Debates of June 7th, 2017

Second Reading

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is twisting words and distracting from the point.

If you go back and look up the definitions of ministers of state, you will see the difference and the nuances. It is not a matter of it being less important per se and ideologically; it is a matter of the salary structure.

That is why Bill C-24 is being proposed. It is because you are changing the Salaries Act.

We have a legislative framework that is contradicting what the ideological stance is. That is why I would encourage all of the members to go back and read the definitions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to assure the hon. member that I am not changing anything. I am sure she meant the Liberals, not the Speaker.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on that very heartfelt speech and ask her if she thinks it is sad to see the Liberal government once again flatly refusing to admit to even the tiniest mistake.

The government wants to slap a band-aid worth hundreds of thousands of dollars on this problem and is making MPs put in hundreds of hours of work at all hours of the day and night to get it done.

One of these days, will the Liberals acknowledge that they do not actually know everything and that they are not perfect all the time?

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very fortunate to come from the riding of Windsor—Tecumseh, where people are extremely progressive and extremely well informed. I think part of the reason is that we are a cross-border community that is in proximity to our wonderful neighbours in Detroit, Michigan.

We have a chance to discuss policy in a very collegial way, and people drill down into the meaning of it. I love going home and listening, because I hear people talking about the charade of politics, which is really what got me involved in politics. I saw the cynicism and I felt the cynicism growing within me, but I feel that there was a hopefulness that intrigued people.

Now we see a charade that really boils down to an emotional immaturity and an arrogance. Instead of stepping up to say, “We are going to be collegial. We are not going to make unilateral decisions. We are going to be sincere with the campaign promises that we made. We are going to sincerely work with you”, instead words have been twisted in very much the same way that words were twisted in the fairytale that we tell our children to teach them a valuable social lesson, called The Emperor's New Clothes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. I would remind the hon. member for Hochelaga that she has about seven minutes left before we wrap up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to get right to the point, even though it is not easy.

I want to talk about equity. My colleagues may be familiar with the concept of a trompe-l'oeil, which is a drawing that really looks like the object depicted. I think of Bill C-24 as a trompe-l'oeil. It is a fake, an illusion. The bill is supposed to ensure that ministers of both sexes are equal, but that is not really what it does.

The Prime Minister changed a title, reclassified a particular position, and gave both jobs the same salary. Ministers of state will now get the same pay as ministers. Is that really equity? I think not.

Earlier, the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill showed us that there is no equity between these two types of positions. Personally, I would add that a designated minister can delegate tasks to another category of people, called ministers, for whom departments are designated. What do we call ministers for whom departments are designated? We used to call them ministers of state.

Some categories of ministers can delegate tasks to others. The hierarchy seems pretty clear. Those to whom powers, duties or functions can be delegated are all women. They will get equal pay, but they will not have equal responsibilities. Every junior minister is a woman. They do not have the same powers.

If the Prime Minister were a real feminist he would have appointed more women to head departments from the outset. Instead of introducing bogus bills that are not substantive and do not solve the real problems, why not work on something that would truly help women, all women? I have two examples. The first is pay equity. I will be brief.

We have already talked about the fact that Canadian women earn barely three-quarters of what Canadian men earn. Traditionally female occupations are undervalued in the job evaluation and compensation systems.

Do my colleagues not think that a truly feminist government would have introduced legislation on pay equity as soon as it was elected, rather than Bill C-24, which merely scratches the surface, and only for a tiny fraction of the population? Meanwhile, women continue to get poorer and poorer.

The second example is the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. I think that piece of legislation should be completely repealed. The Harper government imposed that act on public sector workers eight years ago, and it is truly an abomination. I will explain why.

It forces women to lodge complaints as individuals rather than obtain the support of their union. It prohibits access to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It also makes pay equity an issue for collective bargaining, rather than a human rights issue. It forces unions to make a choice between addressing systemic pay discrimination and seeing what is left to improve working conditions for all the employees they represent. This places the blame on women.

As my colleague from Trois-Rivières was saying earlier, he negotiated in favour of pay equity. I too negotiated pay equity at the museum where I used to work. It is a very long and complicated process. Filing this type of complaint must seem like an impossible task to a person acting alone. It is very difficult. I suppose most women do not file complaints because of those rules.

Obviously, the NDP is in favour of eliminating the gender wage gap in cabinet. We believe in equal pay for equal work. However, while Bill C-24 may change salary amounts, it does not achieve equity. Men still hold more power than many of the women in cabinet. For true equity, we need to create equal opportunities for and give equal responsibilities to men and women. The provisions of the federal pay equity legislation must be enforced right away. I believe we should also immediately repeal the legislation I just mentioned, the terrible Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.

Bill C-24, an act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act, is not very useful in achieving real gender equality in cabinet.

I did not mention the other reasons why I will not be voting in favour of this bill.

This government's lack of good faith shows in this bill. It could have introduced much more meaningful legislation. I will therefore be voting against this bill, and I hope that every other real feminist will do the same.

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

Public Safety

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to revisit the question I asked the Minister of Public Safety on February 21.

At that time, I raised the matter of the influx of migrants illegally crossing the border into Canada from the United States, an issue that has been directly impacting residents in my riding, particularly those living in border communities like Emerson.

I have raised this issue several more times since then, including with the official opposition critic for immigration, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, to invite the Prime Minister to visit Emerson to see the situation first-hand. The Liberals have taken no action to step in and our invitation has gone without response.

When I asked my question in February, approximately 160 illegal migrants had been intercepted by the RCMP in Manitoba. The provincial total to date is 477, nearly triple the number we saw by the end of February, and that does not even include the month of May. It is June already and we still do not have the May information. The Canadian total at the end of April was a whopping 2,719 illegal crossings. At this rate, we could see 8,000 individuals cross our borders illegally from the United States by the end of the year. These are only the individuals who are intercepted by the RCMP.

These skyrocketing numbers stem from the confusion that the Prime Minister has created. On several occasions, he has tweeted remarks such as “Regardless of who you are or where you come from, there’s always a place for you in Canada.” Many in the media have pointed out just how misleading these statements are.

For example, in an April 3rd piece for the CBC, Graeme Gordon, wrote:

Anyone with the smallest bit of knowledge about the immigration process understands that Canada's doors are anything but wide open, but [the Prime Minister] isn't just blatantly spreading falsehoods by sending that message — he's actually enticing people to uproot their lives, throwing another wrench into an already chaotic immigration system, all based on disingenuous messaging.

He is exactly right. When the Prime Minister places virtue-signalling ahead of good public policy, there are real world consequences. Many Canadians, including myself, want a Canada that helps those fleeing war, violence, or persecution. In light of the dramatic increase in illegal crossings, the Prime Minister had to know these messages, shared the world over, would lead many would-be illegal migrants to believe that Canada's border was just a suggestion.

We recently received the tragic news of a woman who Minnesota authorities said died while attempting to cross the border illegally. I expressed concern about this many months ago; that individuals would choose to enter Canada illegally and dangerously because of the Prime Minister's misleading rhetoric.

There are also security concerns. The head of the union representing Canada's border service officers shared that nearly half of those crossing into Manitoba illegally were being detained because of serious criminal records. Then we learned that a female CBSA officer was assaulted by a male migrant while undertaking her duties. Thankfully she was not seriously injured. We have also seen evidence of human smuggling.

Canada is a generous and accepting country. We have an immigration system that reflects that, but we also need to protect the integrity of our border. With so many people looking to Canada as a land of opportunity, we need to ensure that our immigration and refugee system is consistent and fair for everyone seeking to make Canada their home.

The Prime Minister is still not willing to condemn these illegal border crossings even as the number of instances continues to climb. As with any problem, before it can be solved the person with the power to fix it must admit that the problem exists. Meaningful action from the Liberal government is long overdue. The Prime Minister must step up and show some leadership. Again, what action are the Liberals—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the citizens, service providers, and first responders in the areas most affected by the arrival of asylum seekers, particularly in Emerson, Manitoba, and the Hemmingford and Lacolle region of Quebec. I truly applaud the compassion and generosity these communities have shown towards asylum seekers over the past few months.

The government knows that the influx of asylum seekers is having an impact on Emerson and on border communities in Quebec, and to a lesser extent, British Columbia, and that this has raised some security concerns.

I want to assure the House and all Canadians that government security officials are working together to ensure the integrity of Canada's borders. The integrity of our borders is proactively maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency, who continue to effectively deliver on their respective mandates to enforce the law at and between our ports of entry.

As has already been stated, the safety and well-being of Canadian communities, and the individuals who are crossing the border, are of utmost importance to the government and to front-line officers.

The government is in constant contact with the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency and receives regular detailed updates on the arrival of refugee claimants from the United States who cross the border between ports of entry in Quebec, Manitoba, and British Columbia.

The RCMP is the lead responder between ports of entry, and in response to its ongoing assessment of the situation, additional resources have been temporarily deployed to the most affected regions. The RCMP and its partners recognize that the situation is evolving rapidly, so they continually assess it to determine whether they need to adjust their response or their operational requirements.

The RCMP has a multi-faceted approach to border security that includes technology, intelligence, and domestic and international partnerships, especially with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations.

I want to make it clear that crossing the Canadian border without reporting to a port of entry is illegal and a crime under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Customs Act. Anyone caught breaking the law can be arrested and is liable to applicable sanctions. Canada has requirements for entry be it a normal immigration procedure or a refugee claim.

The RCMP is being vigilant. That is why it is stopping asylum seekers crossing into Canada between ports of entry. The asylum seekers are screened and escorted to the nearest port of entry where the Canada Border Services Agency initiates the applicable immigration procedures.

The collaborative and co-operative efforts between the RCMP and its partners, including non-governmental agencies, health authorities, and immigration services agencies, demonstrate a genuine community response to the situation.

For now, the government has faith that the RCMP, together with the Canada Border Services Agency, is handling this complex and evolving situation properly and effectively.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to acknowledge the very good work our CBSA officers are doing and the RCMP in providing assistance in between our points of entry in apprehending these illegal migrants.

However, the issue is still one of border security and maintaining our border integrity. There appears to be a loophole in the safe third country agreement with the United States that needs to be addressed. It still is encouraging illegal migrants because of the Prime Minister's reckless tweets. Once they are here, I know our law enforcement officials are very disappointed with how they have to proceed with processing those individuals.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency continue to actively monitor the border between ports of entry and to effectively intervene when asylum seekers cross the border from the United States.

The RCMP has temporarily reassigned additional personnel to deal with this situation. The federal government has made it clear that it is prepared to discuss all options to ensure that Canadian law enforcement agencies have the tools and resources they need to do their job.

The government continues to be fully involved in the situation and will keep the House apprised of key changes.

Health

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first say hello to the folks who are watching on our Facebook Live feed. We are broadcasting this on Facebook Live because we want Canadians living with autism, those who follow us, to hear the types of answers we have been getting in the House of Commons. I am hoping that the Liberal member who is going to answer questions today will not just simply read the same talking points that we have been hearing.

We have asked 13 questions on the issue of the Canadian autism partnership. For background, in 2015 the Conservative government of the day invested $2 million in a Canadian autism partnership working group, a group of experts to advise the government on a way forward regarding a Canadian autism partnership. These 12 experts, in concert with seven incredible self-advocates, in concert with the Canadian autism community, consulted and came to the current government in the fall of 2016 with a modest budget proposal of $19 million over five years, $3.8 million per year, and that was subsequently rejected.

We had a motion in the House in the last couple of weeks to fund that Canadian autism partnership, and every single Liberal except for one voted against it. Every Conservative, every Green MP, and every NDP MP voted for it, but every single Liberal but one voted against it.

In the questions that we have been asking, I could summarize in three categories the reasons given for this vote against.

One is the fact that the government is consulting and having meetings on accessibility legislation now. I admit that accessibility legislation is important and will be important when it eventually comes to the House, but the MP member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke summed it up best when he said this during the debate: “However, we have heard yet another one of those speeches that talks about consulting people, thinking about it, working on it later, and finally coming to a conclusion sometime over the distant horizon.” Canadians living with autism need support now, and the Canadian autism partnership would provide that support.

The second of the answers that we continually get in question period from the Liberal government is that the government is investing in things like Ready, Willing and Able and the autism surveillance program. Those programs were put in place by the previous Conservative government. I am very familiar with them because I was a part of the decision process that got them into the budgets in the first place under Jim Flaherty, who had something in every single budget for people living with disabilities. That is his legacy in this House.

The third thing that gets brought up repeatedly and was brought up by the Prime Minister today in question period is the $39 million that has been invested over the last five years in autism research. I suspect that we are going to hear the member talk about that $39 million in his talking points again today.

First, that $39 million was largely invested by our previous Conservative government. Second, very important, on the working group whose advice the government rejected were Lonnie Zwaigenbaum from the University of Alberta, Jonathan Weiss from York University, Stelios Georgiades from McMaster, and Stephen Scherer from Sick Kids, some of the world's top researchers. What those researchers want more than anything is for their research to actually be used to benefit Canadian families living with autism.

It is time for the Liberals to stop hiding behind those researchers and actually stand alongside them in support of Canadian families living with autism.

I look forward to hearing the hon. member, hopefully avoiding his talking points and answering to Canadians living with autism why every single one of his colleagues, except for one, voted against the Canadian autism partnership.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the challenges that Canadians with autism spectrum disorder are facing. We know that their families and caregivers have to overcome health-related, social, and financial challenges.

The federal government's investments will help advance research, encourage collaboration with the provinces and territories to improve the data, and support the necessary professional training to improve the quality of life for the families.

Thanks to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, we are supporting researchers who are advancing scientific knowledge in order to develop new diagnostic tools and new treatments. For example, Canadian scientists are at the forefront of genomic techniques, an area where discoveries advance our knowledge and understanding of this disorder much more quickly.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research and their partners fund a research chair in autism spectrum disorders at York University to study mental health in the context of autism. Since this chair was created, Dr. Jonathan Weiss and his team have produced several publications informing doctors and parents of the best approaches to addressing mental health problems in young ASD patients. Dr. Weiss also started a blog geared to caregivers and parents in order to share with them the findings of new studies in plainer language.

It is also essential to have accurate data about the rate of autism spectrum disorder in Canada. The Public Health Agency of Canada is working with the provinces and territories to establish a national ASD surveillance system in order to determine how many Canadians are living with autism and how many new cases are being diagnosed. This system will improve the information and evidence base and thus help organizations, health care professionals, and families to address the health, social, and other impacts of ASD.

Employment and Social Development Canada invests $40 million a year in community support and job training through the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities. Additional investments in the ready, willing, and able initiative of the Canadian Association for Community Living and in the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorders Alliance help people with ASD to integrate into the workforce.

Once fully implemented, this initiative will support up to 1,200 new jobs for persons with developmental disabilities, including ASD. We invested an additional $11.4 million to support the Sinneave Family Foundation's CommunityWorks program, which helps people get the skills they need to find jobs by enhancing the programs offered by the network of vocational training centres across Canada.

Our government is consulting Canadians about the development of federal accessibility legislation, which would remove systemic barriers and ensure equal opportunities. All levels of government play an important role in supporting families affected by ASD.

Our government is committed to working with its provincial and territorial partners and with the organizations that support these families. I have a great deal of admiration for the dedication of our partners, who provide important services and seek to increase people's awareness and understanding of ASD every day.

We will continue to work with stakeholders, including the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorders Alliance, to ensure that federal initiatives meet the needs of individuals with ASD.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that speech highlights exactly what I said. I predicted exactly what he was going to say, because he read the same talking points the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister have been reading day after day in the House.

In fact, the hon. member actually credits organizations, like the Sinneave Family Foundation, and Dr. Jonathan Weiss, the very people and scientists working in genomics who are part of the Canadian Autism Partnership working group. Of the 12 experts in the working group, the hon. member just named six of them in his speech. These are the ones who are identifying the challenges and coming to the government in a partnership asking for a mechanism that will provide evidence-based advice to the provinces to help them deliver the services families so desperately need in this country.

If the hon. member is serious about this issue, why did he and every member of his party, except one, vote against the Canadian Autism Partnership?

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorders Alliance and the members of the autism spectrum disorder working group for their proposal to set up a Canadian autism partnership. I also thank the alliance for its ongoing dedication to supporting children and families living with autism.

I recognize the scope of the consultation process and how many people were involved in developing the proposal, which takes into account discussions with groups that advocate for the rights of people living with autism.

The federal government will continue to work in partnership with people involved in the field to meet the challenges set out in this proposal.

I see the alliance and the expert working group on autism spectrum disorder becoming important partners in this effort.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill not being present in the House to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day, at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:18 a.m.)