- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Regina—Lewvan
- Saskatchewan
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $123,656.05
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-252. I will not be supporting it, for various reasons, and I am going to walk through those reasons now. A lot of people in this place are parents, and I am a parent of three young children. Jameson is six. Clare is turning eight in July, and my son Nickson is 10, and we do talk a lot about nutrition in our family. I think a very important role of a parent is to begin healthy eating habits early in life.
With respect to kids being marketed to and Health Canada wanting to pull back some marketing, it seems like Health Canada always wants to bring in more and more bans. I remember that last year we were fighting Health Canada when it was trying to make amendments to front-of-package labelling to label whole beef and whole pork as unhealthy. It did that labelling for before the whole beef or whole pork was actually cooked. Once it is cooked, it loses a lot of its trans fats; the oil drips off, and then we actually have a healthier meal. That is another example of the banning that the government, seemingly continuously, wants to do, taking more and more control over the lives of Canadians. They are just expected to listen to exactly what the government says, and I think that is a dangerous road to go down.
One thing the government was doing was talking about marketing. It struck me as funny that, as I was driving down a road in Ottawa, I saw a candy store frontage, but it was not actually a candy store; it was a cannabis store. When we talk about taking on some marketing and some advertising, maybe we should start with not allowing certain companies to actually make cannabis look like candy. It would be a really good start in this country to actually tackle some of that marketing.
When we were looking at other aspects of Bill C-252, my colleague from Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies came over and talked about why we were trying to fight against the bill in its previous iteration with Senator Greene Raine. The unintended consequence of the bill is that it would take away opportunities for sponsorship in youth sports. Timbits hockey actually sponsors 300,000 kids to play sports in Canada. When we want to have these opportunities for kids who cannot play, because sometimes sports are becoming expensive, we need sponsorship like this. Why would we take a bill that would bring forward government regulations to, and I disagree with my colleague opposite, tell parents what to feed their kids, what is healthy and what is not?
Do members know how much access we are able to have to information on ingredients in the grocery store? My wife takes our kids grocery shopping all the time, and she actually shows them the ingredients that are in the stuff they want her to buy. They look at the first ingredient, and it is sugar. She says, “Why would we buy this? It is full of sugar and it is not going to make us healthy or give us energy.” That is what parents should do; they should create healthy eating habits. The member who spoke previously, the sponsor of the bill, did say that we have to have a multi-faceted approach to kids when it comes to treating obesity and bringing obesity rates down. That approach does involve physical activity.
We have been talking about all the marketing kids are seeing, but my kids do not see a lot of marketing. They are on an iPad or a cell phone one hour a week; on Saturdays they get to play a game. The rest of the time, we go outside and play. We are very active. This weekend I was at home, and I watched six flag football games because our kids were outside. When they were not playing flag football in the league, they were practising with other kids in the park. That fights obesity. Something we should be more focused on is getting our kids outside and playing, and that is something my wife and I have, as parents, taken to heart.
Also, parents should show a healthy lifestyle to their kids. We should be role models for our kids. We do not need the government to tell us how to feed our kids and what they should and should not be doing. Parents need to be better role models across this country for their children, and I think that is something we really need to focus on. I see it time and time again when intermingling with some other parents, where the first thing their kid does is to grab their iPhone from their pocket and sit with it for an hour. We need to be more involved. That is not government's job; that is our job as parents, and it is our job as to what we should be teaching our children. This is why, when legislation like this is brought forward, I am actually quite disappointed.
This legislation is not new; it has been done in Quebec. For 40 years, this legislation has been in place in Quebec. I asked the member very directly how much the obesity rates have gone down in Quebec with this legislation. Members probably noticed that she would not give a number. She would not answer, because government legislation does not have that much of an affect on what kids are going to eat; parents do, and that is what we should be focusing on.
The member talked about $10 million in the 2023 budget for keeping kids active. When that is spread across the country, it is not a lot of money to keep Canadian youth active. However, legislation such as this has actually been done in Canada and proven not to be as helpful as some members like to say. This seems to me to be the definition of insanity: doing the same things over and over again and expecting different outcomes. I see that a lot with the government.
The government talks about marketing to children and trying to make sure that children are not affected by it, because they might respond negatively. However, we also have to teach our kids that they are going to see things in their lives, but they have to learn and be able to look at it, say that it is not for them and move on. We should actually teach our children to see marketing, look at the package on the label when grocery shopping and make the decision not to eat it and put it in their body. The government does not have to do that for parents and kids.
There are a lot of roles where I know there is not a big difference between the Liberals and the NDP members, who think that government can do nothing wrong. Over here, we think government should be less and less involved in the everyday lives of Canadians; this legislation is a perfect example of that. I do not want the government to look after me or my children from cradle to grave. I want us to be able to make our own decisions.
Kids might make mistakes. We work hard, but we are not perfect. Our kids do get the odd stomach ache from eating too much candy or too many chips, but the kids actually learn a lesson from that as well. They realize that they cannot put all this artificial food in their system, because it actually makes them feel unwell; that is a learning experience.
However, to say that the government can control what kids are going to see and control marketing is an issue. In an earlier part of my speech, I brought forward a very valid point, which is that if we want to talk about marketing to children, we need to talk about the fact that people are trying to market cannabis to children and call it a “candy shop”. We should look at tackling some of those issues, which are actually dangerous to kids, and let the parents tackle issues of healthy dietary habits, healthy habits when it comes to staying active and making sure that we are more involved in our kids' lives, day in and day out.
The government is not going to solve those problems; the government of the day definitely will not solve many problems. However, as an engaged parent and a member of society who actually wants to help out and make sure that kids are making healthier choices, I think we have to have more education system involvement when kids have phys. ed. class. Kids can quite often opt out of phys. ed. class. We have to stay active, and we have to stay motivated to make sure that we are making healthy lifestyle choices; that can be a part of it.
My Liberal colleagues have said that we need a multi-faceted approach, but maybe they can take all the effort that has been put into the bill before us into keeping kids more active. In that way, when they get older and have to make choices by themselves, they are going to stay active. They will have a healthy lifestyle, and they will have a healthier diet. This is how we are trying to train our kids so that they can make their own choices. They can read what is on the label and decide that if the first ingredients are sugar and carbonated water, it is not going to be healthy for them. However, we need to train the next generation to actually make decisions on their own, because the government cannot make every decision for them.
1654 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to speaking to this bill after questions and comments, but I have one question for the member opposite. She has said that this has been in legislation in Quebec for the last 40 years. How much lower is the obesity rate in children in Quebec since the act was legislated in that province?
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate to discuss Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness.
I do not think we would find anyone in the House who would be against being prepared for when the next pandemic comes to our country. However, we would have a different way of going about it.
Looking through the bill brought forward by the member from the government's side, there are a few questions that come to my mind right away.
One of its sections talks about agriculture and industrial agriculture. It states:
(l) after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Industry and provincial governments, provide for measures to:
(i) reduce the risks posed by antimicrobial resistance,
(ii) regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture,
(iii) promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins, and
(iv) phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species;
I do not see a definition of what those high-risk species. We have a question about that.
The section continues:
(m) include the following information, to be provided by the Minister of the Environment:
after consultation with relevant provincial ministers, a summary of changes in land use in Canada, including in relation to disturbed habitats, that could contribute to pandemic risk, such as deforestation, encroachment on wildlife habitats and urbanization and that were made, in the case of the first plan, since the last report on changes in land use published under the Federal Sustainable Development Act or, in the case of the updated plans, during the reporting period for the updated plan,
There are issues that will need discussion.
First, I would ask the member who brought the bill forward if he had discussions with the provincial and territorial health ministers already. When I read the bill, there is a lot of encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. I think some of the Bloc members would have concerns about that as well, moving to take over some of the things that should be in the province's jurisdiction.
I have another issue with respect to the agriculture file. I am on the agriculture standing committee and a few things in the bill could limit the use of agricultural land. That concerns me and the people who I represent across western Canada and in Saskatchewan. Our producers do a fantastic job with managing their land use. Part of this preparedness plan has some land use issues in it.
Talking about deforestation, one of the biggest countries that is in competition for agriculture, one that our producers compete against, is Brazil. Brazil is doing a lot of deforestation right now, putting more and more land into agriculture use. If we could use our land and produce more, we would be helping the environment on a larger scale by ensuring that other countries would not have to use deforestation. They would have to put that use of land into agriculture, which would be great for our environment.
More concerns around the pandemic preparedness act are some of the encroachments on our civil liberties. One thing that is mentioned a few times in the bill is the “one health approach”. Like many people, I did not know what one health meant, but I did get a definition from its website. It states:
One Health' is an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals and the environment. It is particularly important to prevent, predict, detect, and respond to global health threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society to work together. This way, new and better ideas are developed that address root causes and create long-term, sustainable solutions.
One Health involves the public health, veterinary, public health and environmental sectors. The One Health approach is particularly relevant for food and water safety, nutrition, the control of zoonoses (diseases that can spread between animals and humans, such as flu, rabies and Rift Valley fever), pollution management, and combatting antimicrobial resistance (the emergence of microbes that are resistant to antibiotic therapy).
On the surface, it sounds like it is a pretty good approach, but one of the concerns I would have is the loss of our own ability to get ready for the next pandemic. The problem is that the one health initiative to integrate work on human, animal and environmental issues limits our ability to look after our own Canadians citizens. This, from the WHO, is more of an overarching approach to health care and that still should be central to governments in their own countries not to have that loss of control. We need to dive into this and look a lot closer at the one-health approach.
I hear my colleague from Winnipeg North speaking. I hope he gets up on his feet today.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives are concerned with most bills the Liberals bring forward. They take a decent idea in theory, but then they over-complicate it. That is what this legislation would do and that is one of the reasons we will be unable to support it.
Also, when it comes to the Liberals' approach to the pandemic, all we have seen throughout the pandemic is a lot of money being thrown at some of the issues when it comes to programming. We have found out now from PBO that 40% of that money was not even used for pandemic services. That is a big concern for us and we believe it is one of the major factors that has been hitting inflation so hard for Canadians across the country.
The approach the Conservatives are taking is that we would like to see a little more control and a lot more consultation. I asked about the dental program that my friends across the way hail so largely. I asked the Minister of Health if he consulted with the health ministers of the provinces and territories before the Liberals brought forward the dental program. To this date, he has never answered me. I would really like to see some follow up on the consultations the member did on his private member's bill with the other jurisdictions, the municipal and provincial leaders. I would also like to know if they had any input into bill before it was tabled.
I would like to see some follow up on the consultations that were had with the appropriate health ministers and also with the agriculture ministers. The Liberals talk about agriculture, land use within agriculture and animal health, so I also wonder if the member, before putting his private member's bill forward, had discussions with all the agriculture ministers across the country as well since they are talking about changes to land use in agriculture land.
I have not heard whether the member spoke to the Saskatchewan agriculture minister. I wonder if there were any conversations with those ministers. When we talk about consultation, we talk about working together in other governmental jurisdictions, with provincial, territorial and municipal leaders. I believe the government has failed on those consultations many times. I wonder if this is another stack of failed consultations that should have been done before the bill was brought forward.
I look forward to hearing other speeches and whether other members will or will not support the bill. I am happy to stand and lay out some of the reasons why I feel the government does not have the capacity to be prepared for the next pandemic. I hope that we can work together with our provincial and municipal leaders to ensure we have things in place. The Conservatives believe that we have to be ready for the next pandemic, but we do not think this bill would get the job done.
1332 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will take no lessons from members of the NDP, who have left behind working people all across the country. That party is going to get decimated in the next federal election.
I will talk to federal ministers because they are the people who should actually run health care programs. I will talk to federal ministers because they are the people who actually should be in charge of the environment. If the NDP members were to respect provincial jurisdiction, maybe they would not get wiped out in the next federal election because, as I said before, they are about as relevant as a Blockbuster video store right now. That is to their peril, because they have left all the hard-working Canadians behind and they really support no one anymore.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants. I appreciate it. I do have a better side, so hopefully that is caught with the camera angle this time.
I was saying that 70% of Canadians do have dental coverage. There are two jurisdictions in the country that do not have it right now for low-income people, and they are Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. These are instances where I would ask if the consultations were done. I want to put that on the record because I think it is very important.
When we are talking about programs, one of the things that could have been on the table, if the proper consultation had been done, could have been to help top up the provincial programs instead of recreating a federal program. If there were consultations with provincial ministers, that could have part of the discussions on the table, and the price tag of this program could have been substantially less if that consultation would have been done because it could have helped with the provincial programs.
Another thing that could have been talked about is what the provincial programs would look like going forward and where they needed the most help. From my point of view, $10 billion is still a lot of money.
In Saskatchewan, some of the struggles we are having in health care are in the recruitment and retention of doctors and nurses. They are a very important part of our health care. One of the things our provincial government is focused on is recruiting 1,000 more health care workers because that is where they see a need. That is where consultations become a very important part of the discussion about this program.
Another thing I find interesting, and the hon. member for Abbotsford brought this up, is that we are talking about a government that had trouble running a $54-million ArriveCAN app and it now wants to try and run a $10-billion dental program. We are talking about a government that had a tough time running passport offices. We are talking about a government that had a difficult time trying to make sure that the proper funding was going out during COVID-19 with the CERB and CEBA cheques.
I realize why they want this federal program rolled out. We have a Prime Minister who has a perpetual white knight syndrome. He always has to come in and be the hero of the story. There could be other options out there with provincial colleagues trying to make sure that we bring forward a program that our provinces and federal government agreed on together, but that would mean that our Prime Minister would not be able to take all the credit.
Sometimes it is not about doing the right thing, but it is about being recognized as a hero and that is one of the problems our Prime Minister has. He always wants to play the hero. Halloween is coming up. We saw him dress up as Superman. It is something that strikes a chord. I do not think that was an outfit. I think that was a career choice.
One of the problems is I believe that if there is too much consultation with our provincial colleagues and we just had the money go into a more provincially dominated program, the feds would not get the credit. I hope that is not the case because we should all be here to do the right thing for the people of our country and the citizens who need help the most.
I want to talk about something my colleague from Abbotsford said. He is a very wise and experienced colleague. Everyone in the House, I believe, wants to have better health care outcomes. I do not think there is a person in the chamber who does not want to make sure that Canadians are getting the health care they deserve. We are having this conversation, and kids, the most vulnerable, are getting all of proper health care they deserve, which will help them have healthier lives. They will, therefore, be better off in the future.
Right now, we are discussing if we are doing the proper consultations. I think that is an important question we need answered by the federal government, the health minister and people speaking tonight. If this were such an important program, why was this not brought up at the federal-provincial-territorial meetings? Why were the provincial health ministers not consulted?
One thing I will put on the table and let sit there for a few minutes is that when this backroom deal, this costly coalition, was signed, members on this side asked how much this deal was going to cost the Liberal government to make sure that it has the NDP support until 2025. What is the final bill for the taxpayers of Canada?
This is just a start. This is a $10-billion down payment on making sure that the Liberals are in government until 2025 with the support of the NDP. The problem I see is that there is another two years, and I do not know how much more debt is going to be compiled.
Canadians do not believe it, but this government has wracked up more debt than all other governments in Canadian history. I do not know how much more it is going to cost to keep this Liberal government in power until 2025. This is only the tip of the iceberg in making sure that the costly coalition is in power until 2025. Canadians cannot afford it. One thing I understand is that the more this government spends, the more the Canadian taxpayer has to pay.
955 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate on Bill C-31. I have a few comments to put on the record.
Throughout the debate today, I asked some questions of some of my Liberal colleagues, and they have not really come up with an answer, so I am going delve a bit deeper into the question on the consultations that were done with the provincial health ministers before this piece of legislation was brought to the floor of the House of Commons.
I also heard a comment from the Liberal member for Vancouver Granville about how the government has done some of the best consultations with health ministers ever of any government, which from my standpoint, is a bit of a stretch.
Before I had the honour of being a member of Parliament, I was also a member of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. I still have some friends and good colleagues there, one of whom happens to be the current health minister, Minister Paul Merriman, of Saskatchewan. During the debate today, I took the time to send Minister Merriman a text asking him how much consultation had been done with provincial health ministers regarding the dental program we are discussing on the floor of the House of Commons today. He stated that they have had zero discussions at his level with the feds and there was nothing with his officials that he know of either. It has not been on the agenda at any FPT meetings.
Therefore, when some of my colleagues and hon. friends from the other side of the House talk about consultations, I would like them to make sure that what they are saying is factual and that they have had the proper consultations, because I think that is an important part of this bill and something that should have been done before we talked about a $10-billion program. This is not a one-time program, but an ongoing operational program worth $10 billion a year from here on out.
As we know, with inflation running rampant right now, one of the big things we hear from non-partisan economists is that the Canadian government has to get spending under control. We are sitting here discussing a $10-billion program, when this should be a discussion with the provinces because health care is a provincial jurisdiction.
We know that we send transfer payments to the provinces, but when I asked what the priorities for health care were, a member of the NDP talked about it as being one of the priorities. I asked what the top priorities in health care would be for provinces, and he also tried to put different words in my mouth. What I had asked was this: If there were a wish list for health ministers across this country, would a federal dental program be at the top of that wish list if the government was going to spend $10 billion? With a $10-billion price tag, is a dental program what they would have asked for? I asked this question because 70% of Canadians have dental coverage.
520 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have asked a question a couple of times today, and I still have not gotten a satisfactory answer, so my question for the member who was just on his feet is this: Has he consulted with the B.C. health minister? The health minister would not answer this question, but has anyone in his party talked to any provincial health minister in the country who has said that this $10-billion program is at the top of their wish list? We all know health is provincial jurisdiction. I would like an answer from someone on that side about whether they consulted with the provincial health ministers about this program before they brought it to the floor of the House of Commons.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
