Debates of May 20th, 2016

Status of Women

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Madam Speaker, having a gender-wage gap in Canada in 2016 is unacceptable. We are committed to working with key partners, provinces, and territories to help close the gap through investments in home care and palliative care, expanding compassionate care benefits, and improving access to child care. We will work on increasing the number of women in senior leadership roles and in key growth sectors of the labour market, including the skilled trades.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, for months the Minister of Agriculture has been in discussions with the Manitoba pork producers regarding steps to stop the spread of PED. Our farmers are concerned about the changes to the emergency protocol currently in place, but the minister has refused to intervene. In fact, he has been avoiding this issue completely.

When will the minister stop ignoring our farmers and work with the Manitoba pork producers to find a solution?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, it is because of the disease in the U.S. that we are always committed to protecting animal health in Canada. That is exactly why CFIA is ensuring that trucks are washed before they come across the border into Canada.

We want to ensure that we can keep the diseases out of this country, with every measure possible, as long as we can.

Official Languages

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, in order to help official language minority communities continue to flourish we must give them the resources and tools they need. Enhanced access to training in French helps us ensure that people gain the necessary knowledge to take full advantage of the job opportunities that are out there.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development tell the House what the government is doing to improve access to training in their language?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for the question.

Yesterday, the minister announced $110,000 in financial assistance to help the Fédération des francophones de Saskatoon renovate the Rendez-vous francophone space. The renovation work has also enabled Collège Mathieu to open a new campus that includes two classrooms and two offices.

Our government promised to protect language rights in Canada for both official languages and that is exactly what we are doing.

Intergovernmental Relations

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, given the kind of week it has been, would it not be great if on the eve of a long weekend we could all kick back and share a fine Canadian beverage together? Perhaps it could be a B.C. red wine, or a Nova Scotia white, maybe a Saskatchewan craft ale, or how about an artisan spirit from Quebec? However, wait; here in Ontario it is still illegal to directly ship these Canadian products.

The recent New Brunswick court ruling could open up our Canadian economy and address these archaic restrictions. Will the Liberals give Canadians a reason to raise their glasses and refer the decision to the Supreme Court?

Madam Speaker, free the beer.

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

Madam Speaker, the government is supportive of more open domestic markets that promote competitiveness and growth in Canadian businesses. In recent years, the government has worked to facilitate interprovincial trade of alcohol, amending the importation act to remove restrictions on individuals bringing wine, beer, and spirits for personal consumption from one province to another.

I would like to tell the hon. member this. He has the time, I have the beer; let us get together.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada have just authorized the sale of genetically modified salmon. That is the last step before that product ends up on our plates.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which approved the product in 2015, refused to require that the product be labelled. However, we have to be informed in order to make the right choices about what goes on our plates.

How many studies does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food need just to require the AquAdvantage salmon to be labelled?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question. I think she is fully aware, and the House is fully aware, that this country is fully committed to science-based decision-making in this area.

That is why I have asked the committee on agriculture and agrifood to examine this issue. This is a new issue. It is important that it go before the agriculture committee and we let the committee do its work.

Pensions

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, many workers are worried about how they will protect their hard-earned pensions if their employer goes bankrupt.

The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act provides for a review after five years. The former government tabled its report in September 2014 and the committee was supposed to review the act before September 2015.

When will the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act be examined and, more importantly, when will retirees be considered preferred creditors?

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

Madam Speaker, our government is very concerned about the situation of retirees who want to protect their pensions.

We are addressing this issue. We certainly appreciate the question from my hon. colleague. We are going to take a closer look at this issue.

Physician-Assisted Dying

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the case of the woman from Manitoba known as Patient No. 2 proves that Bill C-14 needs to be amended.

The patient has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS and meets the criteria set out in the bill. Nevertheless, the doctors who will be providing the care she needs are worried about being taken to court because of the vague definition of reasonably foreseeable natural death.

Will the government adopt the Bloc Québécois amendment, which would remove the threat hanging over health care workers' heads, namely the condition of reasonably foreseeable natural death? I would ask the government to give me a real answer, not just spout rhetoric.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, the amendment mentioned by the member was presented in committee and rejected.

The condition of reasonable foreseeability is a very important aspect of the definition. It needs to be there to define the situation and provide assurances to the doctors providing this service.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Executive Committee Meeting held in Sabah, Malaysia, from April 28 to 30, 2015.

Standing Committee on International Trade

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

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on International Trade entitled “Main Estimates: 2016-17”.

Motions

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent to move a motion. I hope it will be supported by all members, especially those on the government side.

The government has said that it is willing to make amends for this week, and we are very appreciative of that offer. One of the things that could be changed is the perverse impact of the motion on time allocation that was adopted earlier this week. With that motion, at the end of today, which has been the only day of debate on report stage, the vote will be deferred to Monday evening, and we will not be able to have the debate that all members of Parliament want to have on Bill C-14.

The motion I am proposing would allow for a second day of debate that would not in any way delay the debate at report stage but, instead of debating other legislation on Monday, it would allow us to move to Bill C-14. Many members of Parliament want to speak to this, and it simply would not be acceptable to have one day at report stage when this is a critical stage of Bill C-14 in terms of its constitutionality and meeting the court obligations as well.

Having circulated the motion to all parties, I am hopeful that the government will support the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the time allocation order for Bill C-14 adopted on May 18, 2016, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), be deemed amended to replace the words “not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage” of the bill with the words “not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage” of the bill.

This would allow for a second day of debate at report stage. We would still have the votes on Monday evening, but it would allow more members of Parliament to intervene on this important legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is no unanimous consent.

Therefore the motion is rejected.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I respect the motion that the member has put forth in terms of asking for unanimous consent, and we were generous in terms of listening to the preamble leading up to it. I want to give a quick response to that.

Every member of the House does need to recognize the importance of ensuring that Parliament respects the June 6 deadline imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada. We attempted to extend the hours of debate to ensure all MPs who wanted to speak were able to do so.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I understand you will not want this to become a debate about what has happened in the past, but perhaps members opposite do not understand what the reasonable proposal from my NDP counterpart contains.

The June 6 deadline would not be affected in any way. Right now, at the conclusion of today's debate, the vote will be held on Monday evening, which means that third reading cannot start until Tuesday. What my colleague has proposed would not affect that in any way, except that it would allow members of the House to also debate it on Monday. The vote would be held at the exact same time. Third reading debate would happen on the day that it would have happened, even under this situation. It would not affect the June 6 deadline at all. All it would do would be to allow members to participate in the debate, something that the government House leader just yesterday indicated that he wanted to help facilitate.

We are not allowed to move the same motion without some kind of intermission or some kind of interceding between, but I wonder if the House would indulge and we could try that again now that members may understand exactly what my colleague was proposing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do genuinely appreciate the gestures that are being made. In the spirit of trying to be as co-operative as possible, instead of trying to debate the issue on the floor of the House of Commons at this time, I think it would be more appropriate if the House leadership teams worked together to see if there is room for opportunity. I do not think this is the best time to carry out this debate.

Unfortunately, at this point, we are not able to give consent to it. We would have loved to have had more members, obviously, given our past suggestions to the chamber, to have allowed more people to debate.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that it cannot be discussed offline, though I appreciate the House leader proposing that, because the order that the government imposed on us means that the votes are deferred until Monday and we cannot have debate on Monday if that happens. Therefore, it has to be decided by the House prior to adjournment today.

I will come back to the House with the same motion shortly. I hope that the government will actually make amends for this week, which has been chaotic. Of course, it was on the Order Paper on Monday and Tuesday, and the government pulled it. All opposition members are asking for is the right to debate extraordinarily important legislation. I cannot understand why the government is resisting this.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There was no unanimous consent on the motion. I would encourage the parties to have further discussions together and, if they wish, to come back to the House with a motion that may be acceptable to all.

Iran

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition following on Iran Accountability Week. The petitioners call for the Government of Canada to maintain the listing of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism pursuant to section 6.1 of the State Immunity Act for as long as the Iranian regime continues to sponsor terrorism.

I think members will agree that protecting Israel and other nations against the threat of a nuclear Iran and against the threat of Iranian regime-funded terrorism should remain a vital imperative of the Government of Canada. The petitioners make this point in the petition that I am now tabling in the House. Their names will now go down into the record of Parliament as having committed to that position.

They encourage the government to protect all Canadians and Canada's allies against this threat, which for some nations may become existential, and the petitioners ask that the Government of Canada do its part in combatting this bellicose terrorist-sponsoring regime in Iran by maintaining the listing of the regime as a state sponsor of terrorism.