Debates of May 9th, 2017

Official Languages

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Christine Holke, the clerk of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and Lucie Lecomte, our analyst. I would also like to thank all of my committee colleagues, who are doing such excellent work. We work together so harmoniously. It is very special. I am grateful to my colleagues from Madawaska—Restigouche, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Sudbury, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, and Perth—Wellington.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages entitled “The Enumeration of Rights-Holders Under Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Toward a Census that Supports the Charter”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Health

[Bill Casey, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill S-211, An Act respecting National Sickle Cell Awareness Day. This follows the lead of the United Nations in recognizing the most common genetic disease in the world. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with no amendment.

I would like to thank the member of Parliament for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and Senator Jane Cordy for sponsoring this bill and bringing it forth in such good order. I want to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Health for their diligence and deliberation on this bill as we sought an answer.

The Environment

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today.

The first petition is on behalf of constituents who recognize that a joint federal-provincial environmental impact assessment concluded that the Site C dam project would severely undermine the rights of indigenous peoples, rights that are protected by Treaty 8, subsection 35(1) of the Canadian Constitution, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The petitioners also recognize that the Site C dam will not pass the Sparrow test, a legal litmus test for determining if a government justifiably violates first nations rights, because there is no demonstrable need for Site C power. Therefore, the undersigned residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to suspend all federal Site C project approvals and issuance of any further ones.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is on behalf of constituents who recognize that climate change is resulting in lower flow waters to the Cowichan River year after year and is posing a threat to fish and fish habitat, both of which fall under federal jurisdiction. It is necessary for sustaining its historical importance to the Cowichan peoples. Therefore, the people call upon the Government of Canada to immediately use federal funds for the raising of the Cowichan weir to a level necessary to ensure water flow sufficient to protect fish and fish habitat.

Firearms

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

Mr. Speaker, I am standing this morning to present a petition in regard to the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, which was created to ensure that the views of Canadians be heard when changes are considered to firearms policies, laws, and regulations in Canada, and that the committee, including firearms experts and representatives of the gun industry in Canada, advise the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of those views when considering these items.

The majority of the new members on the committee announced on March 3 have either publicly stated that they are in favour of stricter gun control or are in fact members of the Coalition for Gun Control. Only two members of this committee actually own a firearm or have a firearms background. Law-abiding target shooters, hunters, trappers, farmers, and collectors are calling on the government to increase their representation on the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee.

Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present two petitions.

The first is from residents throughout my riding on an issue that is well supported in the House. The government has announced a national housing strategy, but this petition calls for a national affordable housing program to be put in place along the lines of the resolution passed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, looking to reform the tax system to increase benefits to developers in building purpose-built rental housing.

Agriculture

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on an issue that continues to concern Canadians about both domestic and global agricultural production, and that is the issue of allowing farmers to do what they have done for thousands of years, since the beginning of agriculture: the right to save their own seeds. The petitioners throughout my riding and a number of signatories from Thunder Bay call for international aid policies to support small family farmers and ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers to help protect the right of those in the developing world to preserve, use, and freely exchange seeds.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking leave for adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important matter requiring urgent consideration pursuant to Standing Order 52. This is with regard to the dramatic increase in asylum seekers at our U.S.-Canada land border.

Over recent months, we have seen a dramatic rise in people crossing the border illegally, and this has placed a strain on the RCMP, the CBSA, as well as provincial resources with regard to affordable housing, legal aid, and health care services. Recent reports have shown that, in 2017, we are on track to see a doubling of the number of asylum seekers in Canada. This would be an all-time record high.

Canada is a very open and welcoming country, but we also want to make sure we have a plan in place to make sure that our borders are secure and that, for people coming to Canada seeking asylum, there is a broader plan in place with regard to resourcing. To date, we have not had a response from the government on this, and given that we are heading into the summer months and we will see an increase in this situation, which is becoming more and more urgent, I feel it is incumbent upon the House to debate this matter so that we can move on with coming up with a plan.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for raising this matter. However, I do not find that it meet the exigencies of the Standing Order.

Bill C-44—Time Allocation

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again with another important debate being shut down. Members of Parliament who should be speaking on behalf of their constituents are being silenced by the Liberals. It is extremely frustrating, but it is also wrong.

We have a budget implementation bill before us that is chock full of things that are going to cause a lot of problems for Canadians, never mind the increased fees for Canadians. We see that this infrastructure bank, which we should really call a Liberal bank, is going to be giving favours to billionaire friends of the Liberals, with no accountability. The taxpayer is going to be on the hook for this infrastructure bank. We also have the issue around the parliamentary budget officer being silenced.

These are really important issues that our members of Parliament on this side would still like to speak to, and one day is not enough time. I ask the government if it would reconsider. We need more time to speak to this bill. The debate should not be shut down. This begs the question: Where is the openness? Where is the willingness to work together with opposition parties that the Liberals promised? We are not seeing it all.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, we do know that this bill has already had 39 members speak up and give their point of view. We know that includes 13 members from the Conservative Party and five New Democrats.

We do know that members on the opposite side have brought up points that they would like us to continue to look at, points that require further study. In our view, that is something we should do. That is why we would like to get the bill to committee. We believe doing that affords us the opportunity to have those discussions in a way that will allow the bill to progress forward and make sure we can get on with the work of making sure our economy works for Canadians.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think I have the numbers straight. This is an omnibus bill, which consists of more than 300 pages. This is a bill for which we have had three days of debate, the government will say. However, it will not say that one of those days was a Wednesday, when of course we do not begin until later in the afternoon, and one was a Friday, when we had a grand total of one hour and 15 minutes of debate.

This is the budget implementation bill. My hon. friend from the Conservatives has already pointed out that issues like the parliamentary budget officer, the infrastructure bank, and others are at issue, but so are myriad other issues, many of which have nothing to do with the budget.

I wonder if the government could reconsider and allow us, as the opposition, to do our job for Canadians.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, for the member opposite, I appreciate and understand his comments. I would say that we have had 39 members in this House already speak about this bill. We do recognize that there is an important opportunity for us to continue discussions, if we can get this bill to committee.

As mentioned, we know that there are very important things that we are trying to achieve through this budget bill, which would make a real difference for our economy. Moving forward on this will be important for Canadians. We are already seeing the impact of budget 2016 on our economy, with positive impacts on employment, positive impacts on our economy broadly.

We want to continue to move forward with our plan to make a real difference. That is why we recognize that there has been debate already. We believe moving this bill to committee is the right thing to do at this stage, so we can hear further discussions and make sure we get this done in a way that is positive for Canadians.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to raise my concerns about the limited time we have to discuss the bill. It is 300 pages. There are some significant issues about the parliamentary budget officer, the infrastructure bank, and myriad other issues that need to be brought up. Only 39 members have spoken to the bill. It is absolutely outrageous to think that this is enough.

There are 338 members in the House representing the ridings across this country, and it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to represent our constituents in a way that is relevant, that is transparent, and that holds the government to account. Shutting down debate on more than 300 pages of the bill is absolutely unbelievable. Canadians deserve better than that.

I would like to ask the minister to please reconsider shutting down debate, because there are many Canadians who would really like to understand the content of the bill and the implications, because there are implications for each and every Canadian across the country. It is going to affect Canadians and their families. A lot of the money is back-ended. Things are not flowing. Infrastructure is not flowing, and I would like the minister to address this.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I recognize that it is important that we hear from members in the House. We have had some discussion already. We have had some comments about things that require further study. We believe that sending the bill to committee is the way to get at those discussions. The measures in the bill are entirely related to our budget. They are focused on how we can make an important difference for Canadians.

We believe that moving forward to get the bill to committee will allow us to get to that work. We know that the things we have done already in our term of office have started to have a real impact. We know that Canadians are impatient to see that continued positive impact on them and their families, the kind of things we are already seeing in terms of the positive impacts on employment, which are critically important, and the positive outcome in terms of what we are seeing in our economic growth possibilities.

We know that 39 members have already spoken about this. We know that moving this to committee will allow us to consider the issues that have been brought up in a way that is constructive. We are anxious to get to that, because we want to work on behalf of Canadians.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would hope that the Minister of Finance is good at math, but I will simply point out to him that 39 members is 10% of the number of MPs who sit in the House.

He was not here during the previous Parliament, but if he had been, I have to wonder how he would have reacted to the Harper government, which did exactly the same thing that he is doing, that is, limiting debate on a 300-page budget bill that amends about 30 pieces of legislation.

How would he have reacted to the Conservative government doing exactly what he is doing right now?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question.

I know that having the opportunity to study our budget measures is very important. I also know that we have already heard from 39 members, as my colleague pointed out. I know that what matters now is having an opportunity to examine the points that have been identified. That is why we believe it is time to study these important matters at committee. That way, we can achieve our objective of improving the lives of Canadians as soon as possible.

That is our goal. We think that enough time has been taken and it is now time for the committee to take over the study we have begun.

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

Madam Speaker, this budget clearly expands on our government's ambitious plan. It continues help for the middle class, it has great support for veterans, and it strengthens our health care system. What I find particularly important is the increased family leave and the flexible benefits for parents. Being a father of two young children myself, the importance of this measure speaks volumes about where this government is heading and the compassion this government has for families and the middle class.

I wonder if the Minister of Finance can comment on why it is important to get these measures, and the other key features in the implementation act, before a committee so we can make this the law of the land and families can benefit from the measures in Bill C-44 that will actually help Canadians.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question and speak to the comments he made. In the first instance, of course, there is an important role for the government to be empathetic to families and to recognize different family situations. However, I would like to also take this from an economic perspective.

We see that one of the greatest challenges in our country is demographic change. We know that demographic change means that we will have challenges in terms of the percentage of the workforce that is actually working and creating the opportunity for our economy to be successful. As a result of that, we need to think about how we can get a higher level of workforce participation for segments of the population that may not be as engaged in the workforce. Therefore, we have taken measures in this budget to make sure that we have a high level of workforce participation in places where it is not as high as it could be. In fact, it has been a continuing theme of our government.

A good example, and the one identified by the member, is women, in particular women between the ages of 25 and 54 . We have seen a flattening of workforce participation in that group. We know that by creating the kind of flexibility families need, we can help women to be more engaged in the workforce. That is an important effort in this budget. It will make a difference for families. It will make a difference for the long-term economy of our country. We need to move forward on this, because we know it is the right thing to do, and we know it will help our economy in the long run.