Debates of Sept. 20th, 2016

Public Safety

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table today, in both official languages, “Our Security, Our Rights: National Security Green Paper, 2016”.

This green paper, as well as an associated background document, have been prepared on 10 key national security issues in support of the national security consultations I was pleased to advance this summer, along with the Minister of Justice. These documents are not meant as a statement of government policy. Rather, they are intended to stimulate discussion and debate. The broad-based consultations give Canadians an unprecedented opportunity to provide their views about how best to protect our national security and our rights and freedoms. I encourage all hon. members to participate actively and constructively in this process.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the 12th Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, held in Ulan-Ude, Russia, June 14 to 16.

Income Tax Act

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the house, the recorded division on the third reading of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, deferred to the expiry of Government Orders later this day be deferred until the expiry of Oral Questions today.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

(Motion agreed to)

Palliative Care

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition brought forward by members of my constituency to identify hospice palliative care as a defined medical service covered under the Canada Health Act so that provincial and territorial governments will be entitled to funding under the Canada health transfer system.

In addition to this petition, properly tabled, my constituents have also prepared a petition that did not include the necessary address to the House and the other necessary addresses. I would just like to remind all Canadians that if they intend to present a petition before the House of Commons to do so under the form of Standing Order 36.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for making this point for our viewers.

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Dairy Products

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to present my very first e-petition.

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, the attached electronic petition is certified. It is numbered e-289 and has been signed by 5,116 Canadians. I duly present it in the House right now.

Oil and Gas Pipelines

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present e-petition 216.

The whole Canadian economy relies on oil and gas exploration, extraction, transport, upgrading, refining, and processing. The industry is Canada's largest private-sector investor and contributes $17 billion annually to government programs and services across the country. The livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Canadians rely on the oil and gas sector directly and indirectly, and 110,000 Canadians have lost their jobs in the energy sector.

Canada is a world leader in the responsible development of energy resources, but a lack of pipelines to new markets means that Canadian producers often receive far less than market rates for their oil. Jobs depend on new and expanded pipeline infrastructure.

Canadians expect their government to champion the best interests of all of Canada, so I stand with the nearly 35,000 people who signed this e-petition calling on the Government of Canada to vocally defend Canadian oil and gas pipelines and to make the building of oil, gas, and diluted bitumen pipelines across Canada to tidewater and to the United States a national priority.

Justice

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present two petitions.

The first petition is in support of Cassie and Molly's law. These signatures represent tens of thousands that have already been presented in the House, people from of all walks of life.

I want to congratulate my colleague from Yorkton—Melville and the excellent work she has done on the bill.

This is in support of preborn children in the context where the mother wishes to carry the child to term and should have the right to do so to protect it.

Human Rights

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is about human rights in China, specifically drawing the attention of members of the House to the situation affecting Falun Gong practitioners, and major issues of religious freedom affecting people in China from a variety of faith groups.

This petition, in particular, highlights the practice of forced organ harvesting that happens in China. It encourages members of the House to take this issue very seriously and to hold China accountable for these abuses of human rights that have happened and continue to happen.

Palliative Care

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to table a petition signed by many of my constituents. It deals with the very important issue of hospice palliative care. They are asking members of Parliament to specifically identify hospice palliative care as a defined medical service covered under the Canada Health Act, recognizing the importance of palliative care to all Canadians.

Justice

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to present two more petitions in support of Cassie and Molly's law. These signatures are representative of tens of thousands that have already been presented to the House and represent Canadians of all walks of life, affirmed by a Nanos poll with 97% of respondents identifying as pro-choice, and of those pro-choice individuals, 52% to 73% agreeing that there is a need for a law to protect pregnant women and their preborn children.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Government Accountability

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, yesterday I indicated that I would return to the House to provide further comment on the question of privilege raised with reference to the Minister of Natural Resources. Therefore, I would like to make a short supplementary intervention on the question of privilege concerning the government response to Order Paper question 152.

Specifically, I would like to address the allegations on the executive travel of the Minister of Natural Resources. The crux of question152 is whether a minister used a rented limousine while on official business. The Minister of Natural Resources responded, Insofar as Natural Resources Canada is concerned, the Minister of Natural Resources did not use rented limousines while on official business.

The answer provided by the Minister of Natural Resources not only directly answers the question but does so accurately. Let me explain.

The Department of Natural Resources Canada rented two sedans and shuttle buses for members of an official delegation to the North American energy ministers meeting. While members of the delegation were transported in sedans, the minister used the shuttle bus for transportation. At no time did the minister use a rented limousine while on official business.

As I stated yesterday in my intervention on this matter, the hon. member opposite is simply looking to initiate a debate on question 152. I will remind the House that responses to Order Paper questions are not to be used as an opportunity for debate. This is a dispute about the facts. A disagreement about the content of a response is merely that: a disagreement about facts and not a question of privilege.

Speaker Fraser, in his May 15, 1991 ruling, stated:

The difficulty that is always with the Chair in these cases is that there are often very great differences of interpretation on the answers given. It is not a question of privilege; it is a question of disagreement over certain facts and answers that were given.

Again, I submit that the matter the member has raised is not a question of privilege but rather is a dispute about the facts.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will take the information under advisement, and the Chair will get back to the House of Commons with its decision.

The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Pest Control Products Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and to make related amendments to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Food and Drugs Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Windsor West has eight minutes remaining on debate. Questions and comments.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was here last night and listened to the member's interesting speech about the trade issue.

In this debate, we have been covering a number of different aspects of the trade discussion. I want to ask the member about the issue of consultation on the TPP. One of the criticisms we have heard from the NDP is that this discussion supposedly happened in secret.

I have with me a list of more than 150 different stakeholders who were directly engaged in the conversation throughout the negotiating process. They signed non-disclosure agreements and were able to be part of the discussion. The member knows that.

The reality is that when there are international trade negotiations, those negotiations cannot be held in public because of commercially sensitive information that is discussed. However, there were many different stakeholders involved throughout the process.

Does the member recognize that reality and that bringing many different key Canadian stakeholders into the discussion and doing so in a way that respects the reality of commercial sensitivities is an appropriate way to conduct negotiations?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I actually did not raise the TPP during my speech, but I would be happy to answer.

The concerns the NDP members have raised, and they are concerns brought to us by many stakeholders, not just here in Canada but at the beginning of the discussions on the TPP, were that they were done in private and created an agreement that, basically, we cannot amend right now.

Let us imagine that someone went to buy an automobile—my personal preference, in terms of my riding, would be a Pacifica—and in trying to negotiate the sale was given a contract, with the only option being to sign that contract.

Later on, when there were discussions and hearings, as we are having, we heard concerns that people were not consulted during the creation and have no avenue to deal with the issue.

I would continue to at least look at some of the benefits and some of the challenges we have. On Bill C-13, I have talked a lot about organized crime and the exposure of our ports, with goods and services coming into Canada, which would expand, as would the problems we have with organized crime.

Interestingly, we are going to have a chance in this chamber very soon to deal with a bill on organized crime. It is my private member's bill, Bill C-221, which is up for a vote on Wednesday. That bill alone will end a $10-billion annual benefit, in cash, for organized crime in Canada alone, and $4 billion in Canadian money that goes offshore.

We can affect things right here, right now. This bill, C-13, will have further challenges if we want to tackle organized crime.