Debates of Oct. 7th, 2016

Health

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are proud of their publicly funded health care system, and they expect their governments to ensure it is always available to them.

Next year, the Canada health transfer will grow by more than $1 billion, to over $37 billion.

The Minister of Health will be meeting with her provincial and territorial counterparts in the coming weeks. We look forward to our continued discussion on how we can create a health care system that all Canadians can be proud of.

Quebec's Interests

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is still nothing for softwood lumber, nothing for Mégantic, nothing for diafiltered milk, and nothing for Bombardier. There is nothing for the people of Quebec. On health, the Liberals are maintaining the cuts made by the Harper government, and on the environment, they are maintaining the targets set by the Harper government. For Quebec, it is obvious: the Liberals have blown it.

Are the 40 Liberal members from Quebec trying to prove once again that, no matter who is in charge in Ottawa, Quebec's interests always come last?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, our government definitely enjoys strong representation in Quebec, with 40 members who are here to innovate for Canada and ensure the prosperity of Quebeckers and all Canadians. I am proud to be part of the Quebec Liberal caucus.

We have nothing to learn from the Bloc Québécois on how to ensure that Quebec takes its place within Canada and prospers.

Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsman

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2015-16 Annual Report of the Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsman.

Public Services and Procurement

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 150 of the Financial Administration Act, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the Defence Construction Canada 2015-16 annual report on operations, and the Canada Lands Company Limited 2015-16 annual report on operations.

International Trade

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on International Trade in relation to Bill C-13, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Pest Control Products Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and to make related amendments to another act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with an amendment.

Impaired Driving

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of Canadians regarding impaired driving causing death.

Families for Justice is a group of Canadians who have had a loved one killed by an impaired driver. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient, and want the crime to be called what it is, “vehicular homicide”.

Canadians are calling on the Government of Canada for mandatory sentencing for vehicular homicide, and for this Parliament to support Bill C-226, the impaired driving act.

Justice

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so delighted to stand here today and table this petition signed by so many people in my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London in support of Cassie and Molly's law.

I cannot wait to actually support and move forward on the bill.

Public Safety

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to present a petition signed by Canadians from Smithers, British Columbia, and southern Ontario.

The petitioners are concerned about the accessibility and impact of online sexual, violent, and degrading material, and the impacts on public health, especially on the well-being of women and girls. As such, these petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to adopt my motion, M-47.

Falun Gong

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a very thick petition today that is about human rights abuses in China.

In particular, this petition calls attention to the situation of the Falun Gong, one of the many groups that are horrendously persecuted by the Chinese government. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to undertake measures to address and combat forced organ harvesting, to publicly call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong, as well as to try to do more to stop the systematic murder and harassment of Falun Gong practitioners for the purposes of harvesting their organs.

I commend this very important petition on human rights in China to the consideration of the House.

Taxation

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present e-petition no. 389, signed by hundreds of Canadians.

The petitioners are calling on members of Parliament to support my private member's bill, Bill C-241. Second reading will be on Monday, October 17. Bill C-241 seeks to amend the Excise Tax Act to refund 100% GST paid by Canadian school authorities.

Somaliland

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this petition asks the Government of Canada to recognize Somaliland as an independent country. The petition is signed by 295 Canadians.

Somaliland was a former British protectorate that won its independence in 1960. After an unsuccessful union with Somalia, the people of Somaliland declared independence in 1991. Over the last 25 years, Somaliland has established a new constitution, its own currency, and a central bank. Also, it has overseen the restoration of peace, established an independent judiciary, and cultivated a stable, multi-party democracy.

Animal Trophies

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of over 500 of my constituents in London West to present a petition calling for a ban on the importation of animal trophies, mounted or unmounted. The petition can be found online. It is listed as petition e-229.

I took up the petition in response to something that came to light in London, Ontario. A father and son had paid $150,000 to go on a trophy-hunting expedition in East Africa, where they killed two elephants. They wanted to bring home the tusks, ears, and skins of the animals, but the tusks were held up by Canada customs because of a paperwork issue.

I received many messages about this case from concerned Canadians who were disturbed to learn that it is still legal to import ivory and other exotic trophies into Canada. Because the animals we are talking about in this petition are a threatened and endangered species, it makes the act of killing them for sport unacceptable to many Canadians. The people in my riding of London West, and other ridings across the country, feel this issue needs to be resolved. That is why petitioners have turned to our government.

Falun Gong

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of many signatories, I am pleased to table a petition regarding Falun Gong, which is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that consists of meditation, exercises, and moral teachings based upon the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance.

In July 1999, the Chinese Communist Party launched a nationwide persecution campaign to eradicate Falun Gong. Millions of Falun Gong practitioners have been arrested and put into custody, many sentenced to long-term prison terms for up to 20 years, where torture and abuse are routine, and tens of thousands are feared dead, as a result.

The petitioners call upon Parliament in a public way to do what it can to condemn such action.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand, at this time, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Salaries Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. I believe we were at questions for the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her talk today on this piece of government legislation. One of the things she talked about often, and I mention it quite often in the House, is the fact that there is a shell game at play here by the Liberals.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, in introducing the bill, said that there will be no cost increase. In fact, he said there are no costs associated with the implementation of the bill. However, the bill does contain a royal recommendation, which effectively makes it a money bill. A royal recommendation is a procedure involving the Governor General that precedes the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or the imposition of any tax.

I would like to ask the opposition House leader, in her experience in this place, whether in fact she thinks that there will be money appropriated to the bill, based upon the fact that there is a royal recommendation in the bill.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question because it does give me the chance to talk about something that the government did not talk about, and in fact, sort of glossed over when it introduced the bill and spoke about it. That is the fact that there will indeed be additional costs because of the measures that are going to be taking place in the bill.

I think what we on this side are most frustrated about is that the Liberals are very good at spending money. There is no doubt about that. They like to tax and they like to spend. Therefore, it is not a surprise that the bill has additional spending measures in it.

However, what we are most concerned about is that it takes away from regional representation. It takes away from regional representation in the form of taking away regional ministers, by practice, and it takes away from having ministers oversee the regional economic development agencies.

They are being very quiet about that. They are not talking a lot about the new ministerial positions that are going to be filled. They are not talking about the additional cost to the Treasury. It is interesting that they are avoiding any discussion about those things, but those are the things that we are concerned about and will continue to talk about.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the NDP critic for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, I share the concerns raised by the member about the impact of this bill on the efficiency of our economic development and diversification agencies.

I had a chance this summer to travel for two weeks across New Brunswick, P.E.I., Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. I met with ACOA staff, who shared with me their concerns about the effects of this change on the way that economic diversification is working.

Prior to this change we had a bottom-up approach in which the staff understood the needs of the regions and were carrying those needs up to their minister for developing solutions. They fear that the centralized structure now is more of a top-down approach, in which the minister and his staff are deciding what will be taking place for the regions. Those local staff are now becoming agents for implementing those decisions coming from higher up. They starting to see this happening.

What are the member's comments on the concerns of these ACOA staff?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for doing his job and bringing those concerns forward. This is exactly our major concern about not only the Atlantic Canada agency but also the agencies for western economic diversification, Quebec, and the north. Six of the regional development agencies will be affected if the bill passes. We will not have regional representation. There will be one minister from Toronto answering directly to the Prime Minister, who does not understand the regions and their specific needs. He does not understand what is happening on the ground. He might have the best of intentions, but it is wrong to do it, and it begs the question of what is next. Are the Liberals now going to cut these agencies? Is this step one, where first they cut the ministers and then cut the agencies?

We have seen a disturbing pattern with the Liberals' disregard of Atlantic Canada. They have 32 members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada. They swept Atlantic Canada but are ignoring the region when it comes to the Supreme Court. They are thumbing their noses at Atlantic Canada. There is great concern that the Liberals' next step will be to formally cut the ministers themselves, which they are trying to do right now very quietly, and which they did not even mention in their speeches. We know this is what they will do. Will their next step then be to cut these important economic development agencies themselves? On this side of the House, we will fight tooth and nail to not let that happen to the people in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, northern Canada, or western Canada. They are avoiding it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member will not have to fight tooth and nail, because the Western Economic Diversification Canada, ACOA and our other regional development agencies will be there well into the future. The Prime Minister has been clear on that point.

There are a couple of other issues. There are no incremental costs associated with the current ministry. The ministers who are currently appointed as ministers of state receive the same salary as their cabinet colleagues and have office budgets commensurate with their responsibilities. This will not change under the legislation.

The third point deals with the size of cabinet. Members need to realize that Stephen Harper, as the member would know, had a larger cabinet. This does not mean that we will have a larger cabinet. I shared that information in my opening remarks on behalf of the government House leader.

Does what I have just said provide some assurances that this legislation is worth supporting?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to my hon. colleague's question is no.

With respect to whether it requires royal assent, as the debate continues we will be able to show clearly that there will be extra funds required. Is that our chief reason for opposing this bill? No, it is not. It is clear that the Liberals like to spend, and they will spend money on this.

The member's reassurance that the government will not cut the regional economic development agencies is cold comfort. It is the same government that said that it would not introduce new taxes. It is the same government that said it would only incur a $10 billion deficit. It is the same government that has changed its mind over and over again. It has said that it would work with the provinces on things like a carbon tax. Now it is saying that it will impose it.

The regions of Atlantic Canada that have come to count on ACOA, and the regions in western Canada and northern Canada that count on their agencies, should watch carefully because the Liberals will first cut their ministers and put all of the responsibility in the hands of one minister and the Prime Minister. Next, they might very well cut the economic development agencies themselves. Therefore, we do not take comfort in it, and we are sticking to our position on this.