House of Commons Hansard #178 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was anti-semitism.
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court gave Parliament a year to implement legislation on physician-assisted dying. Parliament, therefore, has limited time to respond to this ruling in a manner that respects both the charter and Canadians' priorities.
Will the government support our motion to create a special committee and consult with Canadians? If not, will the Prime Minister share his plan to tackle this important issue?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, once again, the government does not consider this a partisan matter. This is a very delicate subject on which Canadians have a range of strongly held views.
There is a committee of the House of Commons, the justice committee, that has a mandate to study this, should it so choose. We will leave that decision to it.
In the meantime, the government intends to consult widely with Canadians to review the decision, and we will consult very comprehensively before deciding how to respond.
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, Quebec held a respectful and informed debate on the sensitive issue of medical aid in dying. The Supreme Court gave Parliament 12 months to address the matter.
With just 12 weeks of work left, we have time to get it done if we start right now.
How does the Prime Minister plan to meet the court's deadline? Can he tell us how he plans to tackle this important issue?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, this is a non-partisan matter about which Canadians have a range of opinions.
As the member pointed out, the Supreme Court gave Parliament a year to respond. We are reviewing the decision and consulting with Canadians. We will consult comprehensively before deciding how to respond.
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister did not answer the Leader of the Opposition's direct question either, I will ask it again.
We were concerned when we heard that one of the Prime Minister's MPs had raised the possibility of using the notwithstanding clause to overrule the court's decision.
Can the Prime Minister state clearly that he will not use the notwithstanding clause with respect to this important issue, yes or no?
Physician-Assisted DyingOral Questions
February 24th, 2015 / 2:20 p.m.
Calgary Southwest Alberta
Conservative
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the government has always respected the Supreme Court's decisions. We are going to take a look at this decision and consult with Canadians before deciding how to respond.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 has been roundly condemned by security experts for being over-broad, vague, and ineffectual. It would sacrifice Canadians' rights and freedoms to give security agencies new powers without any new oversight. Rather than answer questions or address these problems, the Conservatives have rammed Bill C-51 through this House.
Are the Conservatives now also going to try to railroad it through committee? Will the government commit today to a full and proper study of this sweeping security bill?
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House voted for this bill yesterday. I am disappointed to see that the NDP did not want this bill to move on.
I think we should care about terrorism in this country. As elected members, we should do what we can to give the needed tools to our police officers, law enforcement, and security intelligence. We should show them respect, a thing that the leader of the opposition has not been able to do.
We will stand for Canadians and protect them against terrorism.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, there we have the minister hiding behind fear again, instead of committing to a proper study. It is no wonder that he will not, when every day new information is coming out about critical flaws in Bill C-51. Experts are warning that the bill could create a legal grey area, mixing the roles of CSIS and the RCMP. Cases could be left in limbo without any possible criminal charges. Bill C-51 needs a full study, hearing from experts and concerned Canadians.
Why are the Conservatives so afraid of being accountable for a bill that affects all of us?
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, the media are reporting that the NDP do not even want to debate the terms of the committee or the importance of debating the bill.
I find it very deplorable that the Leader of the Opposition has attacked the credibility of members of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. These people dedicate their lives to protecting Canadians. They obey the law and do not deserve to be treated like criminals by the Leader of the Opposition.
I am asking him to apologize and to respect the people who protect Canadians. I am asking him to defend his misguided ideas with arguments and not lies.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I believe I heard unparliamentary language. I will consult the “blues”.
The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear.
We know that Bill C-51, in its current form, is flawed. The government, with the help of the Liberals, is fiddling with what we hold most dear: our rights and our safety.
After ramming through the bill at second reading, the government would like us to blindly pass Bill C-51 at committee.
Will the minister agree to listen to Canadians and ensure that former prime ministers and Supreme Court judges, who are asking us to be careful, will have the opportunity to explain why they deem that Bill C-51 goes much too far?
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, preventing high-risk travellers from boarding a plane, meeting with parents to prevent their child from falling prey to radicalization, ensuring that foreign affairs officers share information about national security with the RCMP, shutting down a website that posts hate propaganda, preventing an imminent attack on Canadians are all measures found in this bill. I hope that we will be able to debate them in committee.
I look forward to meeting with members of the committee to discuss the bill.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, I also sincerely hope that we will be able to debate this at length in committee.
The government claims that the existing civilian oversight of secret services is sufficient. However, the spokesperson for the Security Intelligence Review Committee contradicted the minister yesterday when she said that the committee was just a limited, after-the-fact review body.
It seems quite logical to me. If the government wants to give more powers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, we need better oversight of its activities
Why is the government refusing to adopt this common-sense approach?
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, the review committee is independent and reviews activities.
However, Bill C-51 provides for ongoing review mechanisms, such as judicial consent and the authorization of the attorney general. The people who protect us should not be treated like criminals. It is not true to say that they are breaking the law. We have a report from the review committee itself. The agents are doing important work and we must not undermine their credibility.
I urge parliamentarians to respect those who protect us in their debates.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, when news broke of a BSE case in Alberta, the Minister of Agriculture said that it would not harm exports, but within days, South Korea banned Canadian beef, and then Indonesia. Now Peru, Belarus, and Taiwan have also announced blanket restrictions. Far from there being no harm, we now have five jurisdictions banning Canadian beef.
These trade restrictions will cost our producers and our economy, and there is concern that they could grow.
Why have the Conservatives failed to effectively protect our beef exports and what are they doing to reverse the damage?
Gerry Ritz ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, the World Organization for Animal Health recognizes Canada as a controlled risk status country.
The CFIA and the market access secretariat continue to engage our trading partners to ensure that markets stay open, and to re-open markets to Canadian beef as quickly as possible.
With regard to the countries the member mentioned, while they have imposed temporary restrictions, these markets, while important, represent a small percentage, some 3%, of our overall trade.
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Mr. Speaker, tell that to the 3% of ranchers across this country that have actually just lost their markets, that it is insignificant.
Beef boycotts have spread to five countries now, with exports worth more than $70 million. I do not think that is chump change. Maybe the minister does.
Keeping foreign markets open depends on a really strong regulatory system here in this country. The Conservatives have cut the Canadian Food Inspection Agency budget. They say they did not, but the reality is, according to the numbers, they did.
It is really simple. Why is the government putting that sector that is worth billions of dollars at risk, and when will Conservatives act on behalf of all farms across this country and stand up for farmers?
Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that since our government came to power, we have invested close to $1 billion in the food safety system in this country. What has that resulted in? The Conference Board of Canada rates our food safety system as number one against 17 OECD countries. We will continue to invest in our food safety system and are proud of its record.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, in response to recent cases of mad cow disease in Alberta, five countries have now issued restrictions against our beef. South Korea, a big market for our beef, even closed its borders. However, last week, we were told that these new cases would have no impact on Canadian beef exports. What is worse, producers were just starting to recover from the last crisis.
How does the government plan to do to protect the livelihood of Canadian beef producers?
Gerry Ritz ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, the world is certainly welcoming of Canadian red meat products, including our beef industry. That is why we have gone to the mat for them in the European Union and opened that market. Of course, the opposition voted against that. At the same time, we brought forward $200 million more in Budget 2014 to enhance our BSE surveillance, and the opposition voted against that.
We stand firmly with our beef industry; the opposition does not.
Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, free trade was supposed to be the solution for stimulating the Canadian economy. The least we can say is that we are waiting for the results. The free trade agreement with Korea did not prevent it from closing its borders to our beef, and we are still waiting for the free trade agreement with Europe to be finalized. In addition, we still do not have a guarantee for our cheese producers.
When will the government finally make job creation a key part of its trade policy?
Gerry Ritz ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, the hallmark of this government is listening to our industry when it comes to agriculture. We continue to work with it arm in arm in whatever is going to be required to make sure it has a bottom line. The last two years in a row we have had record returns in our agricultural sector, and a lot of the rules and regulations the government is putting in place and taking out of the way so businesses can have a solid bottom line, we will continue with. The opposition cannot support it. That is at its own peril.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, middle-class families are working harder and harder, but falling further and further behind with the current government. It seems that the Conservatives are focused like a laser on schemes to help the wealthy few. Two reports out today show that the government's plan to double TFSA limits will cost tens of billions of dollars and yet benefit only the wealthiest Canadians. Does this sound at all familiar to anyone: taking from everyone to help the wealthiest few?
Do these troubling new reports give the finance minister any pause, or is he really so hell-bent on finding new ways to give tax breaks to the wealthy and the well connected?
Kevin Sorenson ConservativeMinister of State (Finance)
Mr. Speaker, we are proud to put more money back into the pockets of Canadian families instead of into government coffers, as the Liberals and the NDP would do.
Our government introduced the tax-free savings account as a way for Canadians to save for their retirement, a way to save for their children's education, or perhaps for a down payment on a home. Some 11 million Canadians have TFSAs, with the vast majority of those Canadians and those accounts going to low and middle-income earners.
The NDP voted against it. We know that they would raise taxes on Canadians and we know that they would take away the TFSA. Canadians understand that they are better off with this Conservative government.