Debates of April 25th, 2013

Employment

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that in parts of our country, even where there is very low unemployment, there is still difficulty in getting people who are unemployed matched up with the jobs that are in demand.

That is why we are investing in Canadians with our new Canada job grant that will support the training that is required for the jobs that are in demand. It will help young people, indeed all Canadians, get the skills they need for the jobs that are in demand by partnering with the federal government, the provinces and employers that need these people and their skills at work.

If opposition members want to help people get to work, they should support the budget.

Government Services

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer proved that the government is making cuts to important programs while, in many areas, administrative costs are on the rise. The government's reports on plans and priorities are very clear: programs that are important to the middle class will face significant cuts.

Will the government finally acknowledge the cuts it is making to front-line services?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, economic action plan 2013 is our plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

We have found fair, balanced and moderate savings measures to reduce the deficit, that will reduce the size of the federal public service by about 4% over three years. Overall the savings measures are about 2% of program spending. Over 70% of the savings found are in operational efficiency. Leaner, more affordable government is good for Canadian taxpayers.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is total nonsense. We have had the opportunity to examine the reports on plans and priorities of every department, so we know exactly what they are planning to cut and where over the next two years.

With no less than 35 program activities being cut by more than 50%, how can they possibly claim that 70% is due to operational efficiencies, when the real problem is massive cuts to the services key to middle-class Canadians?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we have found fair, balanced and moderate savings measures to reduce the deficit, and that will reduce the size of the public service by about 4% over the next three years. Overall, the savings we found represent less than 2% of program spending and, again, I emphasize that over 70% of the savings found are in operational efficiencies.

A leaner, more affordable government is good for Canadian taxpayers.

Veterans Affairs

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, veterans and their families deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

However, a number of low-income veterans' families cannot use the Last Post Fund to help pay for funeral expenses.

The $12,000 exemption is simply not high enough; it falls well below the poverty line.

Will the Conservatives finally increase the exemption?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has a very strong track record when it comes to supporting our veterans. No government in the last 60 years has done more for our veterans and their families than our Conservative government.

In fact, economic action plan 2013 more than doubles the funding available for our veterans' families when it comes to funerals. Of course, we also provide for the full cost of the burial.

Our government has enormous sympathy for our veterans when they pass on. We will be there to help them. This important program has already helped more than 10,000 veterans' families since 2006.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not so. The reality is that more than 67% of applicants to the program were rejected.

The Conservative government can find $28 million to celebrate the War of 1812 but refuses to find the money to ensure our veterans are buried with dignity. Low-income veterans deserve a proper burial service, equal to the sacrifice they made for this country.

Will the Conservatives commit today to raising the $12,000 survival estate threshold?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is using some old numbers. In fact, in economic action plan 2013, we are more than doubling the amount of money available for funerals. Only in Canada can a veteran's estate include a house and a car, and still qualify for additional financial support from our government.

We on this side of the House will continue to support our veterans. I hope that the NDP will vote in favour of economic action plan 2013 in order to provide this important financial assistance to our veterans' families.

International Co-operation

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week is World Immunization Week, a time when Canadians and the entire world can reflect on achievements and challenges in disease prevention.

Canada continues to be a world leader in global health, especially in the fight against polio. Sadly, polio continues to victimize children in Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan. Immunization workers and the police who aim to protect them continue to face the risk of violence and extremism.

Can the parliamentary secretary please update the House on Canada's latest contribution to end polio?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, today at the Global Vaccine Summit, the Minister of International Cooperation announced that Canada will remain a leader in polio eradication. Bill Gates said Canada's increased support will help ensure that we can end polio and help all children live healthy and productive lives.

However, to accomplish this, violence against vaccine workers must end. Canada calls on all parties to denounce acts of violence against immunization workers. We also need everyone to continue to promote scientific facts about vaccination.

Canada remains committed to making polio history.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, the Prime Minister has failed to live up to his residential schools apology, which established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to forge a new relationship with aboriginal peoples. The commission is not being given the time or the resources to achieve its mandate and has been forced to go to court to access the documents it needs to do its work.

Will the Prime Minister commit today to providing the TRC with what it needs to do its crucial work?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I find it curious indeed that she would raise this matter, because I met with the commission and the commissioners yesterday morning in Montreal.

As far as I can tell, the government is living up to its commitment under the settlement agreement that has been reached. I have assured the commissioners of our support to help them continue their important work.

The Environment

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as Lake Huron levels drop, costs to municipalities, business and people all around the basin rise.

On Monday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will meet mayors from Conservative ridings about their problems now that the lake is at an all-time low.

Municipalities and first nations from Manitoulin and the north shore would love to be invited, and they are not alone.

Is this just a courtesy call, or will the minister meet with all communities struggling to stay afloat?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, our government is keenly aware of the environmental, economic and direct personal impacts that extreme water levels have had on various of our lakes across the country.

As a matter of fact, we expect tomorrow to receive the benefit of work done by the International Joint Commission to address the issue of fluctuating Great Lakes water levels and the impacts on surrounding communities.

The Government of Canada is pleased to receive, and we are currently reviewing, the four recommendations put forward by the commissioners in their report.

Sealing Industry

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we are the only party standing up for seal hunters. We will continue to fight for this way of life in our rural coastal communities, where sealing is a means of survival.

Our government will continue to defend an important, traditional, sustainable and humane northern harvest.

Could the Minister of Health please update this House on our government's continued fight against the European Union seal ban?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, our government commends Canadian sealers and industry groups for bringing this challenge forward through the European General Court.

While members of both the NDP and the Liberal Party have spoken out against the seal hunt and against Canadian sealers, our government's position has been clear. The ban on seal products adopted by the European Union was a political decision that has no basis in fact or science.

We will continue to stand up for the seal hunters and their families and defend a way of life in Canada's remote coastal communities.

Canada Post

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is planning to establish private outlets in close proximity to the main post office in rural B.C. This affects the communities of Nelson, Castlegar, Trail, Grand Forks and Oliver.

This is a major step to justify reductions in service at the main office and the eventual privatization of postal services in our rural communities.

There has been no consultation. I have written to the head of Canada Post on behalf of these communities to express my concern.

Will the minister commit today to ensuring Canada Post remains a vital public service?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, Canada Post is an arm's-length crown corporation.

The member also needs to understand that email and other technologies are creating serious, long-term financial problems for Canada Post. Canada Post's labour and cost structure is unsustainable for the future.

I would add that if the NDP members were serious, they would not have blocked our back-to-work legislation. In fact, the NDP helped accelerate the decline in mail delivery.

Employment

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has remained silent since the temporary foreign worker program made headlines because banks and other companies misused the program with the government's consent by replacing their employees with foreign workers earning lower wages.

Because of this misuse of the program, some people are calling for it to be overhauled or abolished outright, without any consideration for those who, like Quebec's farming enterprises, use it properly.

Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food wake up and finally stand up for Quebec's farming enterprises, for which this labour force is vital?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes the need down on the farm for temporary foreign workers. That is why it has been set aside from any of the changes that are proposed to strengthen the program and certainly bring it back on point.

I can assure the member opposite that temporary foreign workers will still be available for every farm in his riding.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

That concludes question period for today.

Before we go to the Thursday question, the Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Toronto Centre.

Scope of Private Members' Bills

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege that I want to raise. I know it will shock you to hear this, but I actually think it has some merit.

It stems from the private member's bill, Bill C-425, which was moved by the member for Calgary Northeast and which was being considered in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Last week the parliamentary secretary moved that the committee should recommend to the House that it be granted the power during the consideration of Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), to “expand the scope of the bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces”. That is going to be reported to the House of Commons.

This is an issue that affects the rights and privileges of all members, and indeed the very structure of the relationship between private bills, public bills and private members' bills.

My argument is quite simple. It is that if we were to allow the government majority to do this in order to allow for the consideration of other amendments that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has asked be added to the list, we would basically be allowing the government majority to completely expand the nature of private members' bills, which deal with a specific subject, and in fact to change their very nature from being private members' bills to being public bills.

However, if we allow the majority members to do that, they would be basically bypassing all of the requirements with respect to public bills. Those requirements include first reading, second reading, votes on both, and then referral to a committee to consider the whole structure.

Mr. Speaker, if we allow this to happen or, more specifically, if you allow this to happen, sir, the consequence will be very clear. It basically would mean that governments could increasingly use private members' bills as a way of getting other issues in front of the House, bypassing ordinary debate in second reading and the due consideration of this House so that after only two hours of debate on one subject, which in fact was what took place, the government would then suddenly be permitted to introduce other issues into the debate.

There are basically two points that I want to make in my argument. I feel so strongly about it—and this is a historic first—that I actually have some notes that I may consult from time to time as I deal with this matter.

First, Standing Order 97.1, which sets out the rules with respect to private members' bills, restricts a committee to making only two kinds of reports. The first is a report that brings back the bill, with or without amendments. Those are amendments that are within the scope of the bill, approved by the whole House at second reading. The second is a report requesting a 30-day extension to the committee's report deadline. No other report is allowed, and if that were not the case, it would be mentioned specifically in S. O. 97.1 or somewhere else in the chapter of our Standing Orders that governs private members' bills.

Mr. Speaker, you will be familiar with the simple legal thought that the expression of one thought is the exclusion of all others. I will not bore you with the Latin tag for that phrase, but it means that the fact that this procedure that is now being proposed by the government is not contained anywhere in Standing Order 97.1 or anywhere else in the Standing Orders dealing with private members' bills means that the scope of a private member's bill cannot be broadened to consider other matters, because the impact of that would be to completely change the reporting mechanisms that are basic to the relationship between private bills, private members' bills and public bills.

Mr. Speaker, my second point is that I think you also have to consider the impact that this can have—and, I would argue, will have in this instance—with respect to the procedures and considerations that we have.

Mr. Speaker, if you allow this to take place and allow a motion to be put to the House that basically broadens entirely the scope of a private member's bill to include the rest of the government's public agenda, imagine for a moment what the consequences would be.

It is very simple. The effect will be that the government could, by extrapolation, even add an omnibus feature to a private member's bill and say it is using its majority to add everything, the whole kitchen sink, into the measure.

Mr. Speaker, you have to say very clearly to this majority government that it cannot misuse and abuse private members' bills in this way. Private members' bills are intended for private members to put forward issues, items, agendas and concerns that they have. They are not intended to be a way by which the government skirts around the purposes of private members' bills and drives home its own agenda.

If the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has a variety of things that he would like to do—and we know that he does, because he has made speeches about them and has told the press that he intends to proceed with them—let him come into the House with a public bill. Let him come forward with a bill that pertains to the questions that he wants to raise. He cannot use a private member's bill to force his own agenda onto the Parliament of Canada.

This is a problem, and it is very clear that if the minister has something to present to the House of Commons, he must introduce a public bill, which will be thoroughly debated in the House at second reading, be sent to committee and come back to the House at third reading so that we can discuss it.

That is why we are not only concerned about the government's proposal, but we also think it is basically illegal. This proposal is not included in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Therefore, the House should not allow such a thing.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what my friend down the way raises is an important issue. We would reserve the right to come back once we have taken a closer look at this particular instance, because we know there have been a number of so-called private members' bills that have been masquerading as such but that in fact have been intentionally driven from the government.

We have another instance at another committee of a similar bill now seeking to expand its scope far beyond what was initially suggested, which then puts the question back to the House.

I am reminded of a rule by which we guide ourselves here in Parliament, which is that we cannot say something indirectly that we cannot say directly. My friend down the way is right in that the rules that apply to private members' bills are somewhat, but very importantly, different from the rules that apply to bills presented by the government, the so-called public bills.

One important aspect that applies to government legislation is that the Minister of Justice is obligated, under section 4.1 of his act, to ensure compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Private members' business, legislation presented through private members, does not have to go through a similar test. This is fundamentally important to the piece of legislation we are discussing today, which deals with issues that may come up against the limitations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For the government to choose to circumvent that very important test, use private members' legislation for an initiative that is inspired by a desire of the government or a minister of any kind, and thereby avoid such a critical test, a legal obligation by the Minister of Justice, is worrisome both in this particular case and in the pattern that the government seems so comfortable in applying.

This is first blush, on consultation with some of our critics who have been dealing with this piece of legislation, but some others have presented this very similar pattern.

If the government is seeking this as an instrument to perform its agenda, it seems to me wanting, because it has every opportunity that it needs to provide legislation through the normal recourse, through any minister coming into the House. However, if legislation is offered to the House that way, the government is obligated to respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by ensuring that it has already been tested. That is an obligation. My friends across the way can shake their heads, but it is true and it is written into Canadian law.

If this is the intention, then it is very worrisome. Mr. Speaker, you have moved from one difficult and challenging ruling and perhaps have another before you, because this is an important question. If in this instance private members' business is being abused by the government, it is a problem for the House and in particular for you, Mr. Speaker, to whom we look to protect the rights and privileges of members and to uphold the laws that guide Parliament.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a fair bit of discussion in code here about what is being discussed.

In its original form, the private member's bill, Bill C-425, intended that if individuals with dual citizenship, those with citizenship in another country and in Canada, were to commit an act against a member of the Canadian military, they would be subject to the sanction of losing that citizenship. This was very much inspired by events in Afghanistan in particular, where the Canadian military were constantly exposed to these kinds of acts by people from all kinds of places.

As we have seen in recent events, such as the situation at the Algerian gas plant where Canadians were involved in a terrorist act and the recent events that have gripped us across North America, including the recent arrests in Canada, there is a concern that the kind of terrorist act that was captured by the original drafting of the bill perhaps could be worded a little differently to capture the full intent of what was intended. I understand that is the purpose of the amendment, so let us understand what we are talking about here.

The member for Toronto Centre and the opposition House leader are trying to find a way to prevent that particular definition that members of the committee thought they would like to have. There may be a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether it is beyond the scope of the bill or not; some believe it is within the scope of the bill, some believe it is not. Therefore, they are asking the House to debate it for a number of hours and decide whether we think it is within the scope, whether it should be within the scope and whether it is important for Canada to have the ability to provide that sanction against those who decide to take up arms as terrorists as well as those who take up arms against the military. It is part of the same thrust.

It is important for everyone to understand that this is what the member for Toronto Centre and the opposition House leader appear to indicate they wish to defeat on this kind of a technicality. They are raising it so that if they are successful in the arguments they are making to you, the consequence will be that the genuine will of members who are observing events and dealing with legislation in front of them to try to address this terrorist threat will be frustrated.

The easy answer to that is to say that it does not matter, so let us just go back and do another bill and take time and delay, because we do not really need to respond to these things quickly and in a decisive way. That is reminiscent of the theme from the Liberal Party for the past week and a half, so it does not surprise me that it is coming from them. We also saw how the New Democrats voted this week on the bill to address terrorism, so we clearly know how lacking their view is on how urgent and important it is to be able to address these threats.

That said, I would like an opportunity to explore this issue fully, because I did not anticipate this. Frankly, I must say that I am quite surprised that those parties would take this position on an issue of such contemporary urgency to Canadians, the issue of protecting us from terrorism, and I was unprepared for these kinds of procedural arguments. I would like the opportunity to come back and fully discuss the procedural aspects.