Debates of June 14th, 2016

The Environment

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. The hon. minister knows that we do not refer to members in this House by their names, but by their titles.

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

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

Mr. Speaker, only to a Liberal would increasing taxes result in lower costs. It makes no sense. However, if the Liberals are so keen on helping the middle class, Premier Wall has an idea that would put Canadians back to work.

Across the oil sector lie countless decommissioned oil and gas wells; out-of-work Canadians in the energy sector have the skills to clean up these abandoned wells. This is a practical idea that would actually clean up the environment. Instead of raising taxes, will the Liberals adopt this common-sense idea, and help create jobs?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure to go to Saskatchewan, where I met with my counterpart, the environment minister there. We had a great discussion about how we could reduce emissions and we could tackle climate change working together. I went and visited carbon capture and storage, where they are looking at new technologies. I talked to the agricultural sector about how it could reduce emissions.

It seems that the only party that does not understand the need to reduce emissions is the party opposite.

Physician-Assisted Dying

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is clearly all over the map with its bill on medical assistance in dying.

After assuring us that Bill C-14 complied with the Supreme Court's decision, the Minister of Justice is now telling us that her bill does not need to comply with the decision and that it only needs to comply with the charter. However, the Supreme Court based its decision on the charter.

Why this new take? Did the government finally realize that its bill does not comply with Carter or with the charter?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to release an addendum to the explanatory paper that we released previously with respect to Bill C-14, to provide additional information to parliamentarians who are considering this important piece of legislation. In considering very carefully the Carter decision, Bill C-14 would comply with the Carter decision. The Carter decision stated that a complete prohibition on medical assistance in dying is unconstitutional, and the court left it up to Parliament to put in place medical assistance in dying in this country. That is exactly what we would do in this legislation.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice insisted Bill C-14 complied with the Carter decision, but courts in Alberta and Ontario disagree. She argued the bill was constitutional, but then Canada's leading expert on constitutional law said that was not so. Now the minister is changing her tune again, saying the bill does not have to comply with the Supreme Court of Canada ruling, forgetting, it seems, that the case was based on section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Why is the minister trying to ram through a law that, according to the Supreme Court of Canada decision, would take away Canadians' charter rights?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I completely reject the premise of the questions that have been proposed. All of the discussions and the considerations by the Court of Appeal in Alberta and others were considering personal exemptions with respect to medical assistance in dying. They were not considering Bill C-14.

The Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in Carter. We are complying with the Carter decision in doing our jobs and putting in place a complex framework for medical assistance in dying in this country. The question is whether this bill is constitutional, and I submit that it is.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, in today's National Post, Laval Professor Stephen Gordon notes:

...much of the argument against using a referendum to choose an electoral system uses technocratic language. The topic is complex, ordinary voters won’t understand the issues, and the possibility that voters will make the objectively incorrect choice is too great a risk to run...

Professor Gordon concludes, “The only reliable way of finding out what Canadians think about electoral change is to ask them”, the opposite point of view.

Academics agree with the media consensus that has already been expressed often in the country, that there ought to be a referendum. Does the government not agree?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, we will be asking Canadians. That is the role and function of the all-party committee, made up of members of the House. It is up to all 338 members to ensure that their constituents' voices and needs are reflected in this process.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have reason to be very concerned today. Imagine this: no members have even been appointed to the committee on electoral reform, and after eight months here in the House, we learned yesterday that the Liberal Party is consulting its own members on this topic, for a fee, in order to fill the party's coffers.

Is that the transparency and openness we have heard so much about from the Liberals? Is that what it means to do consultations differently? When will the minister listen to experts and the public? When will the minister tell us that we will have a referendum so that all Canadians can have a say on this?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, first, it is my understanding that the event the member is referring to is asking for a voluntary donation to help cover some of the costs of the event, such as room rental and light refreshments.

That said, I am encouraged that Canadians are engaged in this conversation. I look forward to all the ways that the MPs in this place will go out of their way to hear from their constituents.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such a lame excuse in all my life. The Liberals keep claiming that they are listening to Canadians on electoral reform and that they “will not proceed with any changes without the broad buy-in of the Canadian people”. However, it turns out that what they meant by buy-in was that Canadians were going to have to buy a ticket to get in.

This is not about filling Liberal coffers, it is democracy. Every Canadian deserves a say without having to pay to get in the door. Therefore, will the Liberals actually listen to Canadians and give each and every Canadian a direct say in a referendum, yes, or no?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure all Canadians that our government is acting to remove as many barriers as possible and ensure full participation of all Canadians in this important conversation. I urge the member opposite to bring forward more constructive dialogue into this debate.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the minister does not understand the conflict of interest that exists when politicians choose their own electoral system. That is why other jurisdictions have had royal commissions and citizen assemblies followed by referendums. Why does the minister want to put politicians in a conflict of interest situation? Why not let millions of Canadians choose through a referendum?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member opposite understands that the role of an MP is to represent his or her constituents in this place. In that vein, I once again encourage all members to ensure the voices of their constituents—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. I have trouble hearing the answer to the question. I should not have any trouble. Let us all listen carefully please. I guess the hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions has finished her answer.

The hon. member for Saskatoon West.

Labour

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the previous Conservative government attacked collective bargaining and weakened worker protection for the public service. In January, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour tabled a bill to repeal some of the Conservatives' anti-worker legislation. However, six months later and the bill is languishing.

It is not enough just to meet with public servants and pay lip service to undoing Conservative damage. When will the Liberals stop stalling and bring Bill C-4 back to the House?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, we are all anxious to get Bill C-4 through the whole parliamentary system. In fact, members have had an opportunity to speak to the bill. It has gone to committee. I had an opportunity to present. We are looking forward to actually bringing it back to the House, voting on it and making it a new law for Canadians.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer is not good enough.

Bill C-4 is currently in parliamentary limbo. No one even knows what stage it is at. On top of that, the Liberals failed to include a number of elements.

For instance, this bill does not even reinstate the provisions on workplace health and safety. The previous government attacked workers' rights over and over again. The Liberals are quick to make promises to Canadian workers, but they have a hard time keeping them.

Will the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour finally do something and reinstate the provisions on workplace health and safety in Bill C-4 in order to protect Canadians workers?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone in the House knows, we have had several very important national issues to discuss, debate, and vote on.

Bill C-4 was introduced second to the budget bill itself. It shows an indication of the priority that our government has to restore fair and balanced labour legislation.

Innovation in Canada

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, innovation drives growth and makes Canada more competitive.

In my riding, Sudbury, businesses have boosted their productivity and accelerated their growth by adjusting their innovation strategies.

Can the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development tell the House what the government is doing to stimulate innovation in Canada?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sudbury for his question and for expressing his interest in promoting innovation.

Our government has always said that we need a whole-of-government approach to building a more inclusive and innovative Canada. Today, I had the pleasure of announcing our first step toward creating a more innovative Canada.

We invite Canadians to tell us how to better foster innovation as a Canadian value.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, later today, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development will outline the Liberals' latest innovation scheme, but there is one problem. The event is being hosted by Canada 2020. This is the same group that hosted the pay-to-play trip to Washington. It just so happens that the leaders of Canada 2020 are deeply connected to the Liberal Party, and they also happen to own a lobbying firm, which happens to be registered to lobby the minister.

Could the minister explain how this is not textbook cronyism and a gross conflict of interest?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the member opposite raised the issue of innovation.

The Conservatives have been asking a lot of questions around the Agreement on Internal Trade. We believe that both these issues were addressed today when we talked about our innovation agenda.

This agenda is making key investments to grow our economy and to help the middle class. It is about providing future growth opportunities for companies to not only grow but to scale up. It is an opportunity for us to make key investments that ensure we have a better future for our children and grandchildren.