Debates of June 6th, 2016

Democratic Reform

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister does not need to patronize us. The fact is that this is not up for politicians to decide; it is up to Canadians.

We keep asking these questions because her answers make no sense. One hundred per cent of Canadian voters deserve to have a direct say in how they will elect their governments. What is so hard to understand?

My question, once again, is, will the minister finally listen to Canadians and agree to hold a referendum on how they vote?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, our commitment is to hear directly from Canadians. Our hope is that all 338 members in this House will advocate on behalf of their constituents and contribute constructively to the substance of electoral reform.

I hope that the mood tomorrow, with the vote tomorrow, will allow us to move away from an unproductive partisan debate on process to the substance of electoral reform, and ensuring that all Canadians, including young people who are not yet old enough to vote, can be part of this important conversation.

Physician-Assisted Dying

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

Mr. Speaker, the medical assistance in dying bill is historic. The government should have done the right thing.

That is exactly what it did not do. Knowing the timeline was tight, it nevertheless waited until April to introduce its bill. It refused to listen to the experts.

Today, Peter Hogg, one of Canada's most respected constitutional experts, once again said that Bill C-14 would not pass the test in terms of the charter or the Carter decision.

When will the Liberals change course and do the right thing?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have sought to ensure that we hear from a diversity of voices in this country with respect to this incredibly difficult and complex issue. To paraphrase the Supreme Court of Canada, the court does not have a monopoly on the protection and promotion of rights, and Parliament has to do its job to be an ally to the vulnerable.

We have sought to find a balance between the diversity of views and perspectives in this country, balancing personal autonomy and protecting the vulnerable.

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

Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is about the law, but it is, above all, about people.

The Carter family fought for years alongside their mother to make it possible for people to die with dignity in Canada. Today, they are saying that they feel betrayed by the Liberal government. The government says that it listens to Canadians, but it listens only to those who agree with it.

Now that the government has failed to get its bill passed by June 6, will it come up with a bill that is charter-compliant and in line with the Carter decision?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are incredibly mindful of the deadline of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is incumbent upon parliamentarians to put in place a national framework around our medical assistance in dying to ensure that there are the appropriate and necessary safeguards in place, to ensure certainty for medical practitioners, and to ensure that there is access for patients who want to access medical assistance in dying.

This is an incredibly complex discussion. We have certainly listened to the voices of Canadians, and it is the voices of Canadians who have contributed toward Bill C-14.

National Defence

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, from helicopters to submarines, and now fighter jets, the legacy of the Liberals is to buy old and make do.

The Liberals have made up their minds to buy the Super Hornet and now are working on the right narrative to support it.

Let us be perfectly clear. The Liberals are only sole-sourcing the Super Hornets to fulfill an ill-advised political campaign promise. Simply put, the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a lot better.

Will the Prime Minister admit that he broke his promise for an open and fair competition to replace our fighter jets?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to a well-equipped and modern air force. Unfortunately, the last five years have been a bit of a loss. As a consequence, there is a developing capability gap which needs to be managed. We have obligations to NATO, we have obligations to NORAD, we have obligations to our own defence and to expeditionary matters.

Accordingly, we are proceeding forward on this matter, and we will be moving toward a decision soon.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will not even use our fighter jets to defeat and degrade ISIS, and the Liberal suggestion that our fighter jets are literally on their last legs is patently false. We know that our fighter jets can operate effectively until 2025, and there is no urgency to replace them on an interim basis. The Liberals do not need to sole source the Super Hornet to transition from the CF-18 to avoid their imaginary capability gap. Why are the Liberals misleading Canadians and breaking their promise for a fair and transparent competition?

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to the inaction of the previous government, we are developing a capability gap, and that capability gap needs to be managed. So four years out, five years out, 10 years out, the chief of defence needs to be thinking about how to manage that capability gap. Accordingly, the minister has taken the responsible action, and he is moving forward with making a decision sooner rather than later, which should have happened maybe five years ago now.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, senior officials have confirmed that the Liberal government has already decided to purchase F-18 Super Hornets. Before making the announcement, the Liberals just have to finalize the narrative to justify this purchase. Although they promised to hold an open, transparent competition, the result has already been decided: another broken Liberal promise.

Can the government confirm that it plans to purchase the F-18 Super Hornet? What expert advice is it basing this decision on?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in an earlier response to a question, the unfortunate reality is that we have lost five years on this particular procurement. As a consequence, we are now approaching a situation where we have a capability gap. If we are going to manage the capability gap, we need to move to the point of making a decision. Unlike the previous government, we will be making a decision.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the current fleet of CF-18s has been refurbished to last until 2025, which is enough time to transition to the next fighter jet. The urgency the Liberals are describing seems to have been invented specifically to give the Prime Minister an excuse not to purchase the F-35.

If the government goes ahead with this decision, is the minister aware of the risk of legal action and the negative repercussions this will have on the Canadian businesses that manufacture the F-35?

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

Mr. Speaker, getting a question from the Conservative Party, having manufactured, in effect, this capability gap, is ironic in the extreme. We are, therefore, in a position where we are going to have to make serious decisions about the replacement for the CF-18. We cannot any longer carry on in the fashion we have been carrying on. Had these decisions actually been addressed and done in the last three or four or five years, we would not be here talking about this matter today.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they have been in power for seven months now, and replacing our CF-18s did not seem to be on their radar, and yet, we have known for years that they need to be replaced. I hardly need to point out that replacing any military equipment requires planning. It is not like going shopping at Toys “R” Us. These kinds of purchases are not made on a whim. What our soldiers need is the right equipment for the job. When will the government put in place a transparent process to replace the CF-18s?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know, being in the NDP, that for the last five, six, seven, eight years, the CF-18 decision had been pending and pending and continued to be pending. Had the previous government actually done something more than get in and out of photo ops, possibly we would not actually be talking about this at this point.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, the Liberals said that they would not purchase the F-35, but right after being elected, they said maybe yes, maybe no. Now it looks like they may have already decided on another fighter jet, but still without the promised open and transparent competition. In fact, it looks like the Liberal government is running procurement as an inside job, just like the Conservatives. Why have they abandoned an open tender process to replace our aging CF-18s, and when will they put in place a procurement system that can actually deliver the equipment our military needs?

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

Mr. Speaker, as members know, we inherited a procurement system that by many measurements was a broken procurement system. Accordingly, the minister has had to take serious decisions—all ministers, in fact, have had to take serious decisions—with respect to getting the equipment the hon. member and I would agree is the equipment that needs to replace the CF-18. Accordingly, we are proceeding with the decision process, and hopefully we will have a decision soon.

Natural Resources

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the previous government showed no interest in science and innovation, but, since taking office, our government has put them back on the map. That is one of the important measures taken by this government.

It is by investing in leading-edge sectors that Canada will continue to progress and secure its future. Without a doubt, clean energy is one of those sectors.

Will the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House of the new Canadian strategy in that regard?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for his question.

When I was in San Francisco last week, I announced that Canada would double its funding for clean energy to $775 million by 2020. With these investments, our government is taking a strong leadership role on climate change.

Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship

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

Mr. Speaker, soon Syrian refugees will see their one year of government-funded support terminate. Moreover, many of these refugees cannot access training to learn English or French. A refugee at committee last week said, through a translator, “No, I am not working. How can I work if I don't know the English to communicate?” His family has already had to turn to food banks to make ends meet.

When will the Liberals admit that by failing to have any comprehensive plan to provide Syrian refugees with language training, these refugees may require social assistance after their year of funding runs out?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly have a comprehensive plan to provide language training, because we understand that success in English or French is key to finding a job and key to success in Canada. That is why the government has funded $600 million for settlement in 2016-17. That is $27 million extra for the new refugees, and language is very much at the top of our priorities.

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

Mr. Speaker, this refugee at committee begged to differ. He said, when asked about his wife's chances to learn English, “Her situation is worse than mine. I try my best to learn English on the streets, through my friends, or through some acquaintances. She doesn't have that chance because she mainly stays at home with the kids”.

Will the Liberals admit that their lack of a plan to provide language training to Syrian refugees is creating gender inequity and isolating these women, or will they continue to treat these women simply as photo ops?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard through our funding to provide language training to men, to women, and to children. We also understand that many of the Syrian refugee mothers have significant numbers of children to look after, and therefore they need child care facilities to help them with the language training. We understand there is more work to do in that area, but we are working very hard through the settlement agencies to provide that funding to support language training for everybody.

Foreign Affairs

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Liberals will cave in to Chinese belligerence at the drop of a proverbial hat.

Last week, at the insistence of the Chinese government, the Prime Minister bowed to demands to meet not with the president but with the foreign minister, who then took time out of his busy schedule to berate a Canadian journalist while our foreign minister kept as quiet as a church mouse.

When will the Liberals grow a backbone and ensure that Canadian foreign policy is actually run by Canadians?