Debates of June 10th, 2016

Foreign Affairs

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we strongly condemn the atrocities by the so-called Islamic State. Official recognition of genocide is to be done by a credible judicial process following a proper international investigation. That is why we have called upon the UN Security Council to investigate this. The UN Secretary-General's special adviser on the prevention of genocide agrees with this. We feel that our UN, U.K., and U.S. allies have all said this needs a proper, formal investigation.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, defence experts agree that the Liberals made a promise that was impossible to keep when it comes to replacing Canada's aging fighter jets. Not only have the Liberals broken this promise, they are doing so with great costs to taxpayers, as our air force will have to run a mixed fleet. Unlike Australia, Canada does not need a stop-gap solution. The defence minister claims the CF-18 life extension project will continue. Given that reality, why are the Liberals moving forward with a band-aid solution to a non-existent problem?

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to getting the best possible equipment at the best possible price for our men and women in uniform. Today, we are risk-managing a gap between our NORAD commitments and our NATO commitments, in part because we inherited a bit of a mess from the previous government. No decision has been made on the replacement of the CF-18s. All commentary to the contrary is merely rumour and speculation.

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

Mr. Speaker, given the investments in the CF-18 life extension program made by the previous government, defence experts agree that there is no immediate need to run a mixed fighter jet fleet in the interim.

Retired General George Petrolekas of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute said he does not see the value of an interim purchase. He asks, why not just go straight to the competition right now?

It is a good question. Why is the government putting politics ahead of our armed forces? Why not go to the competition right now?

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the consequence of the previous government's so-called life extension program is that we only have at this point 20 CF-18s ready to fly through to 2025.

That is an unacceptable risk that has to be managed by the Minister of National Defence, and so he is only taking what needs to be taken in the circumstances, which is the responsible decision to keep our capability up to its necessary level in order to meet our commitments.

Indigenous Affairs

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health is a doctor, so I am sure she can confirm to this House that breast screening, mammograms, biopsies are normal, everyday medical procedures, yet we have documents to show that her bureaucrats are interfering with doctor-ordered mammograms to deny these services to indigenous women, and they are cancelling audiology tests for indigenous children.

There is not a single member of this House who would put up with such interference for their own families, so why does the government think that it is okay to treat the health of indigenous women and children in such a disrespectful and negligent manner?

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

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada is committed to providing medically necessary services to first nations and Inuit clients through the non-insured health benefits program. The NIHB program covers over $1 billion in health benefits for first nations and Inuit every years.

Nearly 99% of pharmacy claims and 90% of the dental claims were approved, and more than 90% of the pharmacy claims were approved instantly at the point of the sale.

Physician-Assisted Dying

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indigenous women deserve answers, not reading from a website.

The Prime Minister promised to do politics differently, and on Bill C-14 he said that he would accept good faith amendments. Instead, the Prime Minister has disrespected Canada's top legal experts, flouted court rulings in Alberta and Ontario, and rejected good faith amendments every step of the way.

Given the seriousness of the situation, Canadians deserve better. Will the Liberals finally stop putting politics ahead of policy, stop trying to ram through an unconstitutional bill, and work with us to fix Bill C-14 so that it will be a charter-compliant bill that respects the rights of Canadians and respects the Supreme Court of this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe that we have struck the right balance in Bill C-14 between protecting the vulnerable and the conscience rights of health care professionals, and also providing access to medical assistance in dying and protecting personal autonomy.

There is a diversity of opinion as to whether the bill goes too far or not far enough. There is not unanimity with respect to its constitutionality. There is a delicate careful balance that has been struck. We believe it is the best solution for Canada at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government needs to get things straight and brave the storm. The amendment passed in the Senate would bring the bill in line with the Supreme Court's decision.

As experts and the Alberta Court of Appeal have said, without this amendment, Bill C-14 does not pass the charter test and will once again be challenged in court. We need to do things right with a bill that is so important to Canadians.

Will the government act responsibly and amend Bill C-14?

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe that this bill is the best approach to guarantee that dying patients' rights are respected and to ensure that vulnerable people and the conscience rights of health care professionals are protected.

An amendment that removes the reasonably foreseeable criterion will jeopardize the delicate careful balance we have struck in Bill C-14.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 violates Canadians' rights, and it is truly appalling to see this government making excuses.

The Prime Minister promised to do things differently, to make decisions based on facts, and to listen to experts. Instead, he chose to play politics, limit debate in the House, and refuse to work with the opposition on an issue as important as medical assistance in dying.

Does the Prime Minister realize that he is doing the exact same thing as the former Conservative government?

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe that this bill is the best approach to guarantee that the rights of dying patients are respected and to ensure that vulnerable people and the conscience rights of health care professionals are protected.

This is the balance we were trying to strike, and this is the balance we achieved. This is the best approach for Canada, at this point in time.

Democratic Reform

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote an editorial from the Toronto Star. It states, “democratic reform should be pursued by democratic means”. It continues, “the reform process proposed by the government is insufficiently democratic, given its vast implications for our democracy”. The Star continues, “the best route to legitimate reform is a referendum”.

The Star is right, so will the Liberals give Canadians a referendum on a new voting system?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, members of the House have been democratically elected. The special committee consists of members of the House who have been democratically elected by their constituents.

We are taking this job seriously. We are calling on our colleagues on all sides of the House to join us, to participate in the committee process, consult with their constituents, and consult experts. Let us work together on finding the best outcome for Canadians.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course Conservative members will be participating in the committee process that is starting up, but that is not the question. After that process is over, after the cabinet has designed a new system in a room where only Liberals are present, we want to know if Canadians will get the chance to vote in a referendum.

The Toronto Star says that the Liberals' refusal to hold a referendum is unfortunate. That is their word. It calls the Liberal plan for town halls “hardly the best way to gauge 'broad buy-in' by voters”. The Star concludes that it is “ludicrous to suggest town halls as a substitute” for a referendum.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, let us not prematurely assume what the outcome of the committee work is going to be. Let us work together. Our government has extended a hand to every party in the House to work together to consult with Canadians through various means, through town halls, social media, one-on-one consultations, and speaking with experts. Let us get our work done. We will not proceed without the broad support of Canadians.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us not prematurely assume the outcome, but at the same time, the Prime Minister already told us that he rejects the current electoral system and would rather see preferential voting. That is quite the comment.

The minister took seven months to strike a committee, one just like all the other committees, without consulting the opposition parties. A month later, aided and abetted by the NDP, she completely changed the structure of the committee. Now she would have us believe that in five months, at the height of summer, in the midst of barbecues and pool parties, we will be able to meet with all Canadians.

Will the minister set her ego aside, listen to all of the experts, the analysts, and the people, and let Canadians have their say in a referendum?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition members have been asking us to change the makeup of the committee. We listened to their concerns. We extended a hand. We changed the structure of the committee.

We are asking for all members of the House to work together with us on making sure that we come up with the best reforms for our electoral system. We will not proceed until we consult with Canadians, consult with experts, and have the broad support of Canadians.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition was not consulted. This was all done behind closed doors with the NDP. Members on this side of the House were never consulted.

The minister keeps saying that 60% of the population called for a new electoral system. I am not sure what math class she was in, but I would like to give her the real numbers: 39.5% of the people voted for the Liberal Party. Nobody in the House is going to convince me that 39.5% of the population voted for all 219 resolutions, only one of which had anything to do with the electoral reform in the Liberals' election platform. They have to stop making things up.

When will the minister listen to the people, analysts, journalists, and political commentators who are not happy about how the members on that side of the House are doing things?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party was not the only party that ran on electoral reform, so perhaps the hon. member could redo his math.

Let me stress what I just said earlier. We are looking forward to the special committee work. We will be consulting with experts. We will be consulting with Canadians. We will be consulting with members of the House. We will not proceed until we have the broad support of Canadians.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals just love their committees.

The point is that Canadians do not buy the minister's claims that a bunch of politicians on a committee should change how Canadians vote for their elected representatives. It is obvious that for their own political interests, the Liberals want to rig changes to the fundamental way our democratic system works.

Canadians demand a referendum. Why will the Liberals not give Canadians a direct say and hold a referendum?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says she does not trust politicians. I wonder if she put that as a slogan in her last campaign when she asked her constituents to vote for her.

We take our responsibility as a solemn and serious responsibility. Canadians elected us to do some serious work. We call on all members of the House to join us on committee and work with us to ensure we come up with the best electoral reform to our system.

We will not proceed until we have the support of Canadians.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, 73% of voters in Lakeland sent me here to represent them, the same percentage of Canadians who want a referendum.

The 2015 election had the highest voter turnout across Canada in over three decades. However, even that pales in comparison to the huge turnout at the last national referendum. Canadians are engaged. The minister somehow expects Canadians to believe that an invite only committee of politicians consulting and scrolling through Twitter constitutes Canadians having a direct say. It is ridiculous.

Will the minister stop telling Canadians that Liberals know best and let them decide?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member's constituents trust her to do the serious work on their behalf. That is what Canadians sent us here to do.

We are working together. We are extending a hand to opposition members to work together with us on striking a study and consulting with experts and Canadians. Let us work together to find the best outcome for Canadians.

Let me repeat this. We will not proceed without the broad support of Canadians.