House of Commons Hansard #203 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was firearms.

Topics

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those opposed will please say nay.

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

In my opinion the nays have it.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Wednesday, September 27, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise this evening in adjournment proceedings to address a question I asked on April 5. I am extremely pleased that this question is still on the Order Paper because the matter has never been more timely. Since Bill C-38, Canada has been labouring under a broken environmental assessment process.

The day I rose to ask the question was the day the landmark report from the expert panel, convened by the hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change, was reported back. My question for the Prime Minister at that time said that the expert panel, “makes a bold recommendation: get rid of the NEB's Environmental Assessment Agency, have a single authority, give it quasi-judicial powers”. I then asked the Prime Minister when we could see this recommendation legislated. Unfortunately, that question was asked in April, and April, May and June passed without an answer to when we would see this legislated.

To my horror, right after the House rose for the summer, a discussion paper was put forward by the federal government that combined the four different tracks of consultation that had been going on: the expert panel on environmental assessments, the one I just mentioned; the expert panel on the National Energy Board; a statutory process under the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans looking at fixing the Fisheries Act; and the transport committee looking at the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This cluster of acts had been wrecked under the two omnibus budget bills of 2012, Bill C-38 in the spring and Bill C-45 in the fall.

The discussion paper put forward by the government, which was a mere 23 pages, made a hash of all of the recommendations and substantive efforts to improve those acts. Let me refer to what was discussed on environmental assessment. While the expert panel said that sustainability must be central to impact assessments, the word “sustainability” did not appear once in the discussion paper, suggesting how the Liberals plan to legislate to fulfill their campaign promises.

While the expert panel stated that the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission should not do environmental reviews, that there had been a lack of public trust in their work, and that there should be a single agency with quasi-judicial powers, in the discussion document we find that for energy, nuclear projects, and offshore oil and gas there will be joint assessments. I am horrified that the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will still be engaged, and worse, the offshore petroleum boards will now get a new mandate to participate in environmental assessment, for which they are completely unprepared and incompetent.

The expert panel also said we must ensure that there be federal jurisdictional triggers whenever a project was on federal land and involved federal money or where the federal government was a proponent; in other words, those things that were originally found back in the guideline orders in the 1970s. The first federal environmental assessment was in a guideline order put forward by cabinet. It was then replaced with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, brought forward under the Mulroney government and brought into law under Chrétien. This scheme of laws was substantively and substantially amended over the years to further improve the process, to avoid duplicative processes, to have joint processes, to ensure that there was one project, one review, and so on. All of that was trashed by Bill C-38 in 2012.

To my horror now, as I stand before this House, if the discussion document is what is legislated, the chief recommendations of the expert panel will be trashed, ignored, and we will not see the restoration of environmental assessment as it existed in 2006.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Liberal

Terry Duguid LiberalParliamentary Secretary for Status of Women

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the question by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, a person I have enormous respect for, regarding the review of environmental assessment processes.

In 2015, Canadians sent a clear message that they had lost trust in our country's environmental assessment processes, which had been undermined by the significant changes made by the Harper government in 2012.

We pledged that if elected, a Liberal government would work to earn back the trust by reforming and modernizing Canada's environmental assessment system. Getting it right is crucial to both our environmental sustainability and our economic prosperity.

That is what our government is doing. As a first step to restore that trust, in January 2016, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced an interim approach and principles that took immediate effect for all major resource projects under review.

These principles affirmed our government's commitment to assess direct upstream greenhouse gas emissions, to seek out and consider the views of the public and affected communities, to affirm that no current project would return to the starting line, to base decisions on science, traditional knowledge, and other relevant evidence to meaningfully consult indigenous peoples and, where appropriate, accommodate the impact on their rights.

In June of last year, our government took another step to deliver on its commitment to restore confidence in Canada's environmental and regulatory processes with the launch of a comprehensive review in order to rebuild trust in environmental assessment processes, modernize the National Energy Board, restore lost protections, and introduce modern safeguards to the Fisheries Act and the Navigation Protection Act.

Now, after more than a year of extensive consultations, our government is putting pen to paper on new legislation, and by early next year, our government will move to enact sweeping changes.

With respect to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, this comes as a result of a series of consultation sessions across the country, a report of an expert panel that the member notes in her question, and over 500 formal written submissions and thousands of online comments from Canadians.

In June, our government summarized what we had heard in a discussion paper entitled “Environmental and Regulatory Reviews”, which can be found online. At the core of the proposed new direction is a shift from environmental assessment to impact assessment. This is an important change. It represents a move toward a more holistic approach that considers cultural, social, health, and economic considerations in addition to environmental impacts.

We have seen what has not worked in the past. It is clear that open and inclusive processes build better outcomes, early engagement can enhance project planning, and a predictable, timely process is key. Indigenous peoples have also been engaged on an ongoing basis since the review was launched, and we will continue to work with indigenous peoples as we consider options for legislative, regulatory, and policy changes.

In closing, Canadians want to know they can trust their environmental processes, and that is exactly what our government is working to deliver.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, but when he says to us that the discussion document released in late June “summarized what we had heard”, I think there is something wrong with the Liberals' hearing. The expert panel said loud and clear said the National Energy Board should have nothing to do with environmental assessments. So too did the expert panel on the National Energy Board.

The environmental assessment expert panel, chaired by our former commissioner for environment and sustainable development, was very clear that sustainability should be central, and was very clear we need to go beyond a project list that limits when environmental reviews take place to look at federal jurisdiction overall. None of these recommendations, broadly supported by tens of thousands of Canadians, made it into the discussion document.

Please, scrap the discussion document, and go back to the expert panel.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that our goal is to provide regulatory certainty to business, respect the rights of indigenous peoples, engage communities, and protect our environment for generations to come. We know the environment and the economy must, and do, go together.

We have a responsibility to be careful stewards of our resources, and we have an opportunity to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians. It is about building a system that is in the best interests of Canadians, a system that they can trust, and one where the environment and the economy work hand in hand. We are working toward that end.

Status of WomenAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to encourage the Liberal government to put its proclamations of alignment with working women and all women in the country, its avowed feminism. I am again urging the government to turn those good words into action that will result in meaningful differences in the lives of women every day.

For example, the government has continued to fail to table pay equity legislation in this House despite an all-party committee calling for that legislation to have been tabled four months ago. The government says it will probably get to it around the time of the next federal election.

As of tomorrow, we hit a serious milestone. As of tomorrow, women in Canada will be effectively working for free for the rest of the year. Even in 2017, women continue to be paid 74¢ on the dollar that Canadian men earn. If that gap were spread over an entire calendar year, then beginning tomorrow—Friday, September 22—women would go the rest of the year without any pay. That would be worse for a woman of colour. It would be an even earlier date in the year for a woman with disabilities. Indigenous women have been effectively working for free in our country since June 4.

Surely a government that actually wants to stand for gender equality would have already made legislative action using the power of its majority and of this Parliament to make real change that would make a difference in the lives of women and their families.

It has been 13 years since the pay equity task force presented a final report to this Parliament, with which the Liberal government of the day agreed. The pay equity task force recommendations continue to be something broadly supported by feminist, labour, and social justice organizations. At the committee that the parliamentary secretary and I both sit on, the status of women committee, we have been hearing witness after witness saying that pay equity is at the foundation of economic justice for women in Canada.

My staff have done the math on this, bless them, and are following the United Nations campaign #stoptherobbery. They calculate that if pay equity legislation had been brought in place in 2004, when it was recommended, women in Canada would have had $655 billion more in their pockets.

Once again, I ask this. Why is the government not putting its feminist rhetoric into action by legislating pay equity for women in Canada?

Status of WomenAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Liberal

Terry Duguid LiberalParliamentary Secretary for Status of Women

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith back to Parliament. I am pleased, as always, to respond to her question.

As the hon. member knows, the Minister of Status of Women has emphasized many times that our government has made gender equality a priority, and we are turning this commitment into action.

Budget 2017 included a tremendous step forward with respect to openness and transparency on gender issues. For the first time ever, it included a groundbreaking gender statement, not as an annex but as a full chapter in the budget itself. This gender statement raises the bar in our understanding of how public policies affect men and women differently. We intend to build on this achievement in future budgets.

I also want to highlight some of the very important initiatives contained in budget 2017. It included a commitment of $100.9 million over five years and $20.7 million per year ongoing, for “It's Time: Canada's Strategy to Prevent and Address Gender-Based Violence”, the first strategy of its kind.

Over the next 11 years, our government has also committed to investing $7 billion in early learning and child care, and over $11.2 billion in a national housing strategy. In particular, these investments will support access to child care and allow greater participation in work, education, and training, particularly for mothers.

Budget 2017 announced a new employment insurance caregiving benefit that would allow more caregivers, the majority of whom are women, to balance their work and family responsibilities. Our government will also create more flexible work arrangements for federally regulated employees, including flexible start and finish times, the ability to work from home, and new unpaid leaves to help manage family responsibilities.

Not only has our government stood by our promises in budget 2017, we continue to work very hard on issues such as pay equity. This view was clearly reflected in our government's response on October 5, 2016, to the report of the special committee on pay equity, on which I believe the hon. member sat. In its response, our government stated that it strongly believed in the principle of equal pay for equal value.

Additionally, we believe in fair treatment of all workers, regardless of gender, and commit to developing proactive pay equity reform in the federal jurisdiction. We have made a commitment to introduce pay equity legislation in 2018.

I am proud of all these actions taken by our government that support the needs of women and their families, move us closer to gender equality, and strengthen the middle class from coast to coast to coast.

Status of WomenAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, if the government really were committed to pay equity, successive Liberal and Conservative governments would not have fought Canada Post employees in court for 30 years in their challenge to try to get pay equity. The government would have, in this Parliament, acceded to the special committee's request that this legislation be tabled four months ago. We are now being asked to wait a few more years.

Making promises, making budget announcements, and making commitments do nothing for the lives of women right now to get out of poverty. They so often live and retire in poverty. We need action now.

We have a long list of recommendations: change employment insurance to accommodate part-time and precarious work; introduce, now, domestic violence leave provisions so women do not need to lose their jobs if they need to take their families to safety; implement and pay for new child care spaces this year, which this budget did not do; and pay equity, now. There are so many things the government could do that would make a difference this year and would put more money in the pockets of women. We would all end up better.

I am dismayed that the Liberals continue to be all talk and no action.

Status of WomenAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Mr. Speaker, our government continues to champion initiatives that advance gender equality in our country. Budget 2017 included a tremendous leap forward in terms of openness and transparency on gender issues, and we have made strong movement toward our commitment to introduce pay equity legislation by 2018.

Even prior to the budget, we committed to a national poverty reduction strategy; continued to enhance the use of gender-based analysis to ensure decisions about policies, programs, and legislation to advance gender equality; introduced the new Canada child benefit; and worked to ensure greater diversity for some 4,000 Governor in Council and ministerial appointments. I could go on and on.

We will be doing much more, including introducing pay equity legislation in 2018.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Mr. Speaker, last April, when I asked the government if it would return to the bargaining table with our Canada Border Services Agency officers, I had hoped we would see an end to the disrespect being shown to these brave and hard-working officers. They have not had a collective agreement in place for over 1,100 days. This is clearly not acceptable.

At a time when global events mean more asylum seekers than ever are crossing our borders, it is our border security officers, or BSOs, who are there providing assistance, support, and even hope to those trying to escape oppressive regimes. At a time when organized crime is attempting to smuggle drugs and arms into Canada, our border security officers are truly the thin blue line protecting our nation.

These are not border guards. They carry firearms and they enforce laws. They are law enforcement officers, and they deserve to be recognized as such in their collective agreement and to be treated with respect.

This is at the heart of the dispute. The previous Conservative government showed little respect for border services officers and their collective agreement. To date, it appears that the Liberals feel the same way.

One of my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia recently wrote to you, Mr. Speaker, on September 15, stating that he and his BSO colleagues have gone three years without a contract and that they are being denied wage and pension parity with other federal law enforcement agencies. In his letter he wrote:

Given the nature and scope of our key duties, responsibilities, and the risks we face, it seems unconscionable that the current Canadian government continues to offer BSOs fewer benefits and less respect than other Canadian law enforcement agencies.

Let us take a look at just how important these officers are.

According to the Canada Border Services Agency's 2015-16 departmental performance report, signed off personally by the current minister, officers welcomed over 93 million travellers to our country each year. They process over $16 million in commercial shipments and they collect over $30 billion in revenue. The cost to collect that $30 billion is $1.7 billion, a fraction of what they brought into our federal revenue stream.

I would like to quote the minister from his written message in that performance report. He wrote:

I can confidently say that the dedicated men and women of the CBSA are meeting their responsibilities with excellence, day in and day out.

I agree. These officers are absolutely meeting their responsibilities with excellence. Unfortunately, the government is not. It is steadfastly refusing to negotiate a new contract. It is not surprising, then, that in a recent federal job survey, the CBSA ranked dead last in employee satisfaction, ranking 58th out of 58 public servant agencies surveyed. It is struggling with attracting new recruits and keeping its current officers at a time when we need strength and numbers to keep us safe.

We are fast approaching a crisis in law enforcement generally in Canada. To quote again from the letter sent to you, Mr. Speaker, by one of my BSOs:

It is further hoped that that current Liberal Government will engage in good faith bargaining and rightly recognize that the CBSA, along with its hard working employees, are indeed legitimate Law Enforcement Officers employed by a legitimate Law Enforcement Agency. All told, we are only seeking what a reasonable person would consider fair and just, and trust that the Liberal Government will come to the same conclusion.

Will the government come to that conclusion? If so, I look forward to hearing that from my colleagues across the floor.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Vancouver Quadra B.C.

Liberal

Joyce Murray LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to address the view expressed by my hon. colleague that the government has been unfair in its contract negotiations with Canada's border guards.

Border Services officers and other peace officers in Canada have our government's utmost respect for the work they do and the service they provide to Canadians every day.

I understand his concerns about these public servants. Members will no doubt recall that, shortly after the current government took office, the President of the Treasury Board contacted public service unions and promised to bargain fairly with them. We never reneged on that commitment. As result, we have reached 19 agreements with the bargaining agents that represent over 95% of public servants employed by Treasury Board.

This is strong proof of our commitment to negotiate in good faith and reach agreements that are fair and balanced. In December 2016, we concluded our first of four tentative agreements with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. Since then we have reached 15 more agreements with a number of other bargaining agents, including settlements with four of the five bargaining groups in the core public administration represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada. This is the very same union that represents the border guards.

We are determined to reach agreements with the other bargaining units by negotiating respectfully and in good faith. As an expression of our good faith, the government has also introduced a number of initiatives to repeal laws that were seen as anti-union.

We have already repealed two laws, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, related to the financial disclosure processes of unions and their certification. These bills were repealed as they had not been formulated in accordance with the principles of consultation. Furthermore, we introduced legislation, Bill C-5, to repeal the controversial legislation that gave the government the authority to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system; and again, on November 28, the government introduced another piece of legislation, Bill C-34, to repeal changes made to the Public Service Labour Relations Act in 2013.

These changes gave the employer the unilateral right to designate essential services and took away the unions' right to resort to third party dispute resolution. We have a solid track record when it comes to bargaining in good faith, which clearly shows our desire to achieve responsible outcomes for all parties.

With respect to the border services' bargaining unit of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, we were disappointed that we were not able to reach agreements through mediated negotiations, but we do remain open to continuing negotiations and to reaching an agreement that is fair and reasonable for these very important employees of Canada and Canadians.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Mr. Speaker, first, they are not border guards. They are law enforcement officers doing very important work on our behalf, both keeping drugs and guns out of our country and working with quite a large increase in the number of asylum seekers coming into Canada. It is 1,100 days-plus now that they have been without a contract, and from the list that the hon. member presented, they can reach an agreement. Therefore, I would really encourage them to sit down and bargain in good faith with the border services officers and try to reach agreement on a contract. I cannot imagine how hard it must be for all of them, with the uncertainty they face. They are having trouble recruiting new members. They are having trouble keeping members. Please do sit down with them, bargain in good faith, and get a new contract.

I must say that I am quite concerned about law enforcement generally in Canada. We saw the yellow stripe campaign by the RCMP. The people who keep us safe at the House are also still looking for a reasonable settlement to their contract. There really is a crisis in law enforcement right now across Canada.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge the work and commitment of my colleague across the aisle, particularly on behalf of the environment and the border services officers. Every day, our border services officers serve Canadians by facilitating the travel of people and trade to and from Canada, while protecting the integrity of the border. It is not an easy job.

The government recognizes and appreciates the invaluable work that they do for Canadians. As part of the current negotiations, the border services bargaining unit has said that we are at an impasse and is now seeking to reach an agreement through conciliation.

I am optimistic that there will be a conclusion that is acceptable to all parties in the near future.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

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

(The House adjourned at 6:45 p.m.)