Debates of April 17th, 2018

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the more problematic aspects of this whole greed job was the fact that these contracts were given to Ontario Liberal Party insiders.

What we saw is that the millions of dollars would go to these companies, some of which were foreign, and then the premier would have these pay-to-play parties where those who came would pay thousands of dollars for a table. That is all funnelled back to Liberal Party coffers.

We know they have to be more creative at the federal level to do it, but we know it is all for the same thing. The Liberals are giving their friends the contracts, and somehow some of that money is going to find its way back so they can try to get back into power.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, I just want to note that we have crossed the five-hour mark of this debate since the first round of debate on the question that is before the House. Consequently, all of the interventions from this point onward on this part of the debate will be limited to 10-minute speeches, followed by five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Markham—Thornhill.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the budget implementation act.

Budget 2018 represents an opportunity to unlock the full potential of our economy by ensuring that every individual has the chance to succeed. As the member of Parliament for Markham—Thornhill, I am honoured to stand in this House and speak in support of this budget.

I have spent the last year in conversations with my constituents, meeting vibrant female entrepreneurs who had an idea and chased it, feeling the tide of representation finally moving in their favour; shaking the hands of the researchers who feel the support of their government as they reach for tomorrow's great discovery; and introducing myself to hard-working moms and dads, who work tirelessly to get their kids to school before the bell and for the first time have enough money to register their kids in soccer this summer.

I have seen, over this year, the effects of this government's intentional leadership in my community of Markham—Thornhill. Therefore, I am thrilled to support the continued decision of this government to place our country's shared goals at the centre of budget 2018. These are goals like ensuring that women and girls have an equal opportunity to thrive, preserving and celebrating the diversity that is so integral to the fabric of this country, and supporting middle-class families as the backbone of our economy.

Our budget is not just a fiscal plan but a plan for all Canadians. We believe that when each individual in our society is supported and given the chance to succeed, the entire country thrives.

Are we taking women in the workplace into consideration, for example?

It is for women like Vivian Chen, owner of Bakery 18 in Markham, whose business supplies large grocery chains and supports newcomers through stable employment. It is for women like Linda Zhang, the president of the Canada China Club, which is a not-for-profit that helps brings jobs and business opportunities to Markham and cities in Canada. It is for women like Sylvia Chan, owner of the Creative Genius Art Academy, an after-school art program that supports young artists in the community. Despite their shared ambition and success, these women still encounter obstacles as a result of being women.

With budget 2018, we are investing in levelling the playing field. Our new women entrepreneurship strategy provides $1.6 billion over three years in financing for women in business. We are also providing $130 million over five years for venture capital investments for women-led tech firms and $115 million to address the challenges women entrepreneurs face when developing and growing their businesses. With budget 2018, we are taking action to boost women entrepreneurs like Vivian, Linda, and Sylvia in Markham—Thornhill and across our country.

What is more, our government is taking a historic step to introduce proactive pay equity legislation to make sure that women and men in federally regulated sectors will receive equal pay for equal work, because this government understands what I fundamentally believe: only when women realize their full potential can our economy and society be truly successful. Therefore, to the women in the workforce tired of coming up against obstacles they should not have to face, we hear them, we support them, and we will help them succeed.

We are also building on the innovation and skills plan that this government announced last year and transforming federal innovation programs to better support Canadian business innovators. Four flagship platforms will help businesses access innovation programs by cutting red tape and streamlining processes for entrepreneurs. The enhanced industrial research assistance program, IRAP, will support the development of projects of up to $10 million, while a more focused strategic innovation fund will now support projects over $10 million. The expanded Canadian trade commissioner service will help Canadian businesses access new opportunities in markets around the world.

This government recognizes that when small businesses succeed, the Canadian economy succeeds.

That is why we have continued to support small businesses by following through on our promise to lower the small business tax rate to 9%, saving these businesses up to $7,500 a year.

These measures have a direct impact on communities like Markham. From family businesses like Chauhan's India Grill House to innovative tech entrepreneurs like Peytec, one of the many companies in Markham's own venture lab, budget 2018 would ensure that Markham continues to be the hub for innovation and Canada's high-tech capital.

To the small family businesses looking to expand or the mid-sized firms looking to scale, their businesses are important to this country, and we will help them grow. However, we cannot innovate economically if we do not support the research that makes innovation possible.

From open-heart surgery to the discovery of insulin, Canadian research benefits not just Canadians, but the whole world.

Canada must continue to be a global leader in research and innovation. That is why in budget 2018 we are proposing the single largest investment in fundamental research in Canadian history. This will total over $3 billion in funding over five years. Of this, $1.7 billion will support Canada's granting councils and research institutes, impacting about 21,000 students and researchers. We are also investing $1.3 billion in lab infrastructure that Canadians use every day.

Pond Technologies Inc. is an example of what can happen when research meets entrepreneurship. The company's research has developed a technology that can burn CO2 from any source into valuable bio-products, which can solve such global sustainability issues as climate change and food shortages. Pond Technologies began as an idea, was fostered through research, and has grown now into a company that is creating jobs in Markham.

For students and researchers at institutions like Seneca College or York University, whose new campus will be in Markham, this means more support to continue their work on the leading edge of tomorrow's biggest discoveries. From graduate students working in the lab, to early career researchers establishing a path, to pioneers at all levels of research and academia, this government believes in their potential and supports their work.

The broad themes of budget 2018 are equality and growth.

Not a single Canadian should be left behind in that progress, which is why budget 2018 would ensure support for all facets of Canadian society, youth, seniors, and diverse cultural communities included.

The government is enhancing our youth employment strategy through an investment of $448 million over five years to help young Canadians gain valuable skills, work experience, and job opportunities.

Budget 2018 proposes $23 million to support multiculturalism programs and a national anti-racism strategy, an investment that would also address discrimination targeted toward indigenous people.

The community of Markham—Thornhill thrives not in spite of its diversity but because of it. The Markham African Caribbean Canadian Association, the Federation of Chinese Canadians in Markham, and many others in our community are the kinds of organizations that can act as examples for the government as it works to increase inclusion. To the people who feel that they do not belong, we see the strength of their diversity, and we will help them thrive.

In order to build on our past innovations for future growth, it is fundamental to support middle-class families so that every individual has the opportunity to succeed. We introduced the Canada child benefit in 2016, and last fall we committed to indexing the CCB to keep up with the cost of living. This will ensure that nearly six million children currently benefiting from the CCB will continue to be supported.

Budget 2018 introduced the Canada workers benefit, which would help an estimated 300,000 additional workers and would help lift 70,000 Canadians out of poverty. We are working hard for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Budget 2018 is an opportunity. It is an opportunity to ensure that every Canadian has a real and fair chance at success. For women building a business or career, this budget is for them. For researchers working on their next great discovery, this budget is for them. For entrepreneurs with a brilliant idea, this budget is for them. For middle-class workers supporting their families, this budget is for them.

That is why I am proud to support budget 2018.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with the member from Markham my experience on the special committee for pay equity to let her know that not one single expert witness said that the government would need 18 months to implement pay equity legislation. We are coming up to two years. The hon. member made a comment that pay equity legislation is coming. There is no money in this budget to implement pay equity legislation. When will the government implement pay equity legislation? Women are waiting, and I feel that they have been waiting much longer than they need to.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that women are waiting, and waiting too long. That is why I am so proud that in budget 2018, we will put forward progressive legislation that will bring pay equity to women who deserve it. We said earlier in the House that the commitment was there. Everyone on all sides agrees that pay equity legislation is important. I think that is supported across the way.

I am very proud that our government will be introducing this. I look forward to equal pay for equal work for women and men in our federal sectors.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, 70% of Canadians who are in the last days of their life do not have access to palliative, end-of-life care. It was a decision of this Parliament to make that a priority so that 100% of Canadians who needed palliative care would have access to it. Funding for that was was in the 2016 budget and in the 2017 budget. However, this year's budget does not mention it. Palliative care appears to be gone.

Why would the member support a budget that now neglects the needs of Canadians in the last days of their life? Why are the Liberals abandoning the goal of providing palliative care to every Canadian who needs it?

My other question for the member is this. Why is the funding for seniors being very selective? Only in one Liberal riding is there a research project. In fact, the largest concentration of seniors in Canada is in the west. Why would the west be ignored again? The Liberal government seems to have a habit of ignoring the west.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the west, I am proud the government has reached health accords with all provinces. In those health accords will be a delivery of health care services and seniors care for our senior population across the country. I am also proud of the investments we have made in home care, which will support seniors.

The budget is a further step with further investments to investments we have already made in support of our seniors. Our government has acted and has the track record of supporting seniors in all communities across the country.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention, but she did not answer the question on pay equity. When the government came to power, in the first months after that it said that we should not to worry, that nothing had been cast in stone on democratic reform, that it was coming. On pharmacare, the Liberals have been saying this for now over 20 years. On pay equity, for it to be in the budget and not in the budget implementation act is a betrayal of the work that so many activists have undertaken for decades to achieve pay equity in our country.

Therefore, I would like the member to answer the question from the member for Saskatoon West. Is she is disappointed by the betrayal of Canadian women on pay equity?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. I am proud of budget 2018 because it is a budget for women. I talked about investments for our women entrepreneurs, about gender equality, and about investments for women. We have put together a gender statement in the budget, and this is what will happen going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe my time is going to be limited today, but I am pleased to rise today to speak to the budget implementation act.

Typically, when we are debating budget implementation bills, we are actually debating a true fiscal plan, a plan that sets out the proposed spending of the government to help the Canadian economy.

Through its budget and its implementation bill, it is clear to many Canadians that the government has no true coherent plan for the economy. The so-called budget that was announced by the government earlier this year was full of empty promises and very short on substance. The only true substantive part of the bill is the implementation of the Liberal carbon tax, which will raise the price of gas by 11¢ per litre for Canadian consumers.

I represent a rural riding in central southwestern Ontario. Driving to work, to the grocery store, and to the hockey rink is the only option. It is very similar to your riding, Mr. Speaker, so you know what I am talking about. Residents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound do not want any form of carbon tax, whether it is from Kathleen Wynne or from this government.

Another concern that has been expressed by a number of constituents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is the complete lack of new initiatives for agriculture and Canadian farmers. It is shameful that the government in its last budget implementation bill was able to find $480 million for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to fund projects outside the country, while Canadian farmers were left behind. People in my riding, including myself, still shake our heads over that. It is not fair, and it is wrong.

The truly disappointing, though not surprising, that part of the government's most recent budget is the continued commitment to further debt and deficits. As a fiscal conservative, it is infuriating to see the government come out year after year, since 2015, and present us with budgets that commit to deficits.

In the election, the Prime Minister promised modest deficits of $10 billion per year for two years, with a pledge that we would return to balanced budgets by 2019. Last year, the deficit was $19.4 billion. This year, the government is projecting a deficit of $18.1 billion. There is absolutely no plan in place for Canada to return to balanced budgets. In fact, the Department of Finance has projected that we will not be able to balance the books until the year 2045.

I have four grandchildren, but my oldest one just turned 13 less than a month ago. Because of the government's economic mismanagement, she will be 40 years old by the time Canada is able to return to balanced budgets. I cannot run my household or business like that. Neither can anyone else. However, it seems the government can.

I look forward to finishing my speech whenever that time comes up.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member will have six and a half minutes remaining in his time for his speech and the usual five minutes for questions and comments when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion that Bill S-210, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill S-210.

First of all, as the members of the House already know, the NDP will be supporting this bill. We want to thank the senator who raised this matter in the other place, as well as the member who raised it in this House.

The reason we are supporting this bill is very simple. We do not believe, nor have we ever believed, that the government should play with words when it comes to legislation. We thought it was important to have fair titles. We thought it was important that the government be reasonable, that it not seek to divide Canadians. Instead, the government should be promoting consensus on legislation.

The first reason we are supporting this bill is that we have always opposed the former Conservative government under Mr. Harper in his intent to try to deform legislation, to add titles that are absolutely inappropriate. We fought this through the years of the Harper government. There were many times that we raised the fact that the government was imposing titles that made no sense and were designed for political purposes, rather to properly reflect the content of the legislation before the House of Commons.

The issue raised by the title of one government bill, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, was very problematic, as were a number of other titles. A government should be looking for consensus in this country, not searching for division and imposing on acts and bills and legislation titles that are designed for political purposes.

Certainly the Conservative government had the opportunity to campaign, but that was not appropriate for legislation that comes before the House and is considered by all of the members of Parliament who are elected to represent their districts. The use by the former Harper Conservatives of these kinds of titles never should have happened. We certainly agree with eliminating the title in this case.

I raised earlier this week the very many practices that the Harper Conservatives brought in that the current Liberal government is continuing. It includes omnibus legislation, the most bloated omnibus legislation in Canada's history. There are 556 pages in the budget implementation act that we just suspended debate on, and there are so many other cases where we see the lack of transparency and the lack of respect for democratic institutions under the Harper government transformed into the new Liberal government. It is completely contrary to what Liberals committed to.

In this case at least, we are seeing the initiative of one member of Parliament in speaking out against a Harper Conservative practice. At least one Liberal is speaking out against the current government continuing this practice, at least in this case, so we thank him for that.

At the same time, since I represent my riding, I need to talk about respect for diversity in this country and the fact that the Harper Conservatives, in introducing that divisive title, were not showing respect for the diversity of this land that we all call home.

In the riding of New Westminster—Burnaby, there is more diversity within a few square kilometres of that riding than exists anywhere else in Canada and, we believe, anywhere else on the planet. Within a few square kilometres of the city of New Westminster, south Burnaby, east Burnaby, and Cariboo Hill, in the Burnaby-Edmonds area, over 150 languages are spoken. All major centres of faith are found in the riding of New Westminster—Burnaby. I am so honoured to represent that area. Through the course of a day, sometimes I will be able to use fragments of 14 or 15 different languages with the various groups that are so active in the cultural diversity that is New Westminster—Burnaby.

It is an exciting place. There are so many festivals. What we have is Canadians of so many different origins, from the four corners of this planet, coming together in consensus and making sure that they work together and bring the best of their countries of origin.

My grandfather and grandmother on my mother's side did the same when they came from Norway, as did my grandfather and grandmother on my father's side when they came from Ireland and England. They brought to New Westminster—Burnaby a lot of diversity and traditions that were important, and all in keeping with those fundamental values of human rights and equality that Canadians believe in. In New Westminster—Burnaby we find that writ large, 150 times over. People from all corners of the earth come together in harmony.

I can recall one incident that exhibits the kind of acceptance and the kind of tolerance of each other that really underscores Canadian values. I go to the Chariot Festival every year at the Tamil-speaking Hindu temple on Edmonds Street in Burnaby. It is a loud, boisterous, and celebratory festival. People go through the streets of the community around Edmonds. There is loud music, which is wonderful. It is vibrant. There is dancing.

The first time I accompanied the marchers through the neighbourhood, I went up to some burly guys who were sitting at the side of their fence drinking a cold beer. It was a hot summer day. I asked them how they felt about all this. I was not sure what the reaction of the gentlemen would be, but one of them said to me that he loved it, because he did not have to travel around the world to see the traditions in Tamil-speaking India, because India comes to his door.

That type of acceptance and admiration of the diversity and multiculturalism that exists in New Westminster—Burnaby is something I believe all Canadians share. That is the hallmark of Canadian multiculturalism, and I see it each and every day in my riding. I see an acceptance and a willingness to look at what is best that has been brought from the four corners of the earth and woven into the tapestry that is the multicultural nation we call home, with the various origins, including, of course, first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples.

More often than not, we get that balance right. We still have so much to do to make sure that every Canadian feels accepted and welcome. We still have a lot of work to do in that respect. My colleagues in the NDP raise this every day in the House of Commons. Generally, most Canadian communities get it right, and most Canadian communities believe in that acceptance of each other. That is a good start for Canada.

That is why, getting back to Bill S-210, the idea of carving off what was an extraordinarily divisive title, used for political purposes, is an important but small step in what we want to achieve as a country.

We should all believe, as the 150 different languages spoken in my riding attest, that Canadians do best when we all work together and accept the best of each one of us. As a country, we do best when we are willing to listen to each other and learn from each other and build that into the immense multicultural tapestry we call Canada.

New Westminster—Burnaby perhaps is a bit of a hallmark for the rest of the country, with 150 languages and all major religions found within it. I would like to think that is how we all want to see Canada. I would like to think that we all believe in the acceptance of each other and that we all believe in not promoting division but rather in promoting unity and working together, regardless of our diverse countries of origin and creed. On behalf of my party, I would like to say that we support this legislation as a small step in that direction.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise and speak in support of Bill S-210.

Bill S-210 proposes to repeal the short title of Bill S-7, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, which received royal assent on June 18, 2015. The short title found in section 1 of Bill S-7, is the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act. It must be noted that it is this title, not the substance of that piece of legislation, that is the subject of the bill we are currently debating.

As hon. members are probably aware, the act we are proposing to amend sought to strengthen measures that prevent things like early and forced marriage, and to better protect women and girls in Canada. However, I wish to note that during the process Parliament took to review Bill S-7, there was considerable criticism of the bill's short title from stakeholders, senators, members of Parliament, committee witnesses, and the media. These groups opposed the title, emphasizing it had the potential to build divisions in Canadian society by targeting certain communities.

In the view of the government, the use of the word “barbaric” in the short title of Bill S-7 is inflammatory and potentially divisive. It has the potential to breed fear of certain groups of immigrants, and in doing so, it distracts from the key goal of the legislation, which is to help protect women of all cultural backgrounds. Stakeholders have also noted that the title of the bill needs to be more neutral and that it should reflect the content of the bill rather than using such emotionally charged terms like “barbaric”. It is particularly harmful to deliberately link the terms “barbaric” and “cultural”.

Let me be clear. Violence against women takes many different forms and affects millions of women and girls in Canada and around the world regardless of religion, nationality, or culture. In her presentation to parliamentarians, Avvy Go, the director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, argued that the title could invoke racist stereotypes. She added that it could detract from Canadians having a real and honest discussion about domestic violence and from seeing domestic violence for what it really is, namely, an issue of gender inequality and not an issue of cultural identity.

Allow me to note some other comments. Lawyer Chantal Desloges stated that the short title deters citizens from engaging in meaningful discussion of the bill's actual content. Dr. Rupaleem Bhuyan, a professor in the University of Toronto's faculty of social work, told committee members that the title was misleading from the serious issues that this bill seeks to address.

Finally, representatives from the Canadian Bar Association and the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants raised concerns about the divisiveness of the short title.

As we see from these examples, this title has prompted considerable concern from many individuals and organizations. This is partly why the government supports Bill S-210 to repeal the short title of Bill S-7. Repealing this title is a symbolic step, but one that carries real meaning and consequence because, as we all know, language matters.

I would propose to hon. members that for one culture to consider itself morally superior over another serves only to divide our world. It fosters sentiments of xenophobia and is destructive, especially in our increasingly globalized world. Our responsibility as elected members is not to perpetuate misguided ideas or divisive language that could shape Canadian society.

The government's support for Bill S-210 demonstrates our commitment to openness, acceptance, and generosity in the Canadian immigration process. It reflects our commitment to accuracy and to avoiding language that is misleading, inflammatory, and divisive. Finally, it reflects our commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals in Canada, especially women and children.

Diversity is at the heart of our success as a nation and of what we offer the world. We are deeply committed to promoting inclusion and acceptance, which are some of the key pillars of Canadian society. The success of the diverse newcomers who migrate to Canada supports our success as a strong and united country.

We must ensure that our words, especially the words we use to describe our laws, reflect the openness that is the cornerstone of Canada's place in the world. This bill, if passed by Parliament, would remove the short title of Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, that was adopted during the last parliamentary session. This is the bill's only provision and does not propose to make any other changes adopted through the passage of Bill S-7.

In summary, the government's support for Bill S-210 would remove the short title of the current legislation, a title that can promote division and intolerance and that can also be seen as targeting specific communities. On that basis, the government supports Bill S-210. I would encourage my honourable colleagues to support this bill to foster an open, tolerant, and inclusive Canada. Diversity is our strength. We know that Canada has succeeded culturally, politically, and economically because of our diversity, not in spite of it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City has right of reply for five minutes.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to close the second hour of debate at second reading on Bill S-210, an act to amend an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The purpose of Bill S-210 is simple and straightforward. It would repeal the short title of Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which was passed into law in the previous Parliament.

As I stated in the first hour of debate, there is no place for this language in legislation. It is inappropriate to associate culture with barbaric practices. This was reflected in testimony on Bill S-7 at committee, where numerous stakeholder groups objected to the inclusion of the word “culture” in the bill's short title. Senator Mobina Jaffer brought forward Bill S-210 to fix this.

The former minister of immigration, refugees, and citizenship, the hon. John McCallum, who was the Liberal immigration critic in the previous Parliament, also raised our party's objections to the inclusion of the word “culture”. Senator Salma Ataullahjan, the original sponsor of Bill S-7, has also indicated her support for the removal of the short title.

In her remarks on Bill S-210, my colleague from Vancouver East put the importance of this legislation in clear terms: words matter. The words we use, especially in this place and in the laws we pass, have consequences. Words reflect the values and ideas we present to the country and to the world. Suggesting that barbaric practices are associated with particular cultures only serves to divide Canadians and fails to communicate constructively to an open and tolerant society.

Canada prides itself on being a multicultural, inclusive society. Diversity is our strength. We know that Canada has succeeded culturally, politically, and economically because of our diversity, not in spite of it. It is important that we exercise care and thoughtfulness in the legislation we put forward. The short title of Bill S-7 is a blatant example of the previous government's attempts to divide Canadians, while doing nothing to advance the substance of the legislation.

I have been fortunate enough to sponsor two private member's bills, Bill C-374 and Bill S-210, which is before us today. I took great care in deciding what pieces of legislation I wanted to advance and sincerely believe in the importance of this legislation.

Language matters, and it is incumbent upon us as legislators to take the utmost care in the words we use. During Bill S-210's first hour of debate, I was disappointed to hear the member for Edmonton West refer to this bill as a waste of time. I find it unfortunate that Conservatives fail to understand this. They continue to demonstrate that they are out of touch with Canadians and would rather divide than unite.

I have the honour to represent a diverse riding that is home to Christians and Sikhs, Buddhists and Muslims, first nations and newcomers. This weekend I will have the pleasure of participating in the city of Surrey's Vaisakhi Day Parade, which is the largest of its kind in Canada. Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to participate in this year's festival, an important celebration of Sikhs in our communities. The Vaisakhi Day Parade is a proud display of our region's rich cultural tapestry and a demonstration of the diversity we celebrate as Canadians.

Unnecessarily conflating abhorrent and illegal practices with particular cultures is not a productive way in which to recognize and promote Canadian diversity. We do a disservice to our multicultural communities when we grossly misuse language, as was the case with Bill S-7's short title. Bill S-210 presents an opportunity for us to correct this flaw, and I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 18, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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

Employment Insurance

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

Madam Speaker, on November 27, I rose in the House to ask a question about employment insurance sickness benefits.

Currently, workers who fall ill are entitled to 15 weeks of employment insurance benefits. As I pointed out during my intervention on November 27, 15 weeks is not enough, especially for someone with serious health problems.

More than one-third of claimants need far more than the 15 weeks granted by this program. In late 2016, the Prime Minister himself and the minister said that they would extend the benefits period. However, a year and a half later, nothing has changed. That is unacceptable. It is high time that the government kept its promise to make this change, which so many of our constituents have been calling for.

I want to acknowledge Marie-Hélène Dubé, from Rivière-du-Loup. In 2009, while battling cancer, she started a petition calling for the government at the time to extend EI sickness benefits. Nearly 600,000 signatures were collected. Almost a decade later, Marie-Hélène Dubé's fight to allow sick workers to recover with dignity continues.

I want to thank everyone in Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale who wrote to me recently about extending the EI sickness benefit period.

The 15-week EI sickness benefit provision goes back to 1971 and is completely out of touch with the realities of today's society. We need to take action now. Last year, 345,000 Canadian workers needed these emergency benefits.

The Liberal government promised to extend EI sickness benefits a year and a half ago, but workers who are forced to take time off for health reasons are still not entitled to more than 15 weeks of benefits. This situation makes life very difficult for thousands of patients who cannot go back to work when their benefits run out.

Recently, Christine Roussel, a single mother in Quebec City who was diagnosed with breast cancer, had to take sick leave in the winter of 2017 to undergo chemotherapy. Even though she was earning less on EI, those benefits helped her make ends meet. Things started going downhill on June 24, 2017, which is when her sickness benefits suddenly ended. Without disability insurance, the mother of two had to turn to social assistance. Unable to survive on welfare, the Quebec City resident had to start working again on December 22 even though she was not healthy enough to do so. I cannot believe the government forces sick people back to work instead of taking care of them. We have to do something.

During the last campaign, the NDP promised to extend those benefits and make them more accessible so that sick workers would not end up like Ms. Dubé and Ms. Roussel.

The Prime Minister and the minister promised to take action, so my question again is this: what are they waiting for?