Debates of May 17th, 2017

Seniors

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There is no consent. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about our seniors, a growing segment of our population. Seniors worked hard to build our economy and secure the social benefits that we enjoy today.

Our current social security system was designed at a time when seniors represented just a small part of the population and is no longer equipped to respond to today's challenges. In 2035, 25% of our constituents will be seniors. We must take action today to prepare for the future.

In my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, many organizations are already working together daily to improve living conditions for our seniors. I am thinking about the many seniors' federations in Quebec that allow our constituents to remain social and active and that combat isolation. Some 17,000 seniors are part of this network.

In my riding, volunteers at volunteer centres in Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale also do tremendous work by helping meals on wheels deliver food to those who are unable to cook or get around.

Seniors are an incredible resource for our society. They are among those who most often become involved in non-profit organizations and associations. Their dedication commands our respect, and many organizations would not be able to function properly without the volunteer contributions of our seniors. In fact, I do not know what will happen to some of these organizations when that generation is no longer here.

It is our responsibility, as MPs, to promote this kind of community engagement. It is so valuable. Having worked for years in the community sector, I know just how important our seniors are in creating and strengthening social ties.

According to the Institut de la statistique du Québec, volunteers aged 65 and over devote 190 hours a year to volunteer work. That is huge. There are programs to help our seniors get involved in their communities. Take for example the new horizons for seniors program, which provides funding to promote volunteerism among seniors, engage seniors in the community, expand awareness of elder abuse, support the social participation and inclusion of seniors, and provide capital assistance for new and existing community projects and programs for seniors.

The deadline for submitting a funding application is June 23. I invite all organizations and municipalities in my riding to submit an application in order to maintain their involvement in the community.

Most of our seniors live in difficult circumstances today. As members of Parliament, it is our duty to do our best to help them cope with the difficulties they may face. That is why in March I organized an information day on the tax credits that older Canadians and those with disabilities may be eligible for. More than 200 people came to the meeting in Saint-Hyacinthe. Last year, 300 attended. These numbers are evidence of our constituents' need for information.

In fact, due to a lack of information, quite a few of them are missing out on many tax credits and subsidies they could be receiving. In order to address the federal government's failure to provide this information, I prepared a guide for seniors that lists all benefits and supports. This guide will be mailed to all seniors in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Although I am happy to help our seniors, I would like to point out that that is the government's job. What about those who live in ridings where MPs do not provide such services? How many of our constituents live in difficult circumstances and are missing out on all these tax credits and benefits for lack of information?

Not everyone can afford to pay an accountant to do their taxes for them. Once again, those living in the most vulnerable situations are the first victims.

However, there are other ways this government's policies have failed our seniors. We know that between 75% and 80% of seniors report suffering from one or more chronic health problems. For quite some time now, the NDP has been calling for a national pharmacare program that would allow the federal government to save billions of dollars every year and would make drugs far more accessible to Canadians living in the most precarious situations.

What about the guaranteed income supplement? How many people cannot collect benefits every year because registration is not automatic? This is a simple measure that the government needs to implement immediately.

This government also got rid of the office of the minister responsible for seniors as soon as it announced its first cabinet. The responsibility to establish policies specifically for seniors is now divided among a number of departments, which is not conducive to the development of the national strategy we so desperately need.

There are solutions right in front of us. In October, the NDP put forward a motion to create a national seniors strategy. My colleague from London—Fanshawe did a remarkable job on that and worked with stakeholders to define a national strategy with health, affordable housing, income security, and quality of life components, and to create a seniors' advocate position to make sure those things actually see the light of day.

We are wasting time and money while we wait, yet again, for the government to act. My colleague opposite moved a motion calling for the creation of a national seniors strategy, but I am worried that the government will see this as just another public relations exercise and will not take the motion seriously enough to come up with a meaningful policy that will really make a difference in the day-to-day lives of our seniors.

I am not trying to impugn the government's motives. I am only considering its record since it came into power. Canadians are seeing the Liberals break their promises yet again. The government's policies fall short of meeting their needs and expectations.

The Liberals like to highlight the changes they recently made to old age security and the fact that they increased the guaranteed income supplement for seniors living alone. Those measures are a drop in the bucket. They are bandaids, not real, effective policies developed as part of a national strategy on care and quality of life for seniors.

We do not want the government's smokescreens. It is time for a real and lasting strategy that sets out to address the needs of our seniors. That is what the NDP proposed in the fall. In my opinion, my Liberal colleague's motion is vague. I want clear commitments from the Liberals on what they plan to do and how they plan to implement this national strategy.

I would also like to point out another problem that was overlooked in the motion, namely the vulnerability of senior women. In fact, senior women are twice as likely as men of the same age to live in poverty. Living below the poverty line is the lot of 30% of senior women. A national seniors strategy must include a specific strategy for senior women living in precarious situations.

In my riding, I met with seniors who live below the poverty line. They expect the federal government to show leadership and take action on a national level to ensure that people from coast to coast can have access to the support they need to continue to have a decent life in their community.

In closing, we need to look after this generation, which built our communities, and the seniors of tomorrow.

Every time the Liberals take a step back, more and more people suffer. The NDP has a longstanding commitment to providing support for our seniors. It is now time for this government to step up to the plate and to take action as quickly as possible.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to stand in the House tonight and represent my great riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, which you know very well. It is the outskirts of Halifax and Dartmouth and is a very important part of our HRM community.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to the issue of seniors. This topic is extremely important to Canadians. I want to thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for his motion, which is a major step toward, maybe very soon, a national strategy for seniors. It is important to have the discussion, look at all the pieces, and see how we can frame this so we can be successful as quickly as possible. We need to keep in mind the demographic shift in Canada. It is a big issue. We need to talk about it, look at it, study it, analyze it and bring solutions to the table.

Since 2011, we have seen a 20% increase in seniors 65 and older. I should explain that I am talking mostly about the age of 65 and over. In certain parts of the country or in the states 55 is consider being a senior. However, I am focusing more on age 65 and older, and also those who will soon be in that age category.

Atlantic Canada has the highest level of seniors per capita in the country. Whatever the challenge is, it is amplified that much more in Atlantic Canada. Let me add that Nova Scotia has the second-largest number of seniors, a 0.1% differential from New Brunswick. Therefore, the number of seniors aged 65 and over is extremely high in Nova Scotia.

However, it is extremely important to note that my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook has the highest number of seniors in the province of Nova Scotia. We have had an increase of 33.9% in the number of seniors since 2011. That is an enormous increase and is an example of the challenges we will get.

On the other side of the coin, it is important to keep in mind that seniors live longer, which is good news for all of us. We have seen an increase of 20% in seniors living past 85 years old. We have also seen, believe it or not, a 40% increase in seniors living over 100 years old. This is since 2011. These are big numbers and that is why we need to look not at the challenges in front of us, but, as my colleague from Nickel Belt has said, we need to look at this as opportunities available to us.

Again, I want to thank my colleague for that initiative. I believe these discussions can lead to something extremely positive toward a national policy.

Let us talk about seniors. I remember when 55 was the age of retirement. However, seniors now are working much longer, which is extremely positive. They are very successful because they have a lot of experience and skill.

For example, we have noticed that seniors, either before retirement or when they retire, are thinking about starting a business. Those who have started businesses and have had a business for five years or more, that being the point when the difference between success and not so successful is determined, are 70% successful in their business. Younger people are only around 30% successful.

We need to get seniors more involved. We need to talk about how we can do that. Our government has a role to play in promoting the engagement of seniors, of speaking with stakeholders about engaging seniors, which is extremely important. We need to continue to do that.

Some seniors decide to retire. That is a great opportunity as well. After working a number of years, that is an option seniors have and it is extremely beneficial. However, we must keep in mind that those seniors who retire are not staying home. They are active. They are volunteering in communities. They are volunteering in different organizations. They are contributing to the community. They are key community members, supporting it and working hard. However, those individuals have barriers. These are the types of conversations we need to have.

We need to have a discussion on how we can help them. One of the barriers would be the cost to do activities, such as volunteering. Transportation is another barrier. It would help seniors to know what opportunities are available them to help with those barriers. We need to promote and communicate those opportunities much better so seniors can get more involved. We need to tap into those resources. Those individuals have the skills, the knowledge, and the willingness to contribute to their communities. That is value added, and we need to take advantage of that.

I would also like to say that, according to a 2014 report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, although seniors represent only 15% of the population, they account for 45% of health care costs. That certainly puts a lot of pressure on the system.

That is why we need to find ways to help these people in order to limit health care needs and chronic illnesses. How can we do that? We can obviously keep promoting existing strategies. We need to encourage people to lead a healthy lifestyle and be active. That will certainly help. We also need to ensure that we have the means to support seniors in doing just that. That is essential. We obviously also need to take advantage of what seniors have to offer.

Rising poverty among seniors is a big issue. Many of my colleagues have spoken about that today. We must ensure that we continue to speak about this and try to find a solution. For example, in Nova Scotia, 33% of single seniors over 65 are low-income seniors. We need to continue to support them.

The correlation between seniors and income and good health is essential. If their income is better and they are able to stay more active, then their health will be improved and they will be able to continue to contribute. That is an important factor as well.

Let me list some of the key things we have done.

Increasing the GIS, the guaranteed income supplement, has helped to lift 900,000 seniors out of poverty, which is extremely important. Restoring the OAS, the old age supplement, to 65 from 67 represents $17,000. Putting together a national housing strategy and the health accord help support seniors, as well as extending compassionate care from six weeks to 26 weeks.

It is extremely important to know that since we were elected, our government has put many strategies in place to support seniors. This conversation is essential to allow us to look at the big picture and possibly, in the near future, have a strong national seniors' strategy for all Canadian.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to speak on an important motion by the member for Nickel Belt.

Motion No. 106 is an important motion, because seniors make up a growing demographic in Canada. In fact, the recent 2016 census showed that we are growing at an alarming rate. We are up to 16.9%. In fact, there are more seniors in Canada than there are people 15 years of age and younger. Meanwhile, the portion of the working-age population, those between the ages of 15 and 64, has declined from 68% to 66%.

Given that seniors are one of the largest and fastest-growing demographics in Canada, it is paramount that we now take action to deal with the corresponding effects of an aging population. This is why this motion is so important.

However, Motion No. 106 highlights a lack of seriousness on behalf of the Liberal government when it comes to addressing the needs of Canadian seniors. It leaves out necessary action that must be taken in order to appropriately address related concerns.

Over the years, I have presented several petitions calling for a national strategy for seniors and palliative care. A national strategy would ensure that many of the issues important to seniors, such as establishing a national strategy for Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia, improving palliative care, and ensuring quality home care are listened to and addressed. Such a strategy is addressed in section (e) of Motion No. 106.

However, something that is not addressed by this motion is the lack of representation for seniors within the Liberal government's cabinet. Our Conservative Party believes that seniors are important, and as such, they deserve their own portfolio. We have a minister for children and families, as well as a minister for youth, so where is the minister for seniors? It is clear that Canadians recognize the importance of such an appointment, but does the government?

The dramatic greying of Canada's population will reshape the economy, stifle growth, and force governments to provide for a growing number of seniors with a shrinking pool of taxpayers. Currently the government does not have a sustainable plan to address both the challenges and opportunities that stem from this unique shift in our country's population. Instead of a plan, it has plunged our country deeper into debt, along with our citizens.

In fact, budget 2017 did very little for seniors. Instead of introducing tax measures that would have helped make life more affordable for those living on a fixed income, it scrapped tax credits that seniors rely on, credits such as the family caregiver tax credit and the public transit tax credit. Budget 2017's catch-all policies with the word "senior" stamped on them are not enough to address the very real needs of our aging population.

Another problematic aspect of Motion No. 106 is section (b), which seeks to restore the age of eligibility for old age security to 65. Everyone knows Canadians are living longer and healthier lives, and the OAS program needs to reflect this new reality and provide the option for individuals to work longer and receive higher retirement benefits.

In budget 2016, the Liberal government set up an advisory council. That advisory council came back to them in 2017, saying that the government needed to address this point, that it was important, that they could see the need. Motion No. 106 is in direct contradiction to what the advisory council stated.

If the age of eligibility for OAS returns to 65, in 13 years the cost will go up by $10.4 billion. As well, the guaranteed income supplement will go up by $1.2 billion in 13 years. Given Canada's current economic situation, it is of great concern that the Liberal Prime Minister has demonstrated that he does not take long-term financial sustainability seriously. Canadian seniors deserve a government that will stand up for their needs and deliver long-term results.

Our previous Conservative government has a strong and dynamic record of support for seniors. We were transparent and vocal on ending elder abuse and senior communal isolation by establishing the New Horizon for Seniors grant program in 2011. Our record also shows that Conservatives made the largest increase to the guaranteed income supplement in a quarter of a century. We created tax-free savings accounts to allow Canadians to benefit. Our previous government expanded the compassionate care program and provided tax breaks to caregivers.

In 2011, we reduced the number of Canadians in need of housing through a multi-level government framework and an investment of $1.4 billion. Close to 184,000 households benefited. I know I am running out of time, but I just want to say a couple more things.

I am concerned about the future of our aging population. The Liberal government continues to demonstrate a lack of respect for Canadian seniors and their concerns by refusing to appoint a minister of seniors or commit to a timeline for a national seniors strategy. Therefore, I urge this House to support the amendments to Motion No. 106 and support meaningful action for seniors.

I had a lot more to say and I wish I had the time to say it, but I will say that seniors play an important role in our families, our communities, and our workplaces. They are the people who started this country. They are the people who still contribute some of the greatest amounts of volunteer time in our communities across Canada.

I am proud to be a member of the senior caucus and I am proud to be a senior myself. I am not turning grey like some of them, but I am losing hair like a lot of them. I want to thank all the seniors across my riding and across Canada who have given their time to our communities, and this question begs to be asked: should Canada's fastest-growing demographic not have their own voice in government?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues who participated in the debate on developing a national seniors' strategy, as well as those who contributed to it. This is very important for our aging population, and we need to take action.

I thank all of the organizations in the riding of Nickel Belt that provided me with a great deal of information and that have stayed involved by sending me their objectives and suggestions of the concrete measures that need to be taken to develop a national strategy. I also thank the many volunteers and the families in ridings across Canada that want to help seniors and improve their quality of life.

I want to comment on something that was said earlier about the Conservatives. If we look at the Conservatives' track record, we see that nothing got done over the past 10 years even though there was a minister responsible for seniors. What then was the point of having such a minister?

The Conservatives increased the age for old age security from 65 to 67. That is their track record, and there has been no increase. We as a government have increased the GIS by 10% for the first time. This is the first time, and 900,000 Canadians are benefiting from that. This is the action we are taking.

We are putting together a housing strategy. We have palliative care and we have home care. We are taking steps to make that happen. I am really disappointed that the Conservatives feel that they do not want to support that. It is very interesting that they are doing that.

When we look at our budget in 2016, we see we have done more in one budget than the previous government did for seniors in 10 years. Let us put that on the record.

I am really happy to be looking at getting the seniors motion in place. I will just mention statistics. The Canadian Medical Association has the Demand a Plan campaign. They are putting that in place, and 55,000 Canadians are asking the government to put a seniors strategy in place. In the last two days leading up to today's debate, I have received over 1,200 emails from Canadians asking how we can establish a seniors strategy.

There is a need to set up a seniors strategy, and all members in the House of Commons will have an opportunity to vote in the next little while to put a national seniors strategy in place. I ask all members of Parliament to look at the needs of seniors and to look at how we can put in place a strategy that will meet the needs of our aging population.

Lastly, the National Seniors Council, which is mentioned in my motion, is critical to fostering collaboration and dialogue about a national seniors strategy.

I thank those of my colleagues who supported the motion. We will keep the conversation going and move ahead with the development of a national seniors strategy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare the motion carried on division.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Justice

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to defend my private member's bill, Bill C-350, a bill which would combat forced organ harvesting.

As many members know, there are certain countries where organs are taken from people without their consent. Sometimes these organs are cut out of a person while he or she is still living and without anaesthetics, screaming in pain as the person's body is cut apart. In many cases, organ harvesting is a form of further abuse, targeting members of persecuted religious minorities.

After more than 10 years of research, two Canadian lawyers, David Matas and David Kilgour, along with investigative journalist Ethan Gutmann, released a report which estimated that between 60,000 and 100,000 organs are being transplanted in Chinese hospitals every year, with the source for most of those organs being prisoners of conscience, primarily Falun Gong practitioners. This figure is much larger than the 10,000 the Chinese government has produced in its attempt, unfortunately, to cover up this gross violation of fundamental human rights.

Transplantation in China is a booming industry. The Chinese government has invested huge amounts of money into new buildings, new staff, and research and training in transplants. Given this massive capital establishment coupled with the high volume of transplants, the transplantation industry in China is built on not just the ready supply of available organs in the present, but also on an expectation of an indefinite supply of organs for the future. As such, we should greet claims by the regime that this practice has ended with severe skepticism.

In Canada right now, some members might be surprised to know that there is no law preventing Canadian citizens from going abroad, acquiring an organ which they know or which they should know has been taken without consent, and then coming back. This is a gaping hole, a case where the law has not kept up with emerging realities. Right now, there is no law preventing Canadians from participating in or benefiting from this immoral use of human organs from involuntary organ harvesting.

I believe, as I have said many times, that Canada needs to be vocal in standing up for international human rights, and in particular for the rights of persecuted minorities. Even above that, Canada needs legislation which would define in Canadian law our opposition to involuntary organ harvesting in cases where it comes back to our shores. This really is a no-brainer and it should be a non-partisan issue.

In previous Parliaments a number of MPs have introduced bills aimed at countering forced organ harvesting, but unfortunately, they have not made it through the legislative process.

Bill C-350, which I have proposed, is the same bill as Bill C-561 put forward by former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler. David Kilgour, who I mentioned earlier, is also a former Liberal and Progressive Conservative MP. Credit is also due to the current member for Etobicoke Centre, who I know cares very much about this issue, who has seconded my bill, and who put forward a similar bill in a previous Parliament. It has been a pleasure working with him.

This legislation has always been a good idea, but it is particularly needed right now. Given escalating human rights problems around the world, and given the emphasis this government is putting on Canada's relationship with China, there is a real urgency to move forward with this kind of basic human rights legislation.

Some people have asked me how often it actually happens that Canadians go oversees to get organs. While it is difficult to know the exact numbers, the report done by Kilgour and Matas found that of three Canadian hospital studies, they knew of 100 Canadians who had gone to China for organ transplants in the last three years. Those are some relatively significant numbers, which certainly have had a major impact on those political prisoners of conscience who are affected by this.

Further, I will mention that Israel, Spain, and Taiwan have all taken similar steps as are proposed by this bill. If Taiwan, which is very close to and much more economically linked with China, can take this step, then certainly we can as well.

I did not write this bill. I recognize the great work done on this issue by many people, Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats, but now it is time for us to take the football to the end. Notwithstanding any of the potential sensitivities, I believe that this needs to be done in this Parliament. It is an issue of fundamental human rights, so let us move this forward.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to discuss private member's Bill C-350, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking and transplanting human organs and other body parts), which was introduced by the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on April 10, 2017.

This bill raises some complex legal and social policy issues. I want to point out that the House has contemplated these issues a number of times in the past decade. To be specific, a very similar proposal was introduced in the House on February 5, 2008, with Bill C-500, and again on May 7, 2009, with Bill C-381. A virtually identical proposal, Bill C-561, was introduced on December 6, 2013.

Our government condemns the underground trafficking of human organs, which so often victimizes vulnerable people in developing countries and under totalitarian regimes. There have been disturbing reports, as has been mentioned by my hon. colleague, of organ harvesting operations in recent years, all of which are extremely troubling. While the actual transplanting of illicitly obtained organs does not appear to be occurring within Canada's borders, we know that some Canadians have gone abroad to purchase life-saving organs due to a global shortage in organs for legitimate transplantation purposes. This practice is sometimes referred to as transplant tourism.

Bill C-350 proposes to create a number of new Criminal Code offences that would criminalize most people involved in the illicit trafficking of organs. The bill places particular emphasis on the recipients of illicitly obtained organs and would also criminalize those who assist purchasers, medical practitioners who take part in the transplantation of illicitly obtained organs, and any intermediaries who facilitate the transplantation. Those who sell their own organs are the only players who would not be directly criminalized, likely due to their vulnerability. The bill would allow Canada to extend extraterritorial jurisdiction where a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada commits any of these offences abroad.

Bill C-350 also proposes regulatory reforms that would require the establishment of a specific Canadian entity to monitor legitimate transplantations. It would require medical practitioners who examine a person who has had an organ transplanted to report the identity of that person as well as other health information to this proposed new entity. As part of this regulatory regime, the bill would impose a duty on the person who receives an organ to obtain a certificate establishing that it was donated and not purchased.

Currently in Canada, organ trafficking is prohibited by Criminal Code assault laws, given that removal of an organ without the informed consent of the patient constitutes aggravated assault. The Criminal Code provisions regarding accomplices and accessories after the fact also apply. In addition, the Criminal Code prohibits human trafficking under section 279.01, a related but distinct form of criminal conduct. The human trafficking offences can be enforced extraterritorially, but the assault offences cannot. Provincial and territorial regulatory laws governing legitimate organ transplantation also apply. They require informed and voluntary consent on the part of the donor and prohibit buying and selling organs. Transplanting organs outside of this regulatory framework constitutes a regulatory offence. Regulatory offences are generally punishable by a fine and/or a maximum of six months' imprisonment and cannot be enforced extraterritorially.

Basically, Bill C-350 would—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I am sorry, but the parliamentary secretary's time is up.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for giving a detailed summary of some of the context and some of the provisions of the bill. He is quite right in that it applies an established principle that when it comes to fundamental human rights, it is important for us to think in terms of extraterritorial action and extraterritorial jurisdiction.

I want to be very clear that I am open to amendments to this bill. We need to pass this through to committee. There is a lot of detail in it. The detail is important for ensuring that there is effective administration of the provisions that are in place, that we are actually not just saying that we are against organ harvesting, but we have a mechanism in place to address it concretely. I look forward to the work that the committee would do on this if we are able to pass it through to the committee.

The member did not say, and maybe this was part of the section that was cut off at the end, but maybe he will be able to assure us tonight that we can count on the support of the government at second reading so that we can move this important initiative forward again, which was initially proposed by Irwin Cotler, a former Liberal—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague that the government is taking a hard look at this bill, without making any comment about what our position will be at second reading.

There are a number of complex issues that are raised by this proposed legislation specifically related to the extraterritoriality provisions, which would capture Canadians travelling abroad. In addition, there are other international implications, including under existing United Nations conventions as well as the Council of Europe, which has adopted its own convention against trafficking in human organs. These are all international treaties and conventions, which we will be looking at very closely as we approach the second reading vote.

Status of Women

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Cystic Fibrosis Canada for giving us all these beautiful yellow roses to wear today. They are still all over the House at this hour. We are thinking of the victims, survivors, and their families.

I am here tonight to follow up on a conversation I was having with the Minister of Status of Women about Canada's response to violence against women.

In 1995, Canada was ranked number one on the United Nations gender equality index. Today, Canada ranks 25th. As the Feminist Alliance for International Action notes, in the past 20 years, Canadian women have gone backward. A big part of that are the levels of violence that women and girls continue to face in Canada. Statistics Canada says that rates of violence against women remain largely unchanged over those two decades.

Here are some terrible numbers. One million women report having experienced sexual or domestic violence in the past five years. Women are 11 times more likely than men to be a target of sexual violence. Sexual violence experienced by indigenous women is more than three times that of non-indigenous women. Women living with disabilities experience violence two to three times more than women without disability. Sexual and domestic violence costs our economy over $12 billion a year.

I know the government and New Democrats agree that this cannot stand. I really hope that the minister's representative will not, again tonight, just restate his commitment to changing things and his recognition of the problem, but that we talk about what we are going to do.

Almost a year ago, the former minister of status of women started a federal strategy to address gender-based violence. A year later, we still do not have a plan, and the government has been largely silent on the progress it has made on that plan.

The need for this is clear. Responses to violence against women across the provinces and territories are fragmented. Services are often inaccessible and inconsistent across Canada. The status of women committee heard this very clearly from dozens of witnesses last year. This has been a critique of the federal government for decades, including from the United Nations, OXFAM, and the coalition of more than 180 organizations that urged the previous government and this one to endorse the blueprint for Canada's national action plan on violence against women and girls. This government has failed to do that.

The government keeps announcing that the strategy will be released in the coming weeks. It said that on February 1, February 7, March 6, March 8, March 17, and March 23. On April 12, the Minister of Status of Women made a low-key announcement saying more indepth details will be announced in the coming weeks as the strategy takes form. Again, it is in the coming weeks. It keeps being said, but it has been months, almost a year. The government is asking women to wait again, and that is not fair to victims. It is not what victims and survivors need or want. We need clarity from the government.

Will the government stop asking women to wait for the coming weeks to come, and finally release its plan that will actually deliver safety to women in danger, and immediately act to make Canada safer for women and girls?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in this adjournment debate with the hon. member, and to discuss the federal government's response to gender-based violence.

When it comes to addressing gender-based violence, the Government of Canada is taking a multi-faceted approach, and will invest $101 million in a gender-based violence strategy over the next five years. That is in the budget. It is concrete, and it will happen.

The federal government has also established a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. It will examine, and report on the systemic causes behind the violence that indigenous women and girls experience, and their greater vulnerability to that violence.

To ensure that women and their families fleeing violence have somewhere to turn when they are in need, budget 2016 committed $90 million over two years to enhance Canada's network of shelters and transition houses through the construction and renovation of over 3,000 shelter spaces off reserve.

Those concrete measures are happening right now, I would remind the hon. member. An additional $10.4 million over three years was allocated to support the renovation and construction of new shelters for victims of family violence in first nations communities, a further $33.6 million over five years will support shelter operations on reserve.

Through Status of Women Canada, we are investing over $1 million for a project by the Canadian network of women's shelters and transition houses to examine the multiple roles played by the shelter sector in supporting women who are victims of violence. Project activities will inform the development of a five-year strategic vision as well as policy changes in the shelter sector, and again, I would remind the hon. member that these actions are taking place right now.

These actions underscore the federal government's commitment to addressing all forms of gender-based violence. I can assure the hon. member that we will be introducing our gender-based violence strategy in the coming weeks.

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

Madam Speaker, I will remind the member that in the coming weeks has been used since February 1, so can you give me a more specific date? Can you give the women of Canada--

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Could the member please address the chair?

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

Madam Speaker, could the member please give a more specific date, or how many weeks? Maybe that is a better question. How many weeks, because in the coming weeks has been said arguably for either a year or since February 1, and said repeatedly.

I will also note the money that the non-governmental movement asked for was just a fraction of what the front line organizations have been seeking, so I do urge the member to continue to push for real results on the ground.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I said before, one of the priority actions of the government is to develop a national strategy to address gender-based violence. We will be starting by getting our own federal house in order. We expect this to be released very soon.

To meet this commitment, we have done our homework by listening to Canadians. In fact, Canadians were engaged across this country, including experts, advocates, and survivors who shared their insights and experiences on this issue. Approximately 300 individuals from over 175 organizations participated in these meetings. Over 7,500 Canadians participated by providing further comments by email and an online survey.

The Minister of Status of Women also created an advisory council of experts on gender-based violence, and engaged with a number of members of Parliament, including the hon. member. Stay tuned, the gender-based violence strategy will be released very soon.

Democratic Reform

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

Madam Speaker, on February 3, Althia Raj, in the Huffington Post, reported on a leak from a recent meeting. She reported:

Several government sources, speaking to The Huffington Post Canada on condition of anonymity, said a decision to abandon the Liberals’ election promise of making the 2015 election the last held under a first-past-the-post system was reached after a two-hour discussion at the January cabinet retreat in Calgary. Only one cabinet minister was opposed.

She added that the “Newly minted Democratic Institutions Minister strongly opposed a referendum, and her arguments persuaded some skeptics.”

When I read that, two things struck me. First, this was the first time, and I actually wrote my notes down at this time, in 16 years as a member of Parliament that I had seen a cabinet leak. These things simply do not happen, cabinet leaks as opposed to leaks from caucuses. They are unheard of. Second, this was not one source leaking from cabinet, it was from two sources. The note I made to myself at that time was, “These things just don't happen. The note was not a single source, there were several. Several sources equals this was a deliberately approved leak, approved at the highest level.” I noted as well, “This is a blow-by-blow description of a cabinet meeting.”

This is very problematic. Cabinet leaks are strictly prohibited. They are confidences of the crown. The Manual of Official Procedure for the Government of Canada says on page 17:

Meetings of Cabinet are secret...Any announcements after meetings are made by the Prime Minister at a press conference or by press release, or can be made by the responsible minister.

However, details of cabinet meetings are never made public. This is such a serious matter that if a minister resigns as a result of a discussion that took place in cabinet, the minister must actually seek permission to make public the grounds on which he or she has resigned. That is how seriously cabinet conferences are taken.

Let me quote from the appendices of the Manual of Official Procedure. This is the letter one would send if one had resigned:

As I am bound by my oath as a Privy Councillor I do not feel feel I can properly justify the course of action I have chosen to follow [in resigning] unless His Excellency the Governor General releases me from this oath so that I may publicly disclose the reasons for my resignation as I gave them to Cabinet.

That is how seriously this is taken. In the case of this leak, this struck me as preposterous and so, on February 7, I asked the government House leader the following question:

Given the existence of two anonymous sources, this does look like a coordinated effort to allow the Prime Minister to spread the blame for changing course [on electoral reform] to the entire cabinet. However, I could be wrong about the source of leaks. Therefore, has a Privy Council Office investigation been launched into these leaks from cabinet?

The response I got, which was most unsatisfactory, from the House leader was, “Mr. Speaker, no, it has not.”

The question is, has an investigation taken place and why, if one has not taken place, should we believe anything other than that the Prime Minister himself is responsible for these leaks from cabinet?

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

Madam Speaker, I can maybe provide some comfort by indicating to the member that today we have a Prime Minister who truly believes in accountability and transparency. We see that day in and day out on a multitude of levels.

On the issue of cabinet confidentiality, the member across the way does not have to provide a reading of the rules. We understand the importance of cabinet confidentiality, and I can assure the member that there has been no violation of cabinet confidentiality. The member might want to speculate, but it is all speculation.

At the end of the day, we understand the importance of cabinet secrecy, and there has been no violation of that secrecy. It is an important issue.

On the issue of electoral reform, there has been a great deal of debate, not only in the chamber but also outside the chambre. There were a fair number of individuals who were discouraged that we were not able to build overall consensus, but one should not be overly disappointed in the sense that the minister has brought forward another piece of legislation. The Minister of Democratic Institutions has done an outstanding job in ensuring that there will be a difference in future elections.

We have raised issues. We have listened to what Canadians have said. We appreciate the fact there was no consensus, but there are some areas where there has been consensus. Where we have seen it, we now have a Minister of Democratic Institutions who is acting on it. Let me provide a couple of examples.

We will recall that under Stephen Harper and the unfair elections act, the Conservatives tried to tie the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer in some of the things he could do. Under the current legislation, that is now being talked about, not only inside but outside the chamber. Bill C-33 aims to restore the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to educate and inform Canadians, especially young people, indigenous Canadians, and new Canadians, about voting, elections, and related issues.

Statistics Canada estimates about 172,000 electors did not vote in the 2015 election because of a lack of adequate identity documents. Madam Speaker, you were in the last Parliament when the Conservative Party got rid of the vouching system. This legislation reinstates vouching, because we want more Canadians to be engaged in voting in elections.

We will remember the voter information cards. I sat on the committee where the Conservatives said that people could not use voter ID cards. That did not make sense, and Canadians knew that. We now have a minister responsible for democratic reform who is putting some teeth in the voting card. Bill C-33 would allow people to use a voter identification card as a piece of ID. She is also forward thinking. Think about cybersecurity. That is very serious today and will be in future elections.

This is a government that is proactively engaged in looking at ways to improve our elections going forward.

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

Madam Speaker, the first 30 seconds of that answer was actually on the topic of the cabinet leak. The rest was on another topic.

With regard to that question, I will just say that the parliamentary secretary's assertion that a cabinet leak did not occur is obviously counterfactual. I quoted from not one but two sources, anonymous but authoritative Liberal sources, leaking specific blow-by-blow details of a cabinet meeting and who acted in what way and at what time. That is a cabinet leak. That is a cabinet leak that is prohibited by our manual of procedure, and it points, if nothing else, to the profound lack of professionalism in the government, to the unwillingness to follow long-established precedents, the way we do things, and to sort of designing a new Peronist populism on the fly.

I will stop there, but I am terribly disappointed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member says “anonymous”. In other words, there is no attribution to an individual or anything of that nature. It could be some third party, such as a brother, sister, or aunt. Who knows? It is pure speculation.

We understand the importance of cabinet secrecy, and the government follows and abides by it. We do not need to be told by the opposition that there is a third, fourth, or fifth person, whoever it might be, hiding in a closet or whatever. I can assure the member that we respect the importance of cabinet secrecy.

The reason I went on to other issues, which were still relevant to the issue the member raised, was because it was about electoral reform, and that is what I think Canadians wanted us to talk about, in part. Hopefully it puts the matter to rest, and the member will be able to sleep a little better tonight.