Debates of June 15th, 2016

Canadian Heritage

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the proud tradition to issue commemorative medals on important anniversaries of Canada was started in 1867 when each Father of Confederation was among the many citizens receiving a medal. It happened again on the diamond anniversary. The 1967 centennial and the 125th anniversary recognized accomplished Canadians, but the Liberal government jumps at every chance to kill a proud tradition. Apparently there will not be a medal to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Confederation.

Why not acknowledge worthy Canadians? Why this ongoing Liberal war on history and tradition?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague about the fact that Canada 150 will be a great year, and that we will celebrate, of course, history. I want to add that we have a positive message. This will be the 150th anniversary of our Confederation. We have community and signature projects throughout the country in every riding. We want to recognize local leadership and we want to engage Canadians. That is exactly what we will be doing.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the 1867 Confederation Medal is described as the “first honour of the Dominion”. The criteria? It was awarded for service or merit, and open to anyone. How Canadian. The Centennial Medal was for having provided valuable service to Canada. The Canada 125 medal went to those who made a significant contribution to their fellow citizens, to their community, or to Canada.

What is it about the 150th anniversary of Confederation that makes it the time to stop honouring Canadians who care about their country and community? Why this Liberal war on history?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the country we know we have amazing Canadians. We also think that we should not only be taking a top-down approach, but also a bottom-up approach. That is why we will ensure we have amazing ambassadors, from Nobel Peace Prize and Nobel Prize in Physics recipients to great artists, but also local leaders from throughout the country. I want to reassure my colleague that of course that idea of—

Indigenous Affairs

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the national chief of the AFN testified that first nations have serious concerns about the TPP deal, but all he received from the minister was a phone call. First nations have not been consulted.

Liberals have promised to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which means prior and informed consent from indigenous peoples on all decisions that affect them. Why are Liberals moving ahead with the damaging TPP without meaningful consultations with indigenous peoples in Canada?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we agree that consulting with indigenous peoples is critical to the process of consulting on the TPP. We are pleased that the trade committee heard from indigenous groups yesterday morning. However, as the member said, Chief Bellegarde did say that he had spoken to the minister. Further meetings have been planned and have already been set toward the end of this month.

I, as parliamentary secretary, met with Mr. Clément Chartier of the Métis National Council. However, we agree with the member opposite that we need to do more, and we are committed to continuing consultations with first nations on a nation-to-nation basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has yet to explain why it is okay for her officials to interfere with doctor treatments for indigenous patients. We have a brutal suicide crisis across this country, yet her department routinely denies psychiatric prescriptions for new drugs to deal with depression, anti-psychotic behaviour, and suicide. In fact, the department will force patients to go through two failed trial periods with out-of-date drugs before they will accept the doctor's diagnosis. It is putting people's lives at risk.

Will the minister take responsibility for her office, and end this discriminatory and dangerous practice?

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

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada has 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 year. Nearly 99% of pharmacy claims and 90% of dental claims were approved.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, Matthew Mendelsohn is one of the principal authors of the Liberal election platform containing that famous promise about the 2015 election being the last election under the current electoral system. Now Mr. Mendelsohn is a senior PCO official, specializing in what the government refers to as “results and delivery”, whatever that means.

Mr. Mendelsohn is also the co-author of a fascinating paper on electoral reform. He writes that it is “a given that no serious change can be made to the electoral system without its being approved by referendum”.

Will the Prime Minister take his adviser's excellent advice and hold a referendum, or would a referendum get in the way—

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all public servants a happy National Public Service Week. We count on their professional, non-partisan, and dedicated efforts to serve this country.

I can assure the member opposite that we will be relying on our public-service teams, as well as experts and academics, but also on all 338 members of the House who will reach out to their constituents and ensure their voices are reflected in this process.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the way the Minister of Democratic Institutions is managing the electoral reform that something is not right with the Liberals.

How else can you explain the fact that a man as respected as the Minister of Foreign Affairs is not allowed to speak about such a fundamental issue?

The Minister of Democratic Institutions said that she wants to listen and give all Canadians the opportunity to share their views.

My question is not for the Minister of Democratic Institutions, but for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In 2012, he said, “Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support”. Can he tell us whether he still feels the same way?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite what the process is. Come Monday, which is the final day that all parties will have an opportunity to submit the names of the individuals they would like to have represented on the all-party committee, the committee can be established and begin its work. That work includes reaching out to experts and academics. That work includes reaching out to those constituents in our riding who do not have an opportunity to be part of this process traditionally. That work includes a commitment, on behalf of all 338 members, that we will go out of our way to ensure those voices are heard.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Mexico's finance minister implied that lifting the visa requirement that Canada had imposed on Mexico was a done deal. However, at committee last Thursday, senior Canadian officials confirmed that a formal evidenced-based visa review had not been completed.

If the Prime Minister has told Mexico that he will immediately be lifting the visa requirement, and the government is not using the standard evidenced-based review process, what criteria is he using to lift this visa requirement?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the government is very much looking forward to hosting the first three amigos summit on Canadian territory in some time, an event that was cancelled by the previous government when relationships were so frayed that a meeting was not be possible.

However, at that meeting, we are looking forward to meeting our campaign commitment, which is to lift the Mexican visa. We are undertaking the reviews necessary to ensure this is done appropriately.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

So no criteria, Mr. Speaker. This is where it gets interesting. Romania is signalling that it is going to raise its Canadian visa requirements as a wrench in the CETA ratification process. These countries have had visa requirements with Canada in place for many years. However, if the Prime Minister will not tell Canadians what criteria he is using to lift the visa requirement for Mexico, as the parliamentary secretary just said, what is he telling the Romanians right now?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Romania, as well as Bulgaria, because the two go part and parcel in terms of dealing with the EU, we take our commitment to the EU and our relationship with the EU very seriously. The steps we are taking are that we are engaging in dialogue with both Romanian and Bulgarian officials. The minister has met with such individuals, as have I. In fact, the Romanian delegation is here today.

We are taking this situation very seriously in terms of expanding a dialogue to address the visa issue so we can move forward with a productive relationship.

Status of Women

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, the Liberal government promised that Canada would use gender-based analysis for all programs, policies, and laws. However, two Auditor General reports found the little done was piecemeal and inadequate. As the Auditor General said, a major barrier was lack of mandatory requirements.

Women's equality cannot be left up to the whims of any government or cabinet. Therefore, will the government introduce legislation before the end of 2016 to make gender-based analysis a mandatory requirement across all of the Government of Canada?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, it was my extreme pleasure to see that well over 1,000 parliamentarians, staff members, and bureaucrats took part in the gender-based analysis competition that we had just a few weeks ago, and received their certificates. It is a fantastic indication of the interest in gender-based analysis.

We take this very seriously. It is an important tool of the government to ensure we have equity woven throughout our programs and policies. We will be working very carefully to ensure we strengthen that capacity.

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

Mr. Speaker, gender-based analysis within the federal government is nothing new. In fact, a Liberal government committed to introducing it in 1995. It is now 2016, which means we have been waiting for over 20 years. For 20 years, the departments have been making decisions without having to systematically consider the impact they would have on women.

Will the government commit to stop dragging its feet and implementing gender-based analysis in all departments before the end of 2016?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I was really pleased that the standing committee, which looks at Status of Women Canada, took it upon itself to study gender-based analysis and how we could strengthen the use of that tool throughout government.

I am very much looking forward to reading the report and responding fulsomely in this Parliament.

Indigenous Affairs

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many indigenous communities in Canada, particularly those located in rural, remote, and isolated areas, are facing a distressing mental health crisis. These communities too often lack proper access to vital services and support, and the services that do exist are not always culturally appropriate or properly aligned with community needs.

Would the Minister of Health please inform the House on the steps the government is taking to help address this tragic and unacceptable state of affairs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for his hard work and dedication.

Building upon our investment of $8.4 billion in budget 2016, the Prime Minister announced new funding this week of approximately $69 million in immediate and targeted mental wellness support. That includes four crisis response teams and an increase of mental illness teams, from 11 to 43, training to ensure that care services are culturally appropriate, and a 24-hour culturally safe crisis response line.

Natural Resources

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the AFN chief said that more than 130 first nations were dead set against pipelines and energy development. The rest were demanding an absolute veto over any proposed developments. As can be imagined, this creates great uncertainty for investors.

Could the Prime Minister clarify for all Canadians whether first nations have the right to veto, yes or no?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, indigenous communities have not been meaningfully consulted about major energy projects. Because the former government did not do a very good job, we have decided to do a better one. We announced a set of principles on January 27, the centre point of which was that kind of meaningful consultation. We have asked a ministerial panel of three individuals to go up and down the line for that kind of consultation. Two out of those three representatives are aboriginal women.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as members can see, both the minister and the Prime Minister continue to do a dance on this issue of a veto.

When they promised to implement the UN declarations, the expectation of first nations, clearly, was they would have a veto over resource development. As Chief Bellegarde said, “...the right to say yes, and the right to say no...”. The Liberals are creating confusion.

Again, we need a simple answer, yes or no?