seniors.

Improved home care is another program that would save Canadians money. CARP points out that we need to do everything we can to keep seniors in their homes by supporting everything from Meals on Wheels to the United Way's better at home program. Improved home care would keep many seniors out of hospital, freeing up expensive hospital beds. It would provide better services for seniors, while reducing wait times and health care costs.

Prescription medication also impacts hospital times. I will get to that a bit more a little later.

Linked to home care, CARP wants to see better support for caregivers, which is why the NDP's push for a $15 an hour minimum wage is so important. It would help ensure caregivers earn better pay.

CARP's sixth point is better opportunities for older workers—other than running for political office, of course.

The seventh on the list is to make our cities more age-friendly by improving accessibility for people who use wheelchairs and walkers.

Investor protection is also on CARP's list. It gives an example of a 93-year-old woman who was able to negotiate a mortgage, but the bank refused life insurance protection. That is simply not acceptable.

The NDP has spoken often of the need for improved end-of-life care. We support a national palliative care strategy to accompany the current physician-assisted suicide laws. We are pleased to see that CARP has made end-of-life care a priority.

Similarly, and as part of a national mental health strategy, CARP asks for a national dementia care strategy. As Canada's senior population grows larger, the incidence of dementia grows larger as well. Now is the time to respond better to this health care crisis.

I skipped over one of CARP's top priorities, but it is the issue that brings us here today, which is the need for a universal pharmacare program.

Let me take a quick moment to read our motion again for those who may have just tuned in at home. It states:

That, given that millions of Canadians lack prescription drug coverage, and given that overwhelming evidence, including from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, has concluded that every Canadian could be covered by a universal pharmacare program while saving billions of dollars every year, the House call on the government to commence negotiations with the provinces no later than October 1, 2018, in order to implement a universal pharmacare program.

Many of my NDP colleagues have already covered the basic issues: we are the only nation that has universal health care that does not include universal pharmacare, and a pharmacare program would save money. The parliamentary budget officer made that very clear this week with a groundbreaking report that said Canadians can have a universal pharmacare system for billions of dollars less than we now pay for prescriptions. In fact, the PBO estimates conservatively that Canadians would save $4.2 billion a year with a national pharmacare system.

Here is the kicker. I think the PBO got it wrong. When I read the PBO's report, I see it missed an important reason why pharmacare would save money. Let me explain.

We know that many doctors will keep patients in hospitals longer, including seniors, because they need to take prescription medications and patients in hospitals get their medications for free. They are covered under health care in every province. However, the moment patients are released, they have to buy their own medications. Doctors know that many patients do not have private insurance to pay for medications and that even programs that provide medications to seniors do not bear the full cost. Therefore, patients who are released from the hospital may or may not keep taking the life-saving medications they need. As a result, doctors often keep these patients in the hospital longer than they would otherwise need to be there. There is a cost to this.

According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, hospital care in Canada costs about $63 billion a year. On average, the cost of a hospital stay is about $6,000 per day. This is a significant cost, and it could be a significant saving. Introducing a national pharmacare program would lower the health care costs for taxpayers while at the same time freeing up hospital beds and reducing wait times for patients. That is a win-win-win situation. The PBO's excellent report did not include these savings. Therefore, we can assume that the $4.2 billion each year that it estimates Canadians would save would be higher.

The PBO's report was not the first to state the benefits Canada would receive if we adopt a universal pharmacare program. Speaking lightly, I might suggest that the PBO got it wrong. However, the report was incredibly well thought out and extremely important. It tells us that pharmacare would have significant savings for Canadians because of the increased spending power it would offer. A single buyer for all medications in Canada would be able to negotiate with the drug companies to push the costs of medications down. The report estimates that Canadians can negotiate savings of 25% over what we are now paying for drugs. However, in Quebec, the province just negotiated a 40% savings. Therefore, the cost savings to Canadians may prove to be much more than the PBO estimated.

There is an urgent need for pharmacare. Yesterday, I met with some of my constituents from Cranbrook and Nelson here in Centre Block. Some of them are nurses. One of them is on multiple medications. They all said how important this was to them.

Canada currently has the second highest rate of skipped prescriptions due to cost among comparable countries. One in five Canadians report that either they or a family member neglect to fill prescriptions due to cost. In the past, my home province of B.C. has had the highest levels of problems accessing prescription drugs, with 29% of citizens, mostly the young, the elderly, and the poor, unable to afford necessary prescriptions. Of course, we pay some of the highest prescription drug prices in the industrialized world. Therefore, we know the problem, we know the solution, and we just need the political will.

The Angus Reid Institute recently completed a poll that found 91% of Canadians support the introduction of a universal pharmacare program. There are many supporters of pharmacare, including Canadian Doctors for Medicare, the Canadian Diabetes Association, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation. All of them have said that having a national pharmacare system is important to the health of Canadians.

Nationally, highly respected organizations that work for better care in Canada support pharmacare, doctors support pharmacare, and 91% of Canadians support pharmacare. Today I ask my colleagues on all sides of this chamber when they will join them and support pharmacare as well. This is an excellent time for you to do that.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, October 4th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Vancouver Quadra for her comments. We had the pleasure of working together under the provincial government when we both were with the Province of B.C. some time ago.

I really am very concerned when I look at law enforcement across Canada and see where things are today. There is the RCMP's yellow stripe campaign. Border services officers are three years without a contract. Corrections officers are almost four years without a contract. Our own parliamentary officers are currently starting their quiet protest again by wearing green hats. I see all these men and women who are so dedicated to keeping us safe struggling with collective agreements. I really would like to see the minister take it very seriously and try to reach resolutions to all these outstanding issues and contracts.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, October 4th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, much has changed since I asked my question about Bill C-7 last spring. The government accepted the Senate's amendments to the bill, and the legislation came into force last week.

However, the problems at the RCMP and at other federal law enforcement agencies across the country have not changed at all. In my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, at least two of our detachments are at 50% of their full complement. Many others are short-staffed and are working with outdated equipment.

Why is this so? It is because under the previous Conservative government and continuing with the current Liberal government, budget cuts have been aimed squarely at RCMP members on the ground. The Conservatives even increased the amount RCMP officers had to pay for their medical benefits.

In New Brunswick last week, we saw the RCMP itself convicted of failing to provide its members with the weapons and training needed when responding to an active shooter tragedy. That failure contributed to the loss of three officers, and resulted in other officers being injured.

The RCMP is losing members to provincial and municipal forces where they receive better pay, better equipment, and better treatment. It takes incredible commitment for any officer to stay with a force that cuts their benefits, and will not keep up with critical equipment and training needs or offer them the respect they so rightly deserve. I thank them for their commitment.

Until the passage of Bill C-7, the RCMP was the only police force in Canada not to be unionized, and even with the bill's passing, RCMP members will be forbidden from taking their grievances to the Public Service Labour Relations Board and from engaging in negotiating tactics such as strikes.

Sadly, the lack of respect paid to our RCMP officers is not an isolated situation. I spoke recently about our border security officers, who have been without a contract for more than three years and whom the government refuses to recognize as federal law enforcement officers. Canada's corrections officers have gone without a contract for almost four years. They were recently on Parliament Hill lobbying for treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. The federal government, however, does not consider them to be first responders and will not require provinces to pay for their PTSD treatment where it is currently not offered.

Right here, a few feet from where we are sitting in the House of Commons, officers of the Parliamentary Protective Service, those women and men who work to protect us and our visitors, are once again protesting the government's refusal to negotiate a new contract with them in good faith.

Last spring, our parliamentary officers signed an agreement to back off on their quiet protests in exchange for fair negotiations. Oddly, that happened just in time for the Canada 150 celebration here on the Hill. However, the government now refuses to negotiate in good faith, and we are once again seeing these officers wearing green hats to protest their treatment.

There is a crisis in federal law enforcement, a crisis made by successive Conservative and Liberal governments who have refused to honour all those officers who put their lives on the line for us, every day. It is unacceptable to those officers. It is unacceptable to Canadians. I would hope that it is unacceptable to the members of the House and to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.