Cheryl Hardcastle

[Salaries Act, June 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be sharing my time with the hon. member for Hochelaga.

I want to take this opportunity tonight to speak to Bill C-24, and to discuss the reasons why it is an illusory attempt to cover-up a key political charade with regard to the Prime Minister's commitment to gender parity. That commitment rings hollow when we get down to the heart of the matter, and the substance of the bill which creates a new set of problems for economic development.

The whole thing is a diversion from the real issues and required actions. Canadians deserve a candid account of what is before them with the government's Bill C-24. There are three key measures contained in the bill. First, it adds the current ministers of state to the minister's section of the Salaries Act, thereby giving them the same salary as ministers. Second, it creates three new place holder cabinet positions to be filled and defined whenever the Prime Minister chooses to do so. Third, the bill removes ministers who act as the heads of regional economic development agencies from the Salaries Act.

The effect is that if someone is the head of a regional economic development agency, it no longer makes them a minister. That is significant because it stands to reason that the minister in charge of economic development of a region must also know and understand that region. The Liberals have made a crucial error in consolidating all the economic development agencies under a single minister. Central control of regional development was an ill-advised move that should have been turned back, and now the bill removes all possibility of appointing a minister specifically responsible for the economic development of a particular region. What they are doing is entrenching their mistake into legislation.

In a press release issued by the government when it introduced Bill C-24, it said that the legislation was meant to show that the Government of Canada was committed to creating a one-tier ministry that recognized the equality of all cabinet members and supported their work on the government’s priorities. The government would have us believe that there is an important principle of equality at stake with the bill, but in fact, the bill fails to demonstrate any greater equality between ministers or between men and women in cabinet, for that matter, than an existing legislative regime already does.

The NDP has long championed the closing of the gender wage gap in cabinet as well as for all Canadians. The problem with the bill, however, is that it is not so much designed to close the gender wage gap as it is meant to fix a political problem the Prime Minister created when he boasted about having a government with gender parity, but appointed a disproportionate amount of women to junior posts.

Members will recall that the Prime Minister originally bragged about having gender parity in his cabinet. However, he quickly came under criticism for having made most of them ministers of state instead of full ministers. As I pointed out, ministers of state are not department heads, and between 2008 and 2015 inclusively, they have not been paid as full ministers.

Changing the law so that ministers of state receive the same pay and status as full ministers is the Prime Minister's disingenuous solution which only deals with the issue of his contrived gender pay gap in cabinet. It does not deal with the issue of whether or not real gender parity in cabinet means appointing an equal number of women to be department heads.

By papering over the distinction between ministers of state and full ministers, the Prime Minister is prioritizing equality of compensation over equality of responsibility with respect to gender parity in his government.

In addition to that huge problem, we are also deeply concerned about the Liberals' move to consolidate the economic development agencies under one minister, from Mississauga, who is the current Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. This is a huge mistake. It should go without saying that the minister in charge of economic development in a region must know and understand the region. Our provinces and territories will be best served by economic initiatives designed to meet their unique challenges and issues, something that a pan-Canadian approach will not do.

I have to underscore that what makes it worse is that this bill would remove the possibility of appointing a minister specifically responsible for the economic development of a particular region. Regional economic development should absolutely be a priority of the government, but the current approach of centralizing control of regional economic development under a solo minister from Ontario is broken. The government should not entrench its mistakes in legislation.

The law currently allows for the provision that ministers of state with the appropriate level of responsibility be paid as ministers for departments. House of Commons Procedure and Practice clearly states and specifies the difference in their roles. I will quote a portion of it:

The principle of individual ministerial responsibility holds that Ministers are accountable not only for their own actions as department heads, but also for the actions of their subordinates; individual ministerial responsibility provides the basis for accountability throughout the system. Virtually all departmental activity is carried out in the name of a Minister who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament for those acts. Ministers exercise power and are constitutionally responsible for the provision and conduct of government; Parliament holds them personally responsible for it.

In other words, one minister must ultimately be accountable for the actions of a department. While ministers may delegate responsibilities, they are ultimately responsible for the actions of those to whom they delegate.

Either the Liberals are creating a situation where the lines of accountability are not clear, in which case they are compromising the principle of ministerial responsibility, or they must admit that some ministers will still be subordinate to others; i.e., not all ministers are equal.

There is nothing wrong with having some ministers who run departments and some who do not, nor is there anything wrong with having a convenient title, like minister of state, to designate those ministers with less responsibility.

Canadian taxpayers are being asked to pay more for junior ministers so that the Prime Minister can be spared the embarrassment of explaining that a gender pay gap in cabinet existed because he failed to appoint enough women to senior posts. If the goal of the bill is simply to eliminate the gender pay gap created by appointing a disproportionate number of women to junior roles, it is completely unnecessary. This could be accomplished in two ways: by making the current ministers of state ministers of departments, or by establishing ministries of state for the current ministers of state.

Meanwhile, the gender parity argument is cringeworthy. The Liberal government is dragging its feet when it comes to implementing pay equity for all Canadian women who are not in cabinet. We are still waiting for this feminist Prime Minister to implement proactive legislation on pay equity before the end of 2016. We are still waiting for the repeal of the unfair 2009 Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, and last but not least, we still await the adoption of the recommendations of 2004 pay equity task force.

If the government is sincere, we need it to conduct and publicly release a gender-based analysis of this bill, close the gender wage gap, and address the responsibility gap in cabinet by making more women department heads. The government must address pay equity and equal opportunity for all Canadians in conjunction with those meaningful initiatives.

[Salaries Act, June 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of people are watching tonight, and I just want to say that all the Canadian daughters are being spoken of very proudly by their fathers, and rightfully so. I am a proud daughter who learned from my father not to get schmoozed, not to worry about the names we might be called if we are smart or assertive, and we are applying our critical thinking to some of the things people say. I would say to these same daughters, who are watching tonight, to think about this. There are a couple of questions, and maybe the hon. member would like to answer them.

Does this mean these ministers of state will now have power and responsibility equal to the ministers under the definition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice? Does this mean we will have ministries of state now? Does this mean we are so serious about gender equality now that we will implement this legislation that has been committed to? Does this mean people who are taking on roles and responsibilities in senior positions will be equally men and women? Does this mean the word feminism is more than just a charade? What exactly do ministers of state do? Are they equal to the power of a minister of a department if they do not have a ministry?

[Salaries Act, June 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe I am hearing the House leader tell us that it is okay for them to do it because someone did it once before in another government. I cannot believe that the rhetoric we are hearing in this place will be heard as genuine by Canadians. It is so shallow and so repetitive that it is becoming a joke. Frankly, it is very insulting to be sitting here until midnight, as committed and dedicated as we all are, for the kind of substance being thrown at us by the governing party. This is really upsetting. We can hear the Liberals convincing themselves of their own argument. This brainwashing and rhetoric is very frustrating. Canadians are seeing it, and I am starting to feel like this is some kind of joke and there has to be a hidden camera somewhere. This is ridiculous.

I want all Canadians listening to know that they can look up in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice a definition for ministers. What is happening here, removing the ministerial title for regional economic development, is counter to what the House leader is saying tonight.

[Paris Agreement, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I agree that it is important for Canadians to understand what is going on here. The issue is not really about us looking at new policy and the era of using legislation to advance environmental sustainability as well as economic health. The issue here is about the tactics being used by the governing party to run roughshod over opposition members who want to have meaningful debate about the very significant and milestone achievements that the government wants to be able to take credit for.

I am here and ready to give my thoughtful, meaningful, and reflective comments on the legislation, which is historic. However, every time I sit here and am ready to be the voice for the very progressive constituents in my area who have provided very insightful information, we get shut down by a government that campaigned on being healthy for democracy, campaigned on sunny ways, and I see this Eddie Haskell version of governance here. It is very disconcerting to hear the members detract from the real issue of undermining our ability to talk about the issue in this place, when we should be debating it.

[Pensions, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, nearly half of Canadians denied access to CPP disability benefits are successfully appealing the rulings. Two-thirds of those who took their appeal to the Social Security Tribunal won. Clearly this proves the process we have in place is seriously flawed. These claims for benefits are not just numbers. They are real people who need these benefits in order to live and thrive. Why are so many claims denied in the first place?

Will the minister address this urgent matter immediately?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that Canadians understand what is happening here today, based on some of the comments that have already been made.

I want to make sure that Canadians understand that when the hon. minister talks about a well-functioning House of Commons, it would have been much more expeditious in having a well-functioning House of Commons if the Liberals had agreed to making parliamentary changes in a collegial fashion and not unilaterally. That would have saved a lot of time. It is misleading a lot of Canadians today. That is why certain tactics had to be employed to protect the health and well-being of a parliamentary process that is facing unprecedented changes.

I also want to make sure that Canadians understand the total number of hours that are being talked about in the debate. This omnibus bill has many unprecedented changes that really deserve scrutiny. On the infrastructure bank we are talking about, you can tell by the quality of the answers to the questions being asked about the infrastructure bank that it is not well understood and that it needs careful scrutiny.

I want to make sure that Canadians understand that as we move forward with this process, there are many pieces that really need that very healthy debate. We are here to do our job. I just hope Canadians understand that time allocation does not do this any justice. It is very concerning, because it keeps being said by the hon. member that this is going to go to committee. This is it. This is the debate right now. We are at report stage. It is going to go to third reading, get voted on, and go to the Senate.

It is very disconcerting to hear the other side talk about it going to committee. That is done. That ship has sailed, and you are the ones that have sailed it.

[Persons with Disabilities, June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, public consultations on Canada's first national law for people living with disabilities identified key issues that need to be addressed immediately. Canadians voiced a strong preference for an independent body to oversee compliance with the new laws.

Will the minister create an independent body to monitor the upcoming accessibility act and enforce compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, yes or no?

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I made the statements in my speech for a reason. All I can go back to is that I see people every day, persons living with different abilities, who are beautiful people, and they are gifts to all of us. We need national strategies. The only way for us to do that is to recognize the merits of these kinds of approaches and to not work in silos.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, since being elected, I have had the privilege of working for people not only in Windsor—Tecumseh but for people who come to me as the critic for persons living with disabilities. I have to say that it is hard not to be cynical when we see how thorough the consultation has been, when we see how many silos there are operating right now, and when we realize that the 10¢ per Canadian my hon. colleague is proposing is something that can be applied in so many areas besides the autism spectrum.

We need national strategies. We are spinning our wheels. We can be maximizing the resources we have now. The knowledge transfer, the research, and the expanse of knowledge we can be tapping into require a national strategy. It is the role of the federal government to be facilitating that. That is why I believe that moving forward with the expertise makes all the sense in the world, and I cannot understand why we are not doing it.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the Conservative opposition day motion. The NDP has long been a proponent of creating a national strategy on autism, and we look forward to the day that we have one that is more than a mere paper entity.

Canada's current approach to autism spectrum disorder has let down thousands of Canadians on the autism spectrum and their families. We share their disappointment and we stand with them in their call for action in support of the Canadian autism partnership.

We continue to see a significant increase in the number of Canadians being diagnosed on the autism spectrum, yet all across Canada, vital services, supports, and resources have not kept up with the increasing need. It is time for the federal government to finally sit down with the provinces and territories to negotiate an accord, backed by real funding, to address the lack of applied behaviour analysis and intensive behaviour intervention, also known as ABA and IBI, in Canada's school systems, and the lack of public health care coverage for behavioural treatments, and the lack of appropriate housing accommodation for adults on the autism spectrum.

The Liberal government's refusal to fund the Canadian autism partnership, CAP, at $19 million over five years is rather indefensible. While this model is not a substitute for real funding to provide essential services and supports for those on the autism spectrum, the CAP would play an important coordinating role at the national level.

The NDP believes that given the scale of the problem, it makes no sense for the Liberal government to refuse to make this small investment in so worthwhile an initiative just because it was something that was brought forward by the previous Conservative government. Of course, this refusal to fund would be entirely defensible if the Liberals were bringing forward their own well-funded and targeted national strategy, but I think we all know that such a plan is not forthcoming.

Autism is not a matter that any of us should be playing politics with. On the other hand, it is unfortunate that the previous Conservative government never got around to backstopping its own initiative with the funding or political commitment necessary to improve the service delivery and support.

As Kathleen O'Grady, research associate at the Simone de Beauvoir Institute in Concordia University has noted, autism does not affect Liberals or Conservatives or NDPers; it is an equal opportunity neurodevelopmental disorder that affects Canadians across the political spectrum and clear across the country.

I would like to take a moment to look at some of the specifics of autism in Canada. At this time, one in 68 children is currently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. ASD is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental influences. It is now the fastest growing and most commonly diagnosed neurological disorder in Canada. As my hon. colleague stressed earlier, its prevalence has increased over 100% in the last 10 years.

Autism occurs in all racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups, and is a lifelong spectrum disorder. Mental health concerns, such as anxiety and depression, are common in individuals with ASD. Sadly, the unemployment rate for individuals with ASD is over 80%.

Treatments for those on the autism spectrum can cost between $50,000 and $100,000 each year, yet depending on their place of residence, not all affected Canadians have access to the same quality of care. Provincial health plans do not provide equal levels of coverage, and wait-lists are often several years long. People on the autism spectrum lose access to public education and specialized services as they grow older and become adults.

Last, the most important point I would like to make is about early intervention. Early intervention can make a lifetime of difference. I heard this from so many professionals who came forward and talked to me during the election campaign. They are professionals and work with children, and were applauding our proposed early childhood affordable day care strategy, because early interventions are so much an intricate part of what a national strategy would entail.

With the right supports, all individuals with ASD and other disorders can thrive. The earlier the intervention, the more successful the outcome. We know about early intervention leading to success no matter what challenge a child may have. The earlier we can identify that a child needs support, and the earlier appropriate support can be provided at the right time and in the right way for that particular child, the more likely it is that the child will be more successful than he or she would otherwise have been. It is because they have had early intervention that we see children who are now in the regular school system and we see children graduating from high school and university.

As I mentioned earlier, New Democrats have always been champions on this issue. Going back to 2006, the NDP health critic, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, previously introduced Bill C-327, an act respecting a Canadian autism day, in recognition and support of the many Canadians affected by autism spectrum disorder.

We believe, however, that at this point, there have been enough studies, enough round tables, enough consultations, and enough motions debated in this chamber. As well, let us not forget the Senate. It is time for us to do something.

Anyone following this issue for any length of time can be forgiven for being just a tad cynical about the debate we are having here today. There has been everything done around this issue except for the serious concrete action required, backstopped with the right amount of funding that matches the scale of the challenge presented to us. If this is not why we are here today, then we may as well move on to something else, as I have no intention of further insulting and hurting the families, caregivers, and institutions that have been dealing with this matter for decades. These people have invested so much of their time and expertise in the real, meaningful consultations they thought they were bringing forward in the model proposed to the Minister of Health.

Canadians are looking to us for leadership and for action. That is why we are here. Therefore, I urge members to give it to them today. Let us no longer kick this particular can down the road.

I mentioned the Canadian autism partnership project earlier, and I would like to elaborate on what this project entails, as I believe it is pertinent to this debate. The partnership was launched with an investment by the Government of Canada in July 2015. It was charged with developing a national autism spectrum disorder working group and a self-advocates advisory group; a comprehensive stakeholder engagement strategy; and a business plan for the implementation of a permanent Canadian autism partnership.

Since the CAPP was launched, the national working group, along with the self-advocates advisory group, has guided the stakeholder engagement process. There have been 22 meetings with 101 government representatives in all provinces and territories, 17 consultations in 14 communities with relevant stakeholder groups, and 4,371 responses to an online survey hosted by the CAPP website. Throughout the process, a special focus has been placed on the needs of indigenous people and northern communities to identify their priorities and the appropriate methods to examine meaningful responses to their service needs, both on and off reserve.

The development and implementation of the Canadian autism partnership represents a comprehensive approach that would address systemic issues and the complex needs of individuals on the autism spectrum. I believe this partnership is step one in beginning to introduce and seriously address this issue. I am proud to support it here today.