Debates of June 14th, 2016

International Development

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act of 2003, first proposed by a Liberal, states specifically that it is for poverty reduction, human rights, and the promotion of democracy. The Prime Minister's envoy to the United Nations recently declared that foreign aid will form the backbone of Canada's bid to win a seat on the UN Security Council.

Is the Prime Minister's envoy not aware that they are breaking a Canadian law with the use of aid money to buy a UN Security Council seat?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, our government is incredibly proud of the international assistance we provide to countries and people around the world. As the member knows, since coming to government, the Prime Minister has mandated the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie to refocus Canada's development assistance on the most poor and the most vulnerable, including in fragile states, and that is exactly what we are going to do. We are proud of the work that we are doing around the world.

Natural Resources

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I talked about the petitions signed by 25,000 Quebeckers who are saying “no” to energy east. According to another electronic petition of the House, 257 Quebeckers are in favour of energy east.

Therefore, 10,000% more Quebeckers oppose energy east. There is no social licence in Quebec for this project and there never will be.

What hidden interests are behind the government's reluctance to say no? Is this the Irving siren call from the Maritimes?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, on January 27, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and I announced a set of principles that will govern the review of major projects. One of those major projects is energy east. The National Energy Board will spend 21 months reviewing the project, during which time all Canadians, mayors, premiers, leaders of the opposition, members of Parliament, and Canadians at large will have every opportunity to express their views.

Health

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health's statements are preposterous. She has announced that a 3% increase in transfers is quite enough, as though there were no such thing as population aging. To hell with the federal-provincial negotiations. They are obviously bogus.

What is worse is that she wants to split the block transfer into 13 individual agreements in order to tell Quebec what to do in the area of health, even though Ottawa knows absolutely nothing about it. We have stopped counting the fires that the minister has set with a single statement.

Can the Minister of Finance, who oversees the health transfer, rein in his pyromaniac colleague?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, at the January meeting of Canadian health ministers, the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers agreed to put forward shared health priorities.

I confirmed our commitment to working with the provinces and the territories, including Quebec, to establish a funding agreement that provides for bilateral agreements. The provinces and territories have different circumstances and are at different stages, which will be reflected in these bilateral agreements.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has just talked about introducing a new innovation consultation, and he said he did it in an open and transparent way. That is not at all true. This is the first I have heard of it. I am not sure how I am supposed to fulfill my role as the critic for science and find out if that is a good process if I am not even invited to this Canada 2020 Liberals-only event.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have not had notice of a question of privilege, and this sounds a bit like debate. If the member wants to come back and wants to send me a notice of a question of privilege, that is open to her.

Th House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--ISIS

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:04 p.m., pursuant to an order made Thursday, June 9, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

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

Vote #88

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion.

Opposition motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Victoria relating to the business of supply.

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

Vote #89

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Internal trade

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There are three minutes remaining in questions and comments after the speech from the hon. member for Durham.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution to the debate here today.

Just as a point of clarification, he intimated in his comments as to whether or not I actually graduated from Dalhousie law school one year behind him. I can assure the hon. member I did. I think it was in no small part thanks to the notes he left behind from the year before. I will even admit, in the context of this debate, that I used his constitutional notes. I do appreciate his efforts.

It is clear from his speech that he has comprehension and understanding of the Constitution that many in this House do not. However, I think he will also agree with me that the Constitution, as important a tool as it is, as the backbone of our nation that it is, is certainly open to some interpretation and has proven to be, especially section 121, which he so eloquently discussed. The hon. member goes way back to the colour of margarine sold in Quebec or whether hay can cross the Alberta-B.C. border. There is much jurisprudence on these cases.

I just want the hon. member to answer one simple question. Does he think that if we do reference this case or this situation to the Supreme Court it is an absolute slam dunk that the court will rule on the side of there being no tariffs? Actually, there are no tariffs on beer, as it is now, but the provinces are not allowed to enact tax on their alcohol products. Does he think it is a slam dunk?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I hope that in answering the hon. member for Durham will not refer to the year he graduated from Dalhousie law school, because I know it was long after I did.

The hon. member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you carved the trail that the member for Newmarket—Aurora and myself humbly walk behind. My friend is an exceptional lawyer and was a member of a great law firm. In fact, his partner, Michael Osborne, and I were in Vancouver, remarking on what a great fellow he is. I am glad he used my CANs, as we called them in law school. Perhaps we had beers in the Domus Legis together, and it might have been Alexander Keith beer, made in the north end, by the Hydrostone, where I lived in Halifax. We used to have an Alexander Keith's sociable in Toronto, celebrating Alexander Keith, who was a Tory, an early privy councillor for Nova Scotia pre-Confederation. However, it is a shame we could not take Moosehead from New Brunswick or Keith's from Halifax and have that same beer in Toronto, or even in Ottawa, because of archaic laws.

This is a time we have the precedence from the Bedford decision, the Carter decision, the Blais decision. I do think it is a slam dunk, particularly, if we get my friend's old law firm on the case.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had to rise to ask the hon. member for Durham a question because we are making the full round of Dalhousie law grads here and trading notes about who graduated when. I was in the same graduating class with our Speaker and also in the same year with the Speaker of the Senate.

Thank you very much. I am actually older than the Speaker because I was a mature student when I started out, but I appreciate the friendly heckling as to how well I may or may not be aging.

My question for the hon. member for Durham is this. Do we have any examples where the Supreme Court of Canada has been willing to provide a response on a question that has not yet reached it but which is currently under appeal from the courts of New Brunswick from the Comeau decision? I genuinely do not know; I need to do some legal research.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my friend, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, got up to complete the Dalhousie trifecta here today and to show that there is a quiet Dalhousie law school mafia running the Parliament of Canada. We do not like to admit it. It is kind of the illuminati of Parliament.

However, she raises a great point on whether there has been a Supreme Court reference on a matter in the courts below, in the superior court.

I would refer the hon. member to what the previous government did with respect to the Senate reference where we go straight to the Supreme Court for a reference. The government did that in part because of comments from the Government of Prince Edward Island, which intimated that it would challenge a move to modernize the Senate, which the last government tried to do. To go for that reference would set clarity and allow us to break down the trade barriers before Canada turns 150.

As I said in my speech, the case law, particularly, Bedford and Carter, which showed that societal change, and then the intent of the Blais decision, shows that the Supreme Court would likely look favourably and support the Comeau decision from New Brunswick.