Debates of June 4th, 2013

Government Response to Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 13 petitions.

Veterans Affairs

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, entitled "Depleted Uranium and Canadian Veterans".

Mandatory Disclosure of Drug Shortages Act

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

moved for leave to introduce C-523, An Act to amend the Department of Health Act (disclosure of drug shortages).

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to introduce a bill concerning the disclosure of drug shortages.

Drug shortages are a major public health issue, one that is not limited to within Canada's borders. Canada has yet to require mandatory disclosure, even though it exists in other parts of the world such as the United States, New Zealand and the European Union. It has been called for by various groups, including the College of Family Physicians of Canada in a letter to the Prime Minister in 2011, and the Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec. Even officials at Health Canada have recommended to the minister that it be required.

I am very pleased to give the government the opportunity to do what must be done and pass the mandatory disclosure of drug shortages. I am asking the government to support this bill to make work easier for health care professionals, to avoid additional costs to the health care system and, above all, for the health and safety of Canadians.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canada Elections Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-524, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election advertising).

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to look at the way political advertising is done in this country. I will make it very clear that this is not about censorship. Any political party can have any type of advertising it wants, whether it is during or outside of the election period.

What this amendment to the Canada Elections Act would do is obligate the leaders of the respective political parties to authorize that they are aware of the content of the advertisements and that they are comfortable with it. This is something Canadians would like to see. It is taking responsibility.

An ad on TV, on the radio or in newsprint would have to be authorized and approved by the leader of that political party. We have seen it in the United States. What it would do is ensure there is more accountability and transparency so the viewer, the listener or the reader clearly knows that the leader of the political party is taking responsibility and has approved of the content of the ad.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Employment Insurance

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by 32 people from Prince Edward Island.

This is in addition to all of the other petitions that have been presented in the House in opposition to employment insurance reform. The petitioners are calling on the government to reverse its decision on employment insurance reform.

Development and Peace

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to present two petitions this morning.

The first petition is from citizens from the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace. The petitioners call upon the government to demonstrate its international responsibility by recommitting Canada to contribute 0.7% of GDP to overseas development assistance.

West Island Rail Line

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition was signed by the people of the West Island. They are calling on the federal government to recognize the importance of the West Island rail line and its contribution to Montreal's economy. They are also asking for funding from the federal government.

Genetically Modified Organisms

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to present a petition adding to the voices of the thousands who have signed petitions already presented in this House. They are concerned that the licensing and release of genetically modified organisms has a potentially negative impact on all aspects of the Canadian agricultural sector, from transportation to trade and production to whether or not GM crops can co-exist with non-GM crops or organic crops.

The petitioners request a moratorium on the release of further GMOs and request an independent review of existing GMOs.

Motor Vehicle Safety

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present, and the first is from petitioners from the city of Toronto.

As summer is upon us and a lot of people are on their bikes and walking on the street, the petitioners are concerned about street safety.

The petitioners want to see the federal government make sure that heavy trucks and trailers have side guards installed, which is good for the environment and saves lives of cyclists and pedestrians. They note that Jenna Morrison's life might have been saved had the truck had a side guard.

Before any more senseless death occurs, the petitioners urge the federal government to introduce legislated regulations under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require aerodynamic side guards for trucks and trailers.

Parks Canada

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Canadians all across Canada who are urging the federal government to instruct the Parks Canada Agency, which is responsible for the operation of the Rideau Canal and the Trent-Severn Waterway, not to reduce the hours of operation or shorten the season of operation and to return service to 2011 levels.

The petitioners call upon the government to provide Parks Canada with the necessary funding for both the Rideau Canal and the Trent-Severn Waterway to return to 2011 operating hours and length of season, so that Canadians and visitors can safely enjoy these waterways.

Genetically Modified Alfalfa

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me a petition from a number of my constituents who are asking the government to put a moratorium on GM alfalfa.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill S-2—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and

that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Under Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

Questions, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was commenting to my friend across the way that the government might need a more efficient system for signing all of these orders into the House because it does it so often. It must just change the name of the bill, photocopy it, change whatever stage it is at and ram it through.

My question is very simple. We have heard from first nations groups who have said this legislation is wrong and it will not help the situation. It is not what they need.

Further to that, the government at some point in time is going to have to learn how to do sincere consultation. Consultation does not mean ramming things down throats. Consultation does not mean imposing time limits on every debate. Consultation does not mean eroding the very foundations of our democratic institutions, which is what the government is doing here today.

We have a process question. The government is invoking the power it has as a majority government to shut down debate on a bill that is opposed by the very people it would affect. The government is somehow saying Big Brother knows best. The Conservatives are just going to tell first nations how things are going to be done, as if that is going to help the situation that has been bad for so many years.

The minister has been on his feet a number of times on this very same issue. Has he better talking points today as to why his government is so perfect when it writes these bills that it does not need to listen to the opposition or to the very first nations groups upon whom it is going to impose this legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this issue has been before this Parliament for many years now. My colleague referred to the majority government. All those families living on reserve in Canada will thank Canadians for having elected a majority government.

This is the fourth iteration of this bill before Parliament. The first bill was introduced as Bill C-47 on March 4, 2008, in a minority Parliament and was debated at second reading and referred to committee. It died on the order paper on September 7, 2008. In all of those months, when the opposition and everybody had a chance to debate the bill, it did not happen.

I will continue with the next question, but the member is going to get the same answer as to why it is time we acted.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is amusing, because he is talking about the bill having been introduced in Parliament several times, yet it seems that the Conservatives have not learned their lesson. We still hear the same comments from first nations, and the Conservatives are still using the same paternalistic approach. Since this government has a majority, it wants to impose its own way of doing things.

The problems here do not just affect the first nations. The bill also raises important issues for Quebec, which is governed by the civil code and has certain unique aspects that are not taken into consideration in this piece of legislation. By shutting down the debate, the Conservatives are preventing the members from discussing these problems. Then, they say that this does not matter, that the bill was introduced two or three times during previous sessions. Since they have had three tries before, it seems to me that the fourth should be the charm, but unfortunately this is still not the case today.

The first time the Conservatives adopted a time allocation motion, they said that it was important for the economy. Did they use the same reason for all the other bills for which they moved a time allocation motion?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to me that the importance of the issue escapes the hon. member. He is talking about the economy, but we are talking about fundamental rights here.

Why do families who live on reserve in Canada not enjoy the same rights as all other Canadians and children living off reserve?

Anyone who watches the procedures of the House of Commons knows that if we do not limit debate on the bill, then it once again risks not being passed by the House of Commons. With a majority government, we can ensure, once and for all, that Canadian families living on reserve, women and children, enjoy the same protections as other Canadians. That seems to me like a fundamental, valid and justifiable reason to limit debate and ensure that these people will finally have the same level of protection as other Canadians.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for bringing forward this very important piece of legislation. We know that aboriginal women are almost three times more likely than other Canadian women to experience violent crime, including spousal violence.

According to the General Social Survey in 2009, approximately 15% of aboriginal women in a marriage, or who had a common-law partner, reported that they had experienced spousal violence in the previous five years. Of those who had been victimized, 58% reported that they had sustained an injury, compared to 41% of non-aboriginal women. Further, 48% reported that they had been sexually assaulted, beaten, choked, or threatened with a knife or gun and 52% reported that they feared for their life.

We know that emergency protection orders save lives. Could the minister describe how Bill S-2 would enhance the protection of aboriginal women and children living on reserve?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, currently, aboriginal women in our country cannot go to court and seek exclusive occupation of the family home or apply for emergency protection orders while living in a family home on a reserve. The bill extends this basic protection to individuals living on reserve. In situations of family violence, which is what the member referred to, a spouse would be able to apply for an emergency order to stay in the family home at the exclusion of the other spouse for a period of up to 90 days, with the possibility of extension.

An emergency protection order is quick. It follows a simple process and is recognized by child and family justice advocates as being one of the most significant means of preventing family violence. Violations of these orders can result in fines or jail time, hence the importance of the bill.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am very disappointed to rise to speak to a time allocation motion.

This is the 40th time the government has moved a time allocation motion to limit debate on a bill. What is more, this bill does not have the unanimous support of the House, civil society or aboriginal communities.

My question is quite simple. I am not going to get into a discussion of the minister's competence today. Did the minister consult with first nations, including women's groups that were opposed to the bill and still are? If so, why did he decide to introduce the bill in its current form, which does not have the unanimous support of aboriginal communities?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in short, the department consulted extensively with aboriginal nations across the country.

We began these extensive consultations in 2006. About 100 meetings were held in 76 locations across Canada, which allowed us to improve the bill at that time. A number of changes were made specifically to address the concerns of certain stakeholders, the first nations and others about the implementation of this bill. We had to ensure that its real objective of protecting aboriginal families living on reserves across Canada would be attained.

Consultations were held and changes were made such that, today, the bill passes the test and achieves its objective.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister told us that 100 meetings were held and that there were consultations. I am wondering why the results of these consultations are not reflected in the bill before us. Consulting the people is a good thing, but it is not enough to go somewhere, say that the people have been consulted, but not listen to what they had to say. I believe that consultation means taking into consideration what was said.

Had that been the case, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations would be able to support this bill. They are not. This means that they were not consulted to the extent required to make amendments and for the minister to know what would have secured their support for the bill.

I wonder why the minister consulted people without listening to them and without amending the bill he has introduced.