Private Members Bill - ENVI Committee (Bill C-374)

Audio Block

Double-click here to upload or link to a .mp3. Learn more

Go Team Tardi!

Petition (Paris Agreement)

Bill S-210

Heritage Week & International Mother Languages Day

Statement in the House of Commons celebrating Heritage Week and International Mother Languages Day

Mr. Speaker,

Today is a very special day. Not only is it the second day of Canada’s Heritage Week, it is also recognized by the global community as International Mother Languages Day.

Heritage Week was created to celebrate the unique value of Canada’s built heritage. These are the roots and places that tell this country’s story and from coast to coast to coast, I’m sure we can all think of an historic building worth preserving.

Today is also an opportunity to appreciate Canada’s cultural heritage. In 1999, UNESCO recognized February 21st as International Mother Languages Day to celebrate the linguistic heritage of peoples across the world.

This effort would have been impossible without the  efforts of the Vancouver-based organization, Mother Language Lovers of the World, and Mr. Abdus Salam, a founding member whose family now lives in my riding of Cloverdale-Langley City.

I would like to commend Mr. Salam for his tireless efforts and join him in celebrating our country’s linguistic diversity.

Thank You.

Debate on Bill C-37 and our Government's Response to the Opioid Crisis

Highlights from debate on Bill C-37 and our Government's response to the national opioid crisis on behalf of Cloverdale - Langley City - February 14, 2017.

Full statement on Bill C-37 and our Government's response to the national opioid crisis on behalf of Cloverdale - Langley City - February 14, 2017.

Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related amendments to other Acts. This Bill is part of the Government of Canada’s comprehensive approach to drug policy; one that strikes a balance between public health and public safety.

Last year in my province of British Columbia, over 900 people died of drug overdoses. This was an 80% increase from 2015 and we now know that the opioid “fentanyl” was disproportionately responsible for these deaths. As the medical community has known for some time, and as the general public is becoming increasingly aware of, fentanyl is a difficult drug to combat. When used legitimately, it is a powerful pain suppressor which can help people suffering acute and chronic ailments. However when used inappropriately, incredibly small doses can be fatal.

What has become evident in my community is that illicit fentanyl has become both widely available and far too easy to obtain. So today I stand in this House not only for my riding of Cloverdale-Langley City or as a British Columbian, but for all Canadians who have been, or may be affected by the opioid crisis.

Central to the Government of Canada’s efforts to help individuals and communities affected by the current drug emergency is the reintroduction of harm reduction as an integral part of our country’s narcotic strategy. This Bill includes changes to streamline the application process for new supervised consumption sites, which I believe is not simply a compassionate course of action, but a responsible and evidence-based decision which has been proven to save lives.

This important public health initiative will be partnered with the recently announced “Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy.” The Strategy is built on four pillars: prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement, which will be grounded in a strong evidence base to bring about a decrease in both the manufacturing and consumption of illicit opioids, and the tragic instance of overdose deaths across our country.

The Government knows that while we must address the public health perspective in dealing with the crisis at hand, we must also deal with the illicit drug supply issue. That is why Bill C-37 addresses problematic drug use from all sides and includes proposals to respond to controlled substances obtained through illicit sources.

Canada’s drug control laws are centred on the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, also known as “the CDSA”. This Act serves a dual purpose of protecting public health and maintaining public safety.

The CDSA provides controls over drugs that can alter mental processes and that may result in harm to one’s health… and to society when misused. This is done by regulating the legitimate use of controlled substances and prohibiting unlawful activities such as import, export and trafficking of controlled substances and precursors.

As I discussed earlier, problematic and illegal substance use, coupled with an illicit drug supply that has become increasingly more dangerous has led to a spike in overdoses and deaths. This risk is especially pertinent to fentanyl, given its extreme potency and difficulty to detect in other so-called “recreational drugs.”

Our Government is committed to protecting public health and safety by curbing production and trafficking of banned substances. Bill C-37 would amend the CDSA to provide the necessary tools to do so.

At the end of 2016, the Government of Canada added six fentanyl precursors to the list of controlled substances under the CDSA to help address the illegal production of fentanyl and related drugs. If passed, Bill C-37 would provide a wider array of effective tools to fight the illegal production and trafficking of all dangerous narcotics, including fentanyl and carfentanil.

In addition, many overdoses have come as a result of ingesting drugs that appear identical to legitimately produced pharmaceuticals. These drugs are made without adequate controls and often contain unpredictable amounts of high potency, and potentially lethal, substances such as fentanyl and carfentanil. Essential to making these illegal drugs are pill presses and encapsulator devices and illegal producers can turn out thousands of counterfeit pills or capsules in a very short time. This presents a significant risk to public health and safety.

That being said, pill presses and encapsulators are also used in legitimate manufacturing processes in the pharmaceutical, food and consumer product industries. This is why a registration system is being proposed, whose new requirement would impose minimal burden on legitimate manufacturers.

Importers of pill presses and encapsulators devices would simply have to register with Health Canada prior to bringing these devices into this country. Importation of these devices without proof of registration would be prohibited, and border officials could detain those arriving without proper registration.

Changes are also being proposed to help information sharing between Health Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency, about the importation of pill presses and encapsulators, and also with law enforcement agencies in the course of an investigation.

In addition to the registration of imported pill press and encapsulator equipment, C-37 would broaden the scope of “pre-production activities” associated with the production of illegal drugs. Pre-production activities include buying and assembling chemical ingredients or industrial equipment with the intention of using it to make illicit narcotics. The offences and punishments would be extended to capture equipment and chemicals not currently listed in the CDSA Schedules.

Bill C-37’s proposed amendments to the Customs Act would also allow border officials to open incoming international mail weighing 30 grams or less, if there are grounds to suspect it contains goods which are prohibited, controlled or regulated under another Act of Parliament. This would allow border officials to open packages that are suspected to contain substances intended for use in the production of illicit drugs, and is in response to substantial evidence that illicit drugs such as fentanyl are being brought into Canada through the postal system. While 30 grams may seem like a small amount, it is equivalent to approximately 15 thousand lethal doses of fentanyl.

The changes proposed in Bill C-37 are an important part of the Government’s multi-faceted plan to address the growing opioid crisis in Canada. The Bill would provide law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to take early action against suspected drug production operations and to respond to the ever-changing illicit drug market.

At the end of 2016, news of over ten overdose deaths in one night in British Columbia highlighted an already alarming, and tragic situation and the opioid crisis has not gone away with the beginning of the New Year. Instead, it gets worse as hard-working emergency responders and public health officials struggle to keep up with the increasing number of those afflicted. Unfortunately, I witness this challenge in my own riding of Cloverdale-Langley City, one of Canada’s communities most affected by the opioid crisis. Sadly, my constituents are not alone in facing this issue.

As we in this House study legislation from day-to-day, we must often ask ourselves: “what will be the direct result of this legislation, this action?” With Bill C-37, we have an opportunity to pass legislation that will directly save lives. There is currently tremendous work being done to combat this issue, such as the RCMP’s Surrey Outreach Team, who have been effective in addressing addiction and homelessness issues in our local community. This task force responded to 55 overdoses in just two weeks, and have continued saving lives in the City of Surrey. While the individual efforts of police detachments and public health officials has resulted in positive results at the local level, these front-line responders need federal assistance, and a national framework to tackle the issue.

The sooner Bill C-37 becomes law in Canada, the sooner it can help those most afflicted by this ongoing public health emergency. I trust that all Members of this House understand the importance of this Bill and hope that they will support it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A Cloverdale - Langley City Family Reunited

A heartwarming thank you to everyone who helped reunite a Cloverdale - Langley City family - June 13, 2016

"Mr. Speaker,

Soon after being elected last October, I came to learn of the plight of many Canadian families who had adopted children from the Democratic Republic of Congo, but faced obstacles that prevented the families from uniting.

By the end of March of this year, Rachelle and Marie, ages eight and four, were the only two Canadian children left in the Democratic Republic of Congo without exit permits in place. These sisters faced extraordinary challenges in their efforts to join their parents in Canada.

I am pleased to inform this House that due to the relentless work of our government, Rachelle and Marie are now united with their new parents and living safely and happily in my riding of Cloverdale—Langley City.

I would like to thank the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Canada, their parliamentary secretaries, departmental officials, and especially Senator Mobina Jaffer and Ambassador Ginette Martin for their dedication to the successful completion of this file.

Bienvenue au Canada, Rachelle et Marie!"

The Komagata Maru Apology

Speaking in the House of Commons on the significance of the Komagata Maru apology - May 19, 2016

"Mr. Speaker,

Yesterday marked an important moment in the history of this country. It recognized that Canada does not have a perfect history, that we have on occasion, stumbled, and been unjust. It also recognizes the importance of healing wounds; that being an example to the rest of the world must necessarily entail admitting to our own wrongdoings. That we must address head-on when our nation has fallen short of its potential.

The Komagata Maru incident was a dark moment in our history that should be a shame to all Canadians and remains deeply painful to Indo-Canadians to this day. But it is also a reflection of how we have changed, opened and become more tolerant in a Canada that is welcoming to all.

To the victims and their descendants, thank you for your patience and the endurance you have shown through this dark episode in our history.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

Debate on Budget 2016 (Bill C-15)

Debating Budget 2016 (Bill C-15) on behalf of Cloverdale - Langley City - May 9 & 10, 2016

"Madame Speaker,

I rise in the house today in support of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

The much-anticipated, much-needed Budget 2016 is an essential step to grow the middle class and revitalize the Canadian economy. Budget 2016 has received a positive response from my constituents, I have received some questions, and I`ll address these to begin.

The first measures I will be speaking to are the elimination of the Children’s Arts Tax Credit and the Child Fitness Tax Credit.

These tax credits only benefit families who can afford to enroll their children in Arts and Fitness programs, which is not the case for many Canadians. When families do not have the money, the tax credit does not matter. We are committed to taking an approach to help working families. The cost of raising a family was the top issue raised during the campaign and continues to be a top priority in my riding. This bill offers true help to 9 out of 10 families.

I will now speak to some of the positive elements of this bill that resonate with my constituents.

The Canada Child Benefit is a new measure that will begin in July 2016 and will provide simpler, tax-free, monthly financial benefits to eligible families. The CCB will help those who cannot afford to put their children in extracurricular programs. It will give them the option of enrolling their children in programs that would otherwise be financially out of reach. Families who could not enroll their children in arts and fitness programs will now have that chance.

Our Government’s measures for families with children, combined with the middle class tax cut, will provide these families with additional net-after-tax benefits of approximately $14 billion during the 2015/16 to 2020/21 period.

The Canada Child Benefit will replace existing federal child benefits to provide Canadian families with the additional help that is required with the high cost of raising children. The CCB will provide a maximum benefit of up to $6400 per child under the age of 6 and up to $5400 per child aged 6 through 17 for families who need it the most. And high income earners will have their assistance reduced, even eliminated. This is good public policy.

Approximately 9 out of 10 families will receive more under the CCB than under the current system of child benefits. Ultimately, about 3.5 million families will benefit from the CCB, with an average increase of approximately $2300 annually.

As stated by Rob Carrick of the Globe and Mail “The new Canada Child Benefit is a solid win over existing programs in both dollar terms and ease of use. The money is tax-free, so it won’t have to be accounted for when completing your income tax return every year.”

In addition, the CCB will help raise nearly 300,000 children out of poverty by 2017, but it doesn’t end there, Budget 2016 will continue to support poverty reduction in future years. As stated by Anita Khanna, the national coordinator of Campaign 2000 “this is a historic step forward in the battle against child poverty in Canada that is long overdue and long called-for by Campaign 2000 and other groups.” 

In line with providing support for the majority of Canadians, Budget 2016 proposes to eliminate the income splitting credit for families. This initiative provides a better solution for helping those who need it the most. We learned during the campaign that many couples did not benefit. Our programs are more equitable. And I must note that income splitting for seniors remains.

The second aspect of Budget 2016 that I will be speaking to is the introduction of the School Supplies Tax Credit.

Educators often, at their own expense, purchase supplies for the benefit of our children, so it is only fair that they are compensated for it. Budget 2016 introduces a 15% refundable income tax credit that will apply on up to $1000 of eligible supplies. Teachers and early childhood educators will be able to use this credit for the purchase of eligible supplies for use in a school or in a regulated child care facility for the purpose of teaching or otherwise enhancing students’ learning in the classroom or learning environment. This initiative will provide a benefit of about $140 million over the 2015-16 to 2020-21 period.  

...

Mr. Speaker, in continuing to address Bill C-15, it is not every day that I begin by speaking about feminine hygiene products. Yet this is an important issue for all Canadians in redressing unequal taxation of essential goods. Currently, feminine hygiene products are subject to GST and HST as goods which are considered to be non-essential. Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree this is a misguided policy and if not sexist, it is at least based entirely outside the experience of Canadians. I’m proud to say that Bill C-15 will rectify this disproportionate taxation of women, by removing the GST/HST on feminine hygiene products.

The next measure of Budget 2016 that I will address is Division 2 of Part 4, which amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. I wish to highlight 5 key improvements:

First, this bill will replace the “permanent impairment allowance” with the “career impact allowance” to better support veterans who have had their career options limited by a service-related illness or injury.

Secondly it increases the percentage in the formula used to calculate the earnings loss benefit. This benefit will provide income replacement of 90% of gross pre-release military salary for injured veterans who are participating in a Veterans Affairs Canada’s rehabilitation or vocational assistance program for those who have injuries preventing them from suitable and gainful employment. The benefit will also keep up with inflation and not be capped at 2% indexation.

Third, the Act will specify when a disability award becomes payable and clarify the formula used to calculate the amount of a disability award.

Fourth, the disability award will be indexed to inflation, in line with other New Veterans Charter benefits, and Higher Awards will be paid retroactively to all veterans who have received an Award since the introduction of the New Veterans Charter in 2006.

And fifth, the act also improves the Last Post Fund to provide financial assistance to the estates of eligible deceased veterans towards the cost of burial and funeral services. The estate exemption for families of low-income veterans will also be increased from roughly $12,000 to $35,000.

Canada’s veterans deserve our care, compassion and respect. The above measures would greatly improve income support to disabled veterans, including both veterans transitioning to the civilian workforce and those with injuries preventing them from suitable and gainful employment. However, our government’s support for veterans does not stop there. Over the next year, in consultation with the Veterans’ community, the Government will work to find a way to better streamline and simplify the system of financial support programs currently offered by Veterans Affairs Canada and National Defence for veterans and their families.

In addition to helping young Canadians, middle-class families, and our respected Veterans, the Government is committed to supporting Canada’s seniors.

Single seniors are at nearly 3 times the risk of living at a lower income than seniors generally, which is why Budget 2016 aims to increase the single rate of the guaranteed income supplement for the lowest-income pensioners by up to $947 annually. This enhancement more than doubles the current maximum Guaranteed Income Supplement top-up benefit and represents a 10% increase in the total maximum Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits available to the lowest-income single seniors.

Additionally, Budget 2016 will repeal section 2.2 of the Old Age Security Act, which increases the age of eligibility, from 65 to 67, to receive Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement Benefits.

Budget 2016 also addresses a concern that some of my constituents have brought forward; requests for additional support for senior couples living apart. Many times senior couples have to live apart for reasons beyond their control, including long-term health care, resulting in higher costs of living, and an increased risk of living in poverty. The current system provides recipients with Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits based on their individual incomes, but Budget 2016 will extend this treatment so couples also receive Allowance benefits.

Mr. Speaker, Budget 2016 puts people first and delivers the help that Canadians need now, not in a decade from now. It is an essential step to restore prosperity to the middle class. When you have an economy that works for the middle class, you have a country that works for everyone.

Budget 2016 reflects a new approach for the government: one that offers immediate help to those who need it most, and sets the course for growth for all Canadians. With the implementation of Budget 2016, the Government of Canada invests for the years and decades to come. We invest for our seniors, our veterans, our children and grandchildren, so that we may enjoy a more prosperous and hopeful Canada."

Debate on Medical Assistance in Dying (Bill C-14)

Speaking on Medical Assistance in Dying (Bill C-14) on behalf of Cloverdale - Langley City - May 2, 2016

My statement on Medical Assistance in Dying (Bill C-14)

"Mr. Speaker,

I rise in the House today in support of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendements to other Acts, also known as Medical Assistance in Dying or MAID. In January, I was appointed to the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying and I was excited for the opportunity to be a part of the change that many Canadians have been waiting for.

Over the span of a couple of months, my fellow committee members and I spent a lot of time working to understand the complex issue of Medical Assistance in Dying. We discussed, we debated, and we even disagreed on a few issues, but in the end, we drafted a report that I felt was the best possible solution for this complex social and legal issue.

Drafting any legislation can be difficult, but it becomes especially difficult when the title includes “death or dying”. It is a topic that most of us are sensitive towards, and many have difficulty confronting.

Within the Special Joint Committee, we dealt head on with a number of difficult issues, and were immersed in them for 6 weeks. We reviewed reports by the Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying, Healthcare regulatory bodies throughout Canada, and the federal External Panel on Options for a Legislative Response to Carter v. Canada, to name a few.

We had the challenging task of grappling with a few major issues touched on by Bill C-14, which included the availability of Medical Assistance in Dying for mature minors, patients with mental illness, advance consent, conscientious objection and inevitably, ensuring that adequate safeguards were in place to protect the vulnerable.

On February 25th, the Special Joint Committee reported back to Parliament, where the Ministers of Justice and Health took the report into consideration, and began drafting Bill C-14, which is what I am here to discuss today.

Bill C-14 reflects a number of recommendations made by the Special Joint Committee, which include:

1. allowing both Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

2. being permanent residents of Canada, so as not to encourage, what some have coined as, “suicide or death tourism”

3. requiring a written request for medical assistance in dying

4. requiring 2 witnesses during the time of request

5. requiring confirmation from 2 doctors or nurse practitioners that the person making the request meets all of the criteria for MAID; and

6. requiring a mandatory statutory review

The key message I have taken from this very difficult discussion that I was part of, and that Canadians are now joining, is that this has to be a patient-centered discussion. I encourage all parliamentarians to set aside personal values and beliefs and focus on what is in the best interest of patients. Medical assistance in dying is, and should only be, about the patient.

Upon reflection of our committee work, I now realize that the committee managed to develop a higher level of comfort with this difficult topic than is held by most Canadians at this point in the public discourse on MAID. So I am glad to see that the Government took the overarching perspective of Canadians into consideration and is willing to use this legislation as a stepping stone for further studies and future re-visitation.

In the past few months I have hosted and co-hosted medical assistance in dying townhalls. I have spoken directly to my constituents. I have listened to the concerns of my constituents and of many Canadians around the country, and just last week, there was a demonstration for Bill C-14 held at my Constituency Office. I’ve heard the positive, the negative, the concerns, and the support, and although I fully support this legislation, I believe there are a few voids that have yet to be filled.

Firstly, during the demonstration last week, an important criteria, or better yet lack of criteria, of the bill was brought into question. How does one maintain safeguards when dealing with non-medical personnel? Bill C-14 ensures protections are met for non-medical personnel who participate in Medical Assistance in Dying, including those who aid a person, at that person’s explicit request, to self-administer a substance prescribed as part of the provision of MAID, by amending sections 241 of the Criminal Code, and introducing section 227 to allow MAID if the appropriate conditions are met.

But, what is being done to ensure that non-medical personnel are in fact following the guidelines required by MAID? For instance, right before the time of administering the lethal prescription, a patient must be asked whether they would like to continue with MAID, but how do we know that these independent individuals are in fact asking this question, among others? How do we know that the individual will not take advantage of the situation or the vulnerable position that the patient is in? These are questions my constituents would like to see addressed.

Secondly, I recently spoke to someone who was heavily involved in the Carter V. Canada case, who was wondering whether Kay Carter herself would have qualified for Medical Assistance in Dying given the legislation being discussed today. I’ve read articles stating that she would have been, because she met the criteria for eligibility. But would health-care practitioners consistently agree that Kay Carter would indeed have qualified under this legislation?

The part that I am finding difficult to grasp, for Kay Carter, and many others, is the ambiguity of the criterion for imminent death. How do we know that individuals will not be turned away from the service of MAID, because of the vague nature of this criterion. Who is responsible for deciding the criteria for imminent death? Will there be inconsistencies in the definition of imminent death? How will we, as society, address these?

Lastly, the hard timeline between the date of request and the day on which medical assistance in dying would be provided was yet another point of concern. Many constituents have expressed concerns that this may lead to the hastening of death, because the timeline was simply too short. The Special Joint Committee had recommended a flexible waiting period, which would depend on the nature of the illness, as opposed to just an “imminent death.” It would be suggested that imminence and competence not be the only factors in determining the timeline, but much rather “the rapidity of progression and nature of the patient’s medical condition” be used when determining the reflection period.

These are a few pieces of the proposed legislation that my constituents and I feel need to be clarified and tightened before the final legislation is created for June 6, 2016.

However, I also want to acknowledge that the legislation has done a great job of addressing a number of concerns that have been conveyed by my constituents and many others. For instance, the first misconception that I would like to clear up is that Bill C-14 does not address the conscientious objections of medical personnel. It does.

There is nothing in the proposed legislation that would compel a healthcare provider to provide medical assistance in dying or refer a patient to another medical practitioner. Balancing the rights of medical providers and those of patients is generally a matter of provincial and territorial responsibility and we need to respect that. However, that being said, the federal government has committed to work with provinces and territories to support access to medical assistance in dying, while respecting the personal convictions of health care providers.”

Bill C-14 also “recognizes the autonomy of persons who have a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes them enduring and intolerable suffering and who wish to seek medical assistance in dying,” while recognizing the importance of protecting the vulnerable and ensuring adequate safeguards are in place.

In addition to the Government’s commitment on medical assistance in dying, as suggested in Bill C-14, the government is committed to improving end of life-care services; “The Government of Canada has made a commitment to develop non-legislative measures that would support the improvement of a full range of options for end-of-life care.” It has also committed to providing $3 billion over the next 4 years to improve home care, which includes palliative care. While this may not be enough to cover the deficiencies across the country, it is definitely the beginning of a long-term approach to ensuring access to palliative care for increased numbers of Canadians.

Over the past 4 months I have encountered a wide variety of perspectives about this complex and difficult issue. Some have been extremely restrictive, while others have been extremely permissive. Some believe that the legislation goes too far, while others believe it does not go far enough.

I believe that Bill C-14 is an important first step in Canada. It is a cautious, even conservative piece of legislation but it provides a necessary first response to the Carter decision, along with a commitment to continue studying the effects and revisiting important issues of MAID in the future.

A local paper - The Langley Times did a piece on the demonstration that took place at my Cloverdale-Langley City riding office last week and stated that “Despite the contentious nature of the issue, discussions appear to have been largely respectful and constructive leading up to new federal legislation on [Medical Assistance in Dying].” So to all of my constituents who have emailed, called, attended townhalls, and everyone who has voiced their opinion on Medical Assistance in Dying in a respectful manner, thank you. I appreciate and encourage the feedback. Our government will continue to ask for your input on this and other issues.

Dr. Cindy Forbes, of the Canadian Medical Association has indicated support for Bill C-14, which she made evident in her statement on April 14th, when she said that the “…commitment to exploring mechanisms to support patient access and respect the personal convictions of health care providers will be critical to the pan-Canadian framework on medical assistance in dying. We applaud the federal government for making this commitment.”

Ultimately, when it comes to Bill C-14, I would like to see the voids found within the legislation to be addressed prior to June 6th and I intend on supporting Bill C-14. Like Dr. Forbes, I encourage my colleagues, on both sides of the House, to support the rights of Canadians, and to put patients first, by supporting Bill C-14.

Thank you Mr. Speaker."