House of Commons Hansard #317 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-71.

Topics

The EnvironmentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, there is unprecedented awareness these days about the problems of marine plastics all around the globe. There are terrible images of whales choked on plastics and sea turtles entangled. As a result, we are seeing great citizen action in terms of collecting petition signatures in support of the motion tabled by my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni. Motion No. 151 calls on Canada to adopt a national strategy to take real action on marine plastics. This would include regulations to limit the use of single-use plastics, as well as ongoing funding to deal with historic ghost fishing nets and other debris that originates in places other than Canada.

On Oceans Day we had a lot of people from Ladysmith and Nanaimo signing petitions, and we commend this petition to the House.

The EnvironmentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by nearly 200 people from across Quebec and Ontario to protect wetlands.

Given that wetlands have great ecological value and often serve as buffer zones in developed areas, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to take a firm position to ensure compliance with the federal policy on wetland conservation, which aims to improve and preserve the environment so as to prevent increasing natural disasters, by designating the wetlands bordering Lake Saint-François as protected areas.

Human Organ TraffickingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present two petitions. I join with many colleagues in supporting two private members' bills that are currently before Parliament, Bill C-350 from the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, and Bill S-240, which started in the Senate.

These bills aim to make it illegal for Canadians and all permanent residents or foreign nationals to participate in the abhorrent trade of human organs removed without consent or as the result of a financial transaction. The petition is clearly widely supported.

Animal WelfarePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, on the second petition, I want to specifically reference the petitioners, who are a group of young women attending Balmoral Hall in Manitoba. They have signed a petition calling for a ban on animal testing. The petitioners point out that other jurisdictions, particularly in the European Union, which accounts for half the global cosmetic market, prohibit the importation and sale of cosmetics that have been tested on animals. Norway, India, and Israel have also banned animal testing in cosmetics. These young women call on the House of Commons to do the same.

Animal WelfarePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be possible to table a report from committee. I was not able to be here when you were requesting reports from committees. I would request unanimous consent to table this report.

Animal WelfarePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is there unanimous consent to return to presenting reports from committees?

Animal WelfarePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled “Atlantic Canada's Marine Commercial Vessel Length and Licensing Policies—Working Towards Equitable Policies for Fishers in all of Atlantic Canada”.

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

I would like to thank all committee members for their work on this. It is a unanimous report. We are very excited to present this, and look forward to a great response from the government.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 1699, originally tabled on June 11, 2018 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 1699Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

With regard to registered charities that indirectly fund Canadian political activity or campaigns through foreign or third party entities: what specific action to stop such funding is being taken by (i) the Canada Revenue Agency, (ii) Elections Canada?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

North American Free Trade AgreementRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I have a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Durham.

North American Free Trade AgreementRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I make the request in accordance with Standing Order 52, with respect to an emergency debate on NAFTA, on trade with the United States, and on the overall special relationship with the United States, which is tattered at the moment. All parliamentarians should be able to speak to this before we rise for the summer.

We are quickly approaching the one-year mark since the commencement of formal negotiations to modernize NAFTA. There have been multiple rounds. All sides appreciate the tremendous work done by the Canadian negotiating team, but NAFTA has come to a standstill in terms of the negotiations. In recent months, in fact, we have being seeing setbacks and not moves forward.

If it were not already complicated enough, with the U.S. trade relationship being our country's most critical economic relationship, the president's misuse, I would suggest, of section 232 exemptions under the Trade Expansion Act for steel and aluminum has further clouded and complicated talks in relation to trade with the United States. The imposition of a 10% tariff on aluminum and a 25% tariff on steel runs contrary to the history of our great countries and the integration of our economies, and certainly clouds the negotiating table for NAFTA.

It is spiralling from there, because now we are a few days away from the imposition of reciprocal tariffs worth billions of dollars, which Canada is imposing as a retaliatory measure in relation to the steel and aluminum tariffs.

We support Canada being strong in the face of unreasonable demands by the United States and the inappropriate use of national security exemptions with respect to commodities. Since the last war, aluminum from Canada has provided the body of the fighter aircrafts that both Canadian and American pilots have flown in defence of our countries, and in the defence of North America through NORAD. The unique security partnership has not been focused on enough to show how ridiculous the application of section 232 is with respect to Canada.

The reciprocal tariffs, though, will complicate all manufacturing industries in Ontario, because many of the component parts for assembly, whether it is in the auto industry or for companies like General Dynamics, use American steel imports. Already, on both sides of the border, we are going to see jobs at risk, we are going to see higher prices for consumers, and we are going to see the Canadian and U.S. economies becoming uncompetitive.

Why does this warrant a special debate under Standing Order 52? There are almost two million jobs directly tied to exports to the United States. Once our tariffs are imposed on July 1, there is the possibility that the President of the United States has already alluded to, of a 25% tariff on finished vehicles.

Historically, since the Auto Pact between our countries started free trade between Canada and the U.S., over 80% of the vehicles assembled in Ontario, in communities like Windsor, Oakville, St. Catharines, and Oshawa, have been for export to the United States. With just-in-time manufacturing, often parts and assembly have crossed our border in an integrated fashion as many as seven times before the completion of a vehicle. Tariff imposition of this nature would be devastating for the auto industry in Ontario, and after our resource industry, this is the most critical contributing sector to our gross domestic product.

There has never been such a looming threat to the Canadian economy than the threat we are looking at now, based in large part on a number of unreasonable and unfair demands by the U.S. administration. That is why we need an emergency debate.

It is late in the year and I know many of us want to get back to our ridings, but we owe it to Canadians and to all parliamentarians to have a serious plan articulated in this House by the government. With over two million jobs, every riding in this House is impacted directly by trade with the United States. Every parliamentarian should be be able to be part of team Canada. Team Canada is more than a hashtag. A debate would enable us to provide ideas, support, and proposals to the government.

Before we rise, it is also incumbent on the government to present to Parliament a clear plan on the reciprocal tariffs that would go into effect on July 1, and what plan will be in place if auto tariffs are imposed by the president. This debate would also allow the government to provide confidence to workers who are already being impacted in the steel and aluminum industries, and to provide a plan and a sense of calm ahead of the potential for auto tariffs.

This is about Parliament at its best, where all parliamentarians on both sides can speak to probably the biggest potential economic crisis we have seen in our lifetime. Parliamentarians need to be able to debate this in such a way that we can truly forge a team Canada approach. Canadians need to see their parliamentarians seized with this, because the House will not sit again until September and Canadians need to know that all MPs are concerned and will fight for Canada's interests.

Speaker's RulingRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the hon. member for Durham for raising his request for an emergency debate. However, I am afraid I do not find that it meets the exigencies of the Standing Order.

Bill C-71—Time Allocation MotionFirearms ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the third 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 then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-71—Time Allocation MotionFirearms ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

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 will have some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

Bill C-71—Time Allocation MotionFirearms ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, this time allocation motion will once again undermine our ability to debate Bill C-71, which is a farce. This is nothing more than political games and a public relations exercise, and once again it targets hunters and law-abiding Canadians.

I would now like to hear the minister's thoughts on a serious problem concerning indigenous peoples. Heather Bear, the vice-chief of the Ochapowace Nation in Saskatchewan, the minister's province, appeared before the committee and said that Bill C-71 is probably unconstitutional, that indigenous peoples had traditions, and that they did not have to comply in any way with the contents of Bill C-71.

How can we have two categories of citizens, law-abiding hunters and gun owners on the one hand, and indigenous peoples on the other, who claim that this bill does not apply to them? How can we ensure public safety when people ignore what we are trying to do?

Bill C-71—Time Allocation MotionFirearms ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Regina—Wascana Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Madam Speaker, the legislation was very thoroughly discussed in a committee of this House, and I want to thank the public safety and national security committee for the good work it did. It heard a great many witnesses, 26 altogether. It held five meetings, and had three further meetings to deal with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The committee amended the legislation in three specific ways. In fact, an amendment from each of the parties was successful in getting through that process. That reflects a very conscientious effort on the part of members of Parliament, not only in this House but in the committee, to listen to witnesses such as the chief referred to by the spokesman for the official opposition and to respond accordingly. Parliament has done its job in a very effective way.

Bill C-71—Time Allocation MotionFirearms ActGovernment Orders

June 19th, 2018 / 10:35 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, when I had a beard, people used to get me mixed up with my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

Let us move on to more serious things, like this time allocation motion. During second reading of Bill C-71, the Liberals introduced a bill that the minister bragged about. I do not entirely disagree with him. We support some aspects of it, but we still have some concerns and questions about other aspects. The minister said he wanted to bring a balanced approach to firearms legislation in Canada. However, we know that this debate is very emotional, and understandably so.

However, at second reading, before I even had a chance to speak to the bill as the critic from the second opposition party, the Liberals moved a time allocation motion. Now, after only a few hours of debate, they come back with yet another time allocation motion.

The Liberals say that they take very seriously the concerns of victims who are calling for more control over firearms and those of firearms owners, who have questions about some of the provisions in the bill.

If we want to have a healthy debate on this difficult and complex issue in Canada, why move a time allocation motion? Why not truly take the time to listen to parliamentarians as they share the concerns of their constituents?

Bill C-71—Time Allocation MotionFirearms ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK

Madam Speaker, indeed a very substantial amount of time has been taken. I would remind hon. members that the content of Bill C-71 was included in the election campaign of 2015 in great detail. The proposals were laid out in the election platform. That was the subject of a complete campaign, and in fact endorsed by Canadians in general as a result of the election.

In terms of the legislation now specifically before the House, which reflects very faithfully what was in the campaign platform, we tried to call this bill twice at second reading and ran into parliamentary shenanigans which delayed or diverted the discussion onto something else so we could not get to this subject matter. When we were finally able to get to the subject matter, there were six hours of debate at second reading. Then the bill went to committee. There were five meetings in the committee. There were 26 witnesses. There were three more meetings to deal with clause-by-clause consideration. Three amendments were adopted.

Now there will be five more hours of debate at report stage and five more hours of debate at third reading. That will provide ample opportunity for members of Parliament to reflect their views and the views of their constituents.