Debates of Oct. 19th, 2016

Salaries Act

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found it a little humourous when the member for Elmwood—Transcona referred to the names of the new ministries as ministries formerly known as something else. I found it quite rich coming from the party formerly known as the official opposition. I found it even more rich when his friends next to him were laughing coming from the party formerly known as the government. I appreciated the sense of irony.

Would the member explain to the House what he sees as unimportant and not to be a priority about La Francophonie, about small businesses, about science, about the status of women, and about persons with disabilities? Why does he think those ministries are not important to Canadians?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the party formerly known as the third party for his question. I would note that this is part of the fundamental dishonesty about the government's arguments on the bill. It is not that people do not think it is important. This is such a rinky-dink notion that all of a sudden, after a whole Canadian history of having ministers of state, in order to implement a portfolio, somehow all of a sudden, because the Liberals were elected that if a minister of state is put in charge of something it is not important. It is still important. Ministers of state are important people in the government. No one is disputing that.

The problem was not whether ministers of state are important or not. The problem was not whether ministers of state have a voice at the cabinet table or not. That is ridiculous. The problem was that out of five ministries of state, a Prime Minister, who is a self-professed feminist, decided to appoint women as all of those junior ministers. That is the problem. Let us talk about the real problem instead of these ridiculous claims by the government about what is important and what is not.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently and I want to thank our hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for his brilliant speech. I thought it was very good and any speech that gets in the word “Snuggie”, and uses a comparison to a Snuggie is something else.

I come from Cariboo—Prince George and in the early 2000s our region, indeed the province of British Columbia, was decimated by the pine beetle infestation. At that time we had a government that had regional ministers there on the ground who knew the issues. As we looked to diversify our economy not only in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, but across the province of British Columbia, we looked at what some of the natural advantages that we have.

There was investment in the port of Prince Rupert, investment in the CN intermodal facilities, investment in the Prince George Airport Authority, investment in the Asia-Pacific gateway, but there was also investment in the hon. colleague's riding in Winnipeg with CentrePort and that connected Canada to the world. The reason that was done is that regional ministers were on the ground and could speak to the validity and the value of that investment.

What the government has done is less about gender equality in this decision and this bill, and is more about centralized government. The member so aptly mentioned the Prime Minister's sense of shame and falling flat on his face not only when he made his initial announcement, but the bungling of this last year. I wonder if the hon. colleague would like to comment on those two points.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George, a former seatmate of mine. We used to have more occasions to discuss the issues of the day, so I am glad to take up that habit once again and say that he is quite right.

It is not believable that in a country as large as Canada, we are going to have one minister on top of all the details and important things there are to know about the various regions, whose economies are quite different. They are based on different sectors, in some cases. They are based on different kinds of resources. They have different labour-market challenges. I would like to be able to go to a minister who knows my region.

It is the same reason we talk about electoral reform, for instance. There are two points. One is that it is important to Canadians to have someone represent their geographical area because it is important to have a connection to an area to represent that area well.

If a minister is going to be in charge of a regional economic development agency, then it stands to reason that for the same reason, Canadians would want a minister who comes from that region and represents that region to feel that sense of connection and have confidence that they do not have to tell them everything about the region. We need to know that when ministers are in a room and decisions have to be made, they already know this stuff so that they do not make a decision and then have to go back and reverse it because there was something they did not know. That is important.

It may be odd for the member, but I am thinking about this in terms of the feedback we got on electoral reform. One of the important arguments for proportional representation is getting regional voices in national caucuses. That is because we know that a national caucus, whether a government caucus or an opposition caucus, benefits from that kind of regional representation. Members from those areas can bring a voice to that caucus that helps it make better decisions that are more sensitive when rolling out government-wide decisions in particular regions. Opposition parties that understand better the needs of particular regions are able to hold the government to account for policies that do not necessarily make sense in a cookie-cutter way across all regions.

That is another area where we talk about the importance of regional representation. The arguments apply equally there.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, in light of the Liberals' remarks, it is worth remembering that initially, when the cabinet was announced, there were ministers and ministers of state, and that was as it should be. Now the Liberals would have us believe that considering all ministers with equally important jobs to be equal is a revolutionary step forward. That was not how they saw it at first though. They made that decision only after they got caught trying to convince everyone that they had achieved parity with a gender-balanced cabinet.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. How can they claim to be progressive when they started off with a major misstep that they are trying to make up for now?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have often said that one of the things I find frustrating about Liberals is that their politics often seem to be informed by a desire simply to be in politics and to win as much as possible in politics, not to stand for any particular principle. The principle can change from day to day. What is important is that they are there because they want the status and the title and the things that come from that.

I talked about a lot of different senses of equality we might decipher in this bill. It turns out that if there is a sense of equality at stake, it is just the title. What is in a name? Only a Liberal government could feel that it was really creating a revolution for women. First, it should not be all women in minister of state positions or ministers for whom a department is designated or ministries formerly known as ministries of state. It should not just be women there. Only a Liberal government could think it was actually doing something of substance simply by changing the style. That is a recurring problem—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. The member will have a minute and a half to answer additional questions should this matter come before the House again.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and passed.

Canada Labour Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is the same reasons we talk about electoral reform, for instance. It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-4

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #127

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I believe that during the vote, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell was not in his seat during the entirety of the vote.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Members are required to remain in their seats during the entirety of the vote. Does the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell wish to respond?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is correct. I was not in my seat the whole time.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Resign.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie is rather harsh in his attitude on this. I think we will not count the vote for that member this time instead. We will correct the record.

The House resumed from October 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearm — definition of variant), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-230 under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #128

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-238, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the safe disposal of lamps containing mercury, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Strategy for Safe Disposal of Lamps Containing Mercury Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-238 under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #129

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (school authorities), be read the second time and referred to a committee.