Debates of April 8th, 2014

Democratic Reform

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, obviously students do support the Conservative Party, and we are very proud of that. They will have an opportunity to vote in the next election, just like in the last one. They can use everything from a library card to a student card and, in order to determine their address, any correspondence they have received from their university, college, or school is acceptable. They can also take a letter from their student residence.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23 is an absolute failure. In fact, it is anti-democratic, and, quite frankly, the Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself for the manner in which he is forcing this bill through the House of Commons today.

Today we witnessed the Prime Minister's democratic reform minister verbally assault the Chief Electoral Officer. How shameful it was. We are looking to the minister to do the responsible thing and to recognize that verbally assaulting the Chief Electoral Officer is wrong. He should apologize to all Canadians. When can we—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please.

The hon. Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I stand by my testimony from this morning at the Senate committee.

One point I made there was in quoting the 2012 and 2013 annual report of Elections Canada, which said, “Since the creation of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada in 2006, when the Director of Public Prosecution Act came into force, the DPP acts as an independent prosecution authority...”.

Suggestions by the New Democrats and others in recent days attacking the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions is demonstrably false, and I would suggest outrageous.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the clause-by-clause examination of the grain transportation bill, we learned that the Conservatives did not include an actual timeline in their bill, despite a great deal of testimony regarding the major delays faced by farmers.

The Conservatives made sure that the bill's provisions are only temporary. A new crisis could arise at any time. What is the minister going to do to ensure that real action is taken in the long term?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, of course the key to longevity on this type of legislation is balance. There are more shippers out there than just grain. Everybody had a sad tale to tell about rail serviceability and reliability. Having said that, this is a very comprehensive piece of legislation. I want to thank the opposition members for the great non-partisan work that they did, and all of the witnesses who came forward. They helped us to strengthen that bill, and there are some amendments that have been passed. I look forward to it being put through the Senate as well, very soon.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that would ring true if indeed the Conservatives had accepted amendments rather than turning down every single one.

Clearly witness after witness said the opposite, which our amendments addressed, that the minister failed to ensure that farmers in all regions will actually get service, even though we suggested that the corridor did not get covered off. Western producers said that penalties should be collected and compensate farmers. We suggested that; they suggested no. We believe farmers are actually the ones who will suffer the losses. Yet, the minister refused to even consider that. He did not even consider the compensation in the bill itself.

When can producers expect additional action from the current government that does deal truly, once and for all, with this crisis? We would be willing to help this time, if only he would just listen.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I like the admission that they sometimes listen; that is very helpful.

At the end of the day, of course, we have a balanced piece of legislation moving forward. There are numerous pieces to that, and not just the service level agreements but the information package, which will give us a lot more timely and on-point information from the railways, from the shippers, so we can start to coordinate, corridor by corridor, the specificity that is required to move grain, potash, coal, timber, and all those other commodities that need to be moved as well.

Come this August, when this legislation moves into the next phase, the Minister of Transport and I will sit down with all shippers and work out their surge requirements moving into the next year.

Rail Transportation

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister wants to deliberately change the rules so that regulatory changes do not have to be published in advance. As a result, the public will be notified of changes to safety regulations only once they have taken effect.

The Conservatives allowed railway companies to regulate themselves, with disastrous results. Canadians no longer trust the Conservatives' policies.

Why does the minister want to changes the rules in a way that would reduce transparency?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of Canadians is our top priority. What we are doing with respect to this is making sure that we can streamline and harmonize with the United States in a timely fashion instead of going through a pre-publication process. It will still be a cabinet decision as to whether or not we are going to go through a pre-publication.

I would remind the opposition as well that no government has taken more action, well before this summer, on rail safety than this one has.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite the statement.

Before the Lac-Mégantic disaster, few people realized how much dangerous cargo was being moved by train, but now municipalities and Canadians want to know about dangerous cargo being moved through their communities. Instead of being more transparent about disclosure rules, Conservatives are being less.

Why is the government being so secretive about rule changes for dangerous goods?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I will just take this opportunity to read a quote from Claude Dauphin, who is the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. What he said is this:

The government's commitment to increase the safety of the transportation of dangerous goods, and to require shippers and railways to carry additional insurance, directly respond to calls from FCM's national rail safety working group.

We are working with the FCM. We are telling the railways that they have to provide this information to municipalities and first responders. We are getting it done.

Housing

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, housing first is simple. The greatest urgency when dealing with chronic homelessness is to get people off the streets and into a home, yet the Liberals oppose housing first, and the Westmount—Ville-Marie MP has expressed concerns that focusing on housing excludes other very important initiatives.

Well, today we have more proof that it works. A Mental Health Commission study found that 2,000 homeless Canadians with mental illness found stable housing through housing first. What is the government doing in ridings like mine to benefit homeless Canadians by putting housing first?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Centre for that question and for her strong local support and interest in this issue.

We now have even stronger evidence that housing first is the most effective way to reduce homelessness. The Mental Health Commission report released today found that housing first rapidly ends homelessness, and it is a sound investment that can change lives. That is why today I am very pleased to announce the renewal of our government's homelessness partnering strategy, which reaffirms our government's commitment to putting housing first.

What is disappointing is that despite the evidence, the opposition frequently criticizes housing first and votes against it.

Health

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would do well to check if seniors really are such strong supporters of his party, because they are pretty upset right now with his government's record. Even for those who can afford it, wait times can be up to eight months to get into long-term care. This leaves too many Canadians in limbo and their families struggling to cope.

Today a new poll by the Canadian Medical Association reveals that seniors' health care is a top priority for Canadians, so why are Conservatives yet again turning their backs and failing seniors on health care?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, first, the member knows full well that we are transferring more money to the provinces for health care than ever in the history of Canada.

Specific to seniors issues, since our government has taken power, it has invested $650 million in research areas related to aging, including more than $100 million just last year alone. Economic action plan 2014 also delivers a further $15 million to expand patient-oriented research and to tackle the growing onset of issues like dementia and related illnesses. In fact, we are hosting a summit, with France, in September to honour our commitment, with our G8 partners, to find a cure for dementia by 2025.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Conservative government should listen to seniors' groups, which are complaining about its cuts to health care funding. According to a survey conducted by the Canadian Medical Association, seniors' access to health care is a top priority for Canadians.

Needs are growing, but what is the federal government doing? It is making massive, unilateral cuts to health care funding. There will be 12% less funding over the next 25 years. That is a huge cut, and our seniors will suffer for it, even if the Minister of Health does not think so.

Will the government finally agree to work with the provinces to develop a pan-Canadian strategy for seniors' health care?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, that is categorically false, because our government has increased transfers, since we have been elected government, by almost 50% to the provinces and territories.

I would challenge the member to stop being so negative about the work the provinces are doing. They are doing their best to deliver health care. Many of them are doing a great deal of work on trying to manage some of the very difficult issues around inefficiencies in our health care system and they acknowledge that more money is not going to make a difference.

I do work closely with the provinces and territories, specifically on issues around seniors, like dementia and Alzheimer's, and I will continue to do that.

Veterans

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is dragging its feet in another file. Veterans are still waiting to hear whether they will be compensated for their pensions, which have been eroded. The Federal Court sided with them years ago. However, they are still having to look to the courts to get the government to take action. This is another flagrant lack of respect for those who served our country.

When will our veterans get the benefits to which they are entitled? Why are the Conservatives making them fight this in court again?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, our government has a strong record when it comes to standing up for Canada's veterans.

Our government has voluntarily increased monthly financial benefits to veterans across Canada. More than 5,000 veterans will benefit from these important changes, which include more money each month in addition to more veterans being eligible for home-cleaning and grass-cutting services, and in addition, there is more money for medical, rehabilitation, and retraining programs.

What is more disappointing is the opposition. The NDP and the Liberals have voted against every single initiative we have brought forward.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what utter nonsense. What we are talking about is the earnings loss benefit that was wrongfully clawed back from disabled veterans from April 2006 to just the other day. Two previous Veterans Affairs ministers said very clearly that they would deal with this issue in an honourable way, but in the omnibus legislation, it only went back two years. It should have gone back all the way to 2006.

Why should disabled veterans and their families have to go to the courts to fight the government to get the benefits they so richly deserve?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, that member knows full well that the courts did not impose anything on Veterans Affairs on their programs. Our government voluntarily increased benefits for veterans receiving earnings loss, Canadian Forces income support, and the war veterans allowance.

This means thousands of dollars for veterans in addition to added benefits, such as snow removal, lawn care, home-cleaning services, and lower costs for long-term care.

I would encourage the opposition members to support the government, get on board, and help Canada's veterans.

Health

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian doctors are on the Hill advocating for a pan-Canadian seniors strategy. The premiers' Council of the Federation is asking for the same thing.

The 2011 census shows five million seniors, due to increase to 29% of the population by 2013, but the government's new health formula is based on per capita and not on demographics. Provinces with high seniors populations, like the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia, get less money.

Will the Prime Minister agree to a specific strategy to assist provinces with the increasing cost of seniors' care?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier, we have increased transfers to the provinces by 50%, and we are funding health care to the provinces and territories at the highest level in Canadian history.

As I have said repeatedly, the inefficiencies we do see in our health care system are not going to be fixed by more money. They are going to be fixed by collaboration, co-operation, and sharing best practices, and that is the kind of work I am endeavouring to do with the provinces and territories, specifically on innovative technologies and other ways and models of care that we know will actually make a difference in creating not only a more sustainable health care system but a more cost-effective health care system.

Public Safety

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Police Association informed MPs about the key cost drivers for policing. Simply put, police are being asked to serve as substance abuse counsellors, mental health advisors, marriage counsellors, and youth intervention officers as well as to maintain responsibility for community safety.

The minister certainly did not give any answers yesterday to the CPA, so could he be more direct today and state if he has any plans to assist police officers, including the RCMP, so they can prioritize their time for actual policing?