So V ote

Mar/19/24 6:44:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. In accordance with Standing Order 43(2)(a), I would ask that all periods of debate for Liberal members be divided in two.

32 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Mar/19/24 5:52:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's remarks and the amendment. It follows from the debate we had at second reading. I was clear at second reading when I said that the core of this bill is the plan. We need legislation passed in this House to ensure that all future governments take every step possible to prepare for the next pandemic and, ideally, take steps to reduce pandemic risks to prevent the next pandemic. The review body, the advisory body, was not intended to have some searching, backward-looking accountability function. It was intended to ensure that experts come together to learn lessons and inform the plan. In conversations with colleagues subsequently and even at second reading debate, I was clear that this was not a hill I was going to die on. The core of this is accountability to Parliament for every future government to ensure that every three to five years, which I said I was open to as an amendment too, the government comes back and tables the plan and improves the plan. This would ensure we are doing everything we can, knowing that the costs of prevention and preparedness pale in comparison to the human and economic costs, the costs we just lived through and the costs that our kids are likely to live through in relation to the next pandemic. To be clear, I do not subscribe to all that my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway has said. I do not suggest that this is a whitewash. The idea was for experts to come together to inform a plan. However, I am nothing if not pragmatic, and I would like this bill to pass. I think it is incredibly important that the core of it passes and that we see serious thought go into a whole-of-government approach. We talked about that. This bill sets out specific ministerial responsibilities to inform the plan. The bill is informed by and worked on by the intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystems and its report on preventing the next pandemic. It is informed by UNEP's report on preventing the next pandemic. It is informed by the Independent Panel's report on pandemic preparedness. The core of this, the most important part of it, is that there is a plan in place, tabled in Parliament, to prepare for and prevent the next pandemic, that future governments ensure that plans are tabled to improve upon those efforts and that there be accountability to this House. It is not that PHAC and the government would do this work separately. There would be accountability to the Canadian public on an ongoing basis. We know, having seen what took place post-SARS, that there was a lot of good work to make recommendations and some good work to implement those recommendations, although not fully and by no means completely, and then the public lost interest. We moved on to other things and were not as prepared as we could and should have been. This bill would remedy that. It would ensure that every future government takes these serious obligations as seriously as they should. I certainly accept the amendment. I do not accept the characterization of the advisory body, but if removing the advisory body and that particular review is what it takes to get the core of the bill passed, that accountability to Parliament on a pandemic preparedness and prevention plan, then so be it. Let us get the amendment passed and let us get this bill to the Senate.

590 words

Mar/19/24 4:50:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question because the answer is no. In fact, the Financial Times had an article the other day that said that insurance premiums are a hidden carbon price and that we are going to pay for climate action one way or the other. What I would put to my Conservative friends is, if we are going to pay one way or the other, surely we want to harness the power of the free market and pay as little as we possibly can.

87 words

Mar/19/24 4:49:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, there is a comprehensive climate plan. It touches on many different areas. The price on pollution is responsible for a huge number of emission reductions when we look at the plan up to 2030, and it is responsible for between 23% and 30% of the overall plan. If we were to axe the tax, it would cost a lot to replace those significant emission reductions. That is if, on a threshold question, someone cared. If they do not care, then they should be honest about it and say they do not care. As to what we are doing otherwise, there are many different things. There are investments in public transit. There are investments in clean tech. There are rules on methane emissions. Yes, there are rules forthcoming, regulations that are being debated right now, around an emissions cap on oil and gas.

150 words

Mar/19/24 4:48:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in my last two budget submissions, I spoke to excess profit taxes. We have seen them on banks and insurance companies. We have seen them from U.K. Conservatives on oil and gas. It is absolutely a conversation we should have in the House. U.K. Conservatives were, I think at one point, models for Conservatives here until they lost their way, but if U.K. Conservatives have put this in place, then there is no reason we cannot have that debate and put it in place here as well.

92 words

Mar/19/24 4:46:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, 90% of the dollars go directly back to households. On the revenue neutrality, 100% of revenues go back to provinces of origin: 90% goes to households directly and the other 10% goes into businesses, municipalities and— An hon. member: It does not. Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith: Mr. Speaker, there is that other 10%, and there is a credible debate to be had as to whether that 10% should be allocated the way it has been allocated. I would argue that, if there were a vote in the House, and members are free to bring forward the motion, I would vote for 100% revenue neutrality, but when they want to axe it entirely, it is a joke of a motion. I will vote that down every time.

135 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Mar/19/24 4:36:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will get to the conversation around pricing pollution, but I want to start with a threshold question that we all have to answer: Do members care to take action to save our planet? Do they care to reduce emissions for our kids? Do they care? If the answer is yes, then we get to a different question, which is how we are going to reduce emissions in the most efficient way. If we want to respect taxpayer dollars, then we reduce emissions in the most efficient way. We hear a lot about common sense from across the aisle. Common sense presumably should be that polluters pay, and pollution, members should know, is a classic market failure. I have heard some people bandying about different economic opinions on what a market failure is. In this case, the cost of polluting is costless to the polluter and is borne collectively by all of us. What is the answer to that? The answer is a price signal. The common-sense answer, very simply, is to make polluters pay. That is what this price on pollution does. We do not want to penalize people or make them worse off. We just want to change the behaviour, so matched with that price, internalizing that negative externality, we make sure there is a rebate and recycle the revenue. I have heard people go back and forth on this. The fact is that, of the 100% of the revenue that goes back to the provinces of origin, 90% goes back to households directly. If there were a motion today that said that 100% should go back to households, I would vote for it for sure. We could improve it, but the fact is that 90% goes back. It is largely revenue-neutral. I heard a question asking if it works. Of course it works. This is not me saying this. If we look at the emissions progress report for 2030, we see more than a steady decline. We see a decline from business as usual. If we had taken no action from 2015 on, or the kind of action we saw under the Harper government, we would have seen emissions rise to 815 megatonnes by 2030. If we look at that progress report, does anyone in the House know what it stands to be with all of the action we have put into place? It stands to be 467 megatonnes, which is not nearly enough and not where we need it to be, but that is a 43% reduction from business as usual and 36% toward our 40% target. We are very close to being where we say we want to be. By the way, a good amount of that is because of the price on pollution. The progress report says that 30% of that reduction in emissions comes from the price on pollution. When we look at that delta of 815 megatonnes down to 467 megatonnes, 23% of that total reduction from business as usual comes from the price on pollution, so, yes, it works as part of a very serious overall comprehensive climate plan. It is easy to care about climate change when we are well fed. I have heard a lot of talk in the House that the price on pollution is making people poorer, the worst among us, and it is hurting those who are already hurting. It is deeply cynical to trade on a real affordability crisis, to trade on the real stress and real struggles of so many people in need, to undermine an effective and efficient climate action that makes most households whole. It does not increase the cost of everything to send people to food banks. I said this when asking a question of a colleague and did not receive a good answer. We have seen 20% food inflation these last two years, and the price on pollution, economists tell us, accounts for under 1% of any inflationary impact. That is not the cause of the affordability crisis. We could have a very interesting debate about interest rates. Maybe the member for Carleton would tell us that he wants to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. We have had very interesting debates about interest rates and what is truly driving the cost of living crisis. It is absolutely not, economists will tell us, the price on pollution. We could also have an interesting debate about social welfare in this country. We have increased the Canada child benefit significantly. We have brought hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty. We have increased the Canada workers benefit. We have increased the GIC for seniors. Do members know what provincial governments have done, largely Conservative provincial governments? They have not increased welfare and disability supports in line with the rise in inflation. I am standing here in Ontario, and the member could tell me what the Ford government has done to make sure disability payments keep pace with the cost of inflation, but Conservatives have done next to nothing. Do we want to talk about the real cost of living crisis and what drives that cost of living crisis? We could talk about food inflation. We could talk about interest rates, and we could talk about the lack of provincial action in their areas of responsibility. What we should not talk about, if we care about facts in the House, is the price on pollution. Much has been made of the PBO report. I wonder sometimes, listening to the debate in the House, whether anyone has actually read this report, so let me quote from it. On a fiscal basis, “most households will see a net gain [versus] the...fuel charge...and related GST”. As well, “The fiscal-only impact...is broadly progressive.” Hang on. What is this about? The PBO says it is going to cost us more. I am going to be absolutely fair in this, and there is a real debate we should have because what the PBO actually says is that, on a fiscal basis, for the cash-in, cash-out money that households pay and get back, 80% of households are, in fact, better off. What the PBO goes on to say is that, when one takes into account GDP impacts from the price on pollution, we see modest GDP reductions, though they are significant on a household basis, so most households are worse off if one includes fiscal and economic factors. They do not say that about low-income households so, again, trading on food banks and offering no real suggestions for helping people out of poverty is completely incorrect, even in the PBO's analysis. Let us focus a little more on whether the PBO is right. Fiscal analysis is easy. It is money in and money out. On an economic basis, I would say they are wrong. It is not gospel. We have this from the American Economic Journal, for example, on the macro impact of carbon pricing: “We find no evidence for a negative impact on employment or GDP growth but rather find a zero to modest positive impact.” There is also this, from the IMF, from June: “Countries that do not recycle revenues experience a substantial economic downturn while countries that recycle revenues only display a muted impact on economic activity.” For those keeping track at home, Canada recycles revenues. Worse, and this is fatal, let me quote the PBO as well. I wonder how this is not part of the conversation: “The scope of the report is limited to estimating the distributional impact of the federal fuel charge and does not attempt to account for the economic and environmental costs of climate change.” Maybe Conservatives could explain to me why we would consider the negative economic impacts of one side of the ledger of the price on pollution, and the fiscal impacts are better for households, but we would not consider alternative scenarios. We hear about “technology, not taxes”, but that is going to cost households more. It is going to be paid for by taxes or, worse, if we do not take into account the real economic costs of unchecked climate change. Let us be absolutely clear. If one does not have a serious climate plan in this country, and the federal Conservatives are not interested in a serious climate plan, we are going to see unchecked climate change. Let us return to costs. We have Conservatives who have no plan. Since I have been in Parliament, they have had no plan, except for Erin O'Toole, who was promptly ousted. Why was he ousted? For having a plan, and “technology, not taxes” is not a plan. What does the price on pollution do? The price on pollution says to consumers that it will be more expensive to pollute. Consumers will seek out cleaner alternatives and businesses will respond by innovating to meet consumer demand. If one does not have that price, which is internalizing that negative externality, businesses are not going to innovate. We are not going to see serious climate action from the private sector. If one wants technology, not taxes, it is going to be left to government subsidies alone, and where do government subsidies come from, Conservative friends? They come from taxes. If one wants one's taxes to go up, then axe the tax.

1579 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Mar/19/24 4:16:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's mentioning those people in desperate need and the need to help them. I co-chair the all-party anti-poverty caucus, and that has been a major focus of mine since 2015. We know by the numbers that the price on pollution has a very small impact on the cost of living, especially food inflation. Food inflation has been 20% over the last two years, which is a real problem, but the price on pollution amounts to well under 1% of that. Using common sense, what common-sense measure, specifically on helping those in need, would the member like to see that would have an actual measurable impact on those people he ostensibly cares about?

123 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Mar/19/24 4:01:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the member. I appreciated his speech. He mentioned the PBO and asked why the PBO exists if it gets it wrong. Perhaps he could speak to the difference between fiscal and economic impacts. When I read the fiscal impacts, and that means cash transfers in and cash transfers out, they are in fact positive for 80% of Canadian households. Then when I read the economic impacts, those people who are lining up at food banks are still made better off, even on the PBO's analysis. I would disagree with the PBO here, and I am not the only one; the IMF and others disagree as well. Could the member speak to that?

120 words

Apr/27/23 3:47:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his work, especially his work in looking at housing options and partnerships with community organizations like legions. There is no question that provinces need to lead on this. I will speak to Ontario specifically. Its housing affordability task force has said that we need to do more on housing and enshrine a 1.5-million supply target in planning guidance to ensure we encourage municipalities to add density and end restrictive zoning. What does the provincial government do? It encourages sprawl and builds on the greenbelt. We, at all levels of government, but especially at the provincial level, need to take housing much more seriously and deliver the housing supply, all kinds of housing supply, that is so desperately needed.

127 words

Housing

Apr/27/23 3:45:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would dispute the idea that the government is not looking at non-market options. It was not in this budget, but in previous economic statements and budgets we certainly committed to an expansion of co-op housing, for example, one of the largest investments in co-op housing in decades. There is a commitment to non-market-based options, but I will agree that we are not delivering at scale. It is not only up to the federal government. In fact, provincial governments have more to say on housing, all things considered, working with municipalities, but I do think market supply is a huge part of the answer. We should not be pitting these ideas against one another, but we do need much more market supply and we also need governments to get back in the game on social public housing, like co-op housing. Then, important at all levels, especially at the federal level, as we examine every policy measure, we need to ensure that we treat housing as a home first and investment second. Whether we look at the work of Generation Squeeze or any analysis, over 40 years ago, it used to take five years to save a down payment. Now it takes over 20 years, and over 30 years in some communities, and that is obviously unacceptable.

224 words

Apr/27/23 3:44:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was not, by the way, a matter of selecting the right channel. It was simply a matter of my home Internet. I am committed to supporting the budgets that the government puts forward. In this case, I do not support the idea of transfers that are not coordinated, that are not properly negotiated and that do not have adequate strings attached. The idea that some inadvertence is being corrected to allow inadvertence to stand that is not intentional makes no sense at all to me.

88 words

Apr/27/23 3:43:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, technology being what it is, I missed the preamble to the member's question. I only heard the last 15 seconds of it.

25 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Apr/27/23 3:32:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just had the opportunity to visit Kapuskasing, and many people said wonderful things about you. I want to start with a positive view of the budget, and then go toward where there is some improvement required. Unfortunately there is a missing element that I think ought to be emphasized as well, but let us start where there are clear and incredibly important priorities. The federal budget rightly prioritizes better health care, affordability measures and clean economic growth. On the health care front, we see major new funding to modernize health systems, including significant funding through bilateral agreements with provinces. We see measures to address urgent pressures in emergency rooms, to support hourly wage increases for PSWs, to expand access to family health services, to increase mental health and substance use support, and more. We see a major commitment to a dental care plan, and this is really one of the signature pieces of this budget, done in co-operation with our partners across the aisle in the NDP. We have made a $13-billion commitment over five years to expand dental care to families earning less than $90,000 a year. We also see important new measures to combat the opioid crisis. While it does not quite get to the $500-million commitment in our platform, we are getting there. There is $360 million committed over five years for a renewed Canadian drugs and substances strategy, including community-based mental health, harm reduction services and more. We see the Canadian Cancer Society saying, “#Budget2023 is a sign that there is political will to fund our healthcare system so people can get timely, affordable access to cancer care.” The Canadian Medical Association says, “We’re pleased to see the federal government confirm significant health funding commitments as part of budget 2023-24.” On the affordability side, we see targeted inflation relief. There is a new rebate increasing the GST tax credit delivered to 11 million low and modest-income people. We see affordable higher education prioritized with increases to student grants and the raising of the interest-free loan limit. We see action for consumers and small businesses to reduce junk fees, crack down on predatory lenders and lower credit card transaction fees. We see measures to protect air passengers, enshrine the right to repair and more. We also see a code of conduct to protect Canadians with existing mortgages and automatic tax filings. It is not a perfectly automatic tax filing, so there is more work required, but the CRA will be piloting a new filing service to help vulnerable Canadians receive benefits to which they are entitled. Everyone should receive the benefits they deserve. Third, we see a major emphasis on clean economic growth. We see $21 billion over five years to really build on past measures. We have come a long way since 2015, and we need to keep moving forward. We have seen a rising price on pollution to help shift demand and spur innovation, with the revenue rebated directly to ensure low- and middle income Canadians are not worse off. There is now a clean fuel standard, rules to phase out coal-fired electricity and increasingly stringent measures to slash methane emissions. Work is also well under way to establish a clean electricity regulation and cap emissions from the oil and gas sector, and we have put a climate accountability law in place that sets strong targets, requires the government to table a comprehensive climate plan and ensures regular progress reports to keep all future governments honest. In past budgets, we have invested billions in retrofits, zero-emission vehicles, public transit, nature protection, clean technologies, critical minerals and more. We have also encouraged recent and multi-billion-dollar private sector investments in the clean economy, and the 2023 federal budget would build on this work with new initiatives to protect our fresh water and deliver clean electricity, clean tech manufacturing and clean hydrogen. The Canadian Climate Institute called the budget measures “decisive steps to ensure Canada won’t fall behind in the global race to net zero.” The Pembina Institute said the budget “sends a clear message that Canada is committed to building a cleaner future.” The International Institute for Sustainable Development called the funding for clean electricity and fresh water “unprecedented,” and the David Suzuki Foundation called it “historic” and “an important turning point”. Challenges remain, of course. I do not want to get into the $30 billion on TMX, which I wish we were spending elsewhere, but we do need stronger climate conditions to ensure money is well spent and there are safeguards against inefficient fossil fuel support. Some programs need to be strengthened, especially for home and business retrofits. We need to increase international climate financing, and we need all provinces to step up to do their part. We lack a serious and credible climate plan here in Ontario, for example, and that undercuts our overall ability to meet and exceed existing national targets. Despite the significant federal action to date, we are not yet where we need to be, but we are on track, in a serious way, to get there. The IPCC, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, lead scientist Dr. Otto said that its recent report highlights “the urgency of the problem and the gravity of it”. However, Dr. Otto also acknowledged that there are “lots of reasons for hope – because we still have the time to act and we have everything we need”. We certainly see significant action here in Canada. The fourth item I want to note that is going in an incredibly positive direction is this. We see significant new spending, $4 billion over seven years, to implement a co-developed urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy. I think some of these ideas should be pulled apart. An urban strategy ought to be different from one for the realities of northern and rural Ontario. I just mentioned travelling in Kapuskasing, and I was in Timmins as well. I certainly heard concerns. When programs are being designed, whether at Queen's Park or Ottawa, they need to be designed with northern realities in mind. It really would make a lot more sense to pull the strategy apart and deal with urban, northern and rural realities separately. On the fiscal sustainability front, before I get to where work is required, I will quote Kevin Page, the former PBO, who wrote, “On balance, the 2023 budget has a credible fiscal strategy.” He continued, “Net new spending in 2023 largely goes to people struggling with high inflation...and our health care system. This is not spending that will impede efforts to lower inflation.” He then concluded, “Fiscally credibility has to be earned budget by budget. The 2023 budget gets a thumbs-up.” Those are not my words but the words of Kevin Page. It is important to not only look at Canada's situation in isolation but also to compare Canada's fiscal situation to our partners around the world. Budget 2023 notes, “Including new measures...Canada’s net debt as a share of the economy is still lower today than in any other G7 country prior to the pandemic—an advantage that Canada is forecasted to maintain”. With the time I have left, I will look at where work is required. On mental health, we have made progress. I highlighted new spending on mental health and addictions. However, it is not enough to meet our platform promise of $500 million. The CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association has said, “We are deeply concerned that this budget does not include critically needed investments in services delivered by community providers”. Our platform promised federal funding for mental health transfers, a significant commitment, and we are not yet where we need to be on that front. To give a very specific, concrete example here, we are launching 988, the new national mental health crisis number. It is incredibly important as a matter of delivery on mental health, but callers need to be referred to services in their own communities for it to be the most effective. Therefore, we need to fund services in our respective communities. I also want to emphasize the need to address the disability benefit. Many in the disability community were expecting a clear signal about what is to come. It is important that we see additional spending on consultation. We are going to do an expansive consultation to get it right, but to really make a meaningful difference, to deliver a transformative benefit, it is going to take billions in new spending every year to lift people with disabilities out of poverty in a way that they deserve. Much more work is required on this front. So too with housing. I mentioned the importance of the new billions in spending for an urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy, but we need to do much more on housing. It is a matter of generational fairness. It is a matter of productivity. People are leaving our cities. People are leaving our provinces. We are not going to be as competitive as we need to be if we do not fix the affordable housing crisis. That means governments have to get out of the way and help build housing. Governments have to get back in the game on building social housing, and we really have to treat housing as a home first and an investment second. Last, where there is a missing piece, we committed to increase foreign aid every year. We simply did not do that in this budget. Results Canada has rightly criticized the budget on those grounds. As wealthy a country as we are, we need to look after those in need in our country. We also have to look after and do our part for those in need all around the world. With that, overwhelmingly, despite areas of improvement and despite some areas of criticism, there are many reasons to be positive and optimistic about what we see in budget 2023, and there are certainly many reasons to support the budget in the coming weeks.

1727 words

Context: House Hansard - 174 - Mar/28/23

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Mar/28/23 3:47:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I was mostly listening for the Yogi Berra quotes, but I think there is one the member missed that speaks to Bill C-27, which is, “The future ain't what it used to be”, and that is exactly why we need Bill C-27. The former member for Timmins—James Bay, Peter Kent, and I worked together on the ethics committee and the privacy committee a number of years ago, and we all shared a sense of optimism around technology and the possibilities of the Internet. What we have come to learn is that we need much stronger protections. I have two young kids. They are growing up with the Internet. We need our laws to reflect our shared reality. We need age-appropriate design codes. We need the right to be forgotten. We do need a much stronger bill, but we need to get the bill to committee. What are the member's thoughts on getting the bill to committee and improving the bill? I hope we get it there as quickly as possible. We are at a fork in the road, and “[i]f you come to a fork in the road, take it”.

204 words

Context: House Hansard - 174 - Mar/28/23

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Mar/28/23 2:10:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Jessica Rotolo is an actor, artist, dancer, model and role model, Beaches—East York constituent, Humber graduate and a big Blue Jays fan. She is also a relentless advocate for her Down Syndrome community. In addition to her award-winning PSAs and countless media appearances, Jessica is the winner of Down Syndrome International's LotsOfSocks competition. Her heart design was chosen among hundreds of submissions and can be found on over 17,000 pairs of socks sold for World Down Syndrome Day last week. I was lucky to spend that day with Jessica, other Down Syndrome advocates and a loving community at her old school, Haydon Park. Everyone there understood the core idea of inclusion. No matter our differences, we all deserve equal treatment and opportunity to participate. It is not a matter of working for the Down Syndrome community but with it. On behalf of everyone in the House, our thanks go to Jessica for what she has done and continues to do. We cannot wait to see all she accomplishes.

175 words

Context: House Hansard - 154 - Feb/6/23

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Feb/6/23 11:51:48 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-293

If one agrees in principle with a bill, and if one takes one's role seriously, not as a cabinet minister who is seized with government legislation but as a member of Parliament considering backbencher and private members' business, one should send to committee the legislation we agree with in principle and we could work out the details. I am certainly open to amending the legislation based on the details, but surely we should not kill a bill at second reading that has merit in principle. We have just lived through our most serious health crisis ever, and here is a bill to make sure we are more prepared next time. The conversation for today is that it sounds great, but we are going to kill it right now before we have experts, provincial ministers and PHAC attend committee. We do not actually want to think about this issue again. We just want to rail in a political way about an independent review. Therefore, let me turn to the need for an independent review. Of course there should be an independent review. The NDP referenced SARS, and good on its members for referencing the independent SARS Commission led by then Justice Campbell. There was also a national advisory committee, which was a separate dual-track process under Health Canada, led by David Naylor. There were recommendations from that national advisory committee that were implemented ultimately by the government. That is why we have the Public Health Agency of Canada. Forgive me if I am astounded at the lack of history from my colleagues who say we need some independent review, and therefore we need to kill this piece of legislation. No, we need both. In this particular instance, the core accountability to a law like this is not in the review function. That is laughable. The core accountability in this bill, Bill C-293, is parliamentary accountability. The government should be accountable to us as Parliament with respect to its pandemic prevention and preparedness efforts. The member for Port Moody—Coquitlam said that we need more emphasis on nurses. Guess what. This bill would require that the government table, every three years, to us in Parliament, a pandemic prevention preparedness plan that speaks to supporting local public health and primary care capacity building. Yes, it speaks to nurses. It also speaks to the working conditions of essential workers across all sectors. The government should be creating these pandemic prevention preparedness strategies and then tabling those strategies to us in Parliament. If we kill this bill, yes, it means we could rail about an independent review. However, it functionally means that it would be this government and future governments that would create those strategies, and they would not be accountable to Parliament for those strategies. For the same reason, we need climate accountability legislation. It does not mean some independent review of how climate change is occurring. It means that the government is accountable to Parliament for its climate action plan. Similarly, for the accountability mechanism in this bill, the government is accountable to us for its prevention and preparedness strategies. I heard my colleague from Regina—Lewvan read out the “one health” approach and say that maybe it was a good idea but it sounded too international for him. We literally have a one health approach in Health Canada to prevent antimicrobial resistance. If people are going to vote against this bill, please, just read it first. Do not read it for the first time in Parliament, while railing against it. We need a pandemic prevention preparedness plan, full stop. We need accountability to Parliament, full stop. All members know I have supported not only Conservative bills but also NDP bills to get to committee. My instinct and my role in this place, and I hope members see their role in the same way, is to get bills that we agree with in principle to committee so we can improve them. Thanks for the time. I hope we all change our minds.

676 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 154 - Feb/6/23

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Feb/6/23 11:51:07 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-293

Madam Speaker, I ask everyone to consider what the role of a member of Parliament is with respect to private members' business. I am not a member of the government. This is a private member's bill. For all of us across party lines who have introduced private members' bills, we know how much work goes in to them, the guidance we receive as a parliamentarians and the convention, as it were, if we respect it. I heard my colleague for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan say that, in principle, he agrees. I heard the Bloc say that the intent is laudable. I heard NDP colleagues say that they agree with the general purpose of a pandemic prevention and preparedness strategy, but that it needs to be an independent review.

130 words

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22