Majid Jowhari

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to working collaboratively with the provinces and territories, and it will continue to do that.

As I stated before, this is the process that we believe, in the long term, will be beneficial. We are working on it. We are committed to making sure that it will move as fast as possible without compromising the result. This is not an issue we are going to resolve in the next week or month. This has been an issue that has been going on for a long time, even in the previous government, and we have now been successful in doing it right.

Please be patient. The process is the right process. The participants are all at the table, and we are working on it. I believe it will result in a positive outcome.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member agrees that we need to continue on the path we are taking, because that is, I believe, the path that will ultimately lead to the result we are looking for.

However, I would like to go back and clarify the “antagonistic” comment. There is a process in place, and there is an appeal process within the provincial court system. We can follow that process, and if it does not work, we can follow the natural process to go to the Supreme Court.

Right now, cutting it short and bypassing that process is not going to result in the outcome we would like to see.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the great question and for his leadership on the industry and innovation committee.

The renewal of the AIT gives us the opportunity to work together on a new framework that addresses the common challenges faced by our various partners.

Canadians expect us to work together to make doing business in this country much easier. All governments are seized with this goal. Our government ran and won on a positive platform that encourages co-operation across Canada. However, the opposition proposes an antagonistic approach that is not aligned with our platform of meaningful engagement with Canadians.

Modernizing the AIT would allow us to reduce barriers and harmonize regulations across all sectors in Canada, unlike the current AIT, which covers only a few specific sectors.

It would have more open government procurement, which would give Canadian firms the opportunity to bid on procurement contracts and to lower the costs. All this would eventually lead to growing our economy and creating jobs that would be of benefit to the middle class.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate today on the Conservative motion in relation to internal trade in Canada. As we all know, the government is currently working with its provincial and territorial counterparts to renew the Agreement on Internal Trade. We believe that working co-operatively with our provincial and territorial partners is the best approach.

We also respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories and want to work with them to bring down provincial and territorial trade barriers. The motion presented proposes an antagonistic approach that is inconsistent with the collaboration needed to make meaningful progress on internal trade, and as such, I oppose it.

My objective today is to highlight important federal actions that are helping to foster a more competitive environment for businesses, including small business and entrepreneurs, across Canada. I will tie this in at the end.

Let me provide an overview of several key initiatives that are advancing entrepreneurship and fostering internal trade. These actions are informed by our commitment to consult broadly with stakeholders and businesses to strengthen our platform of innovative, inclusive growth.

It is no secret that one of the important ways for Canadian businesses to improve competitiveness, productivity, and innovation is by enhancing trade within Canada. The Canadian market provides valuable opportunities for growth and accounts for almost $400 billion in annual trade per year.

Canadian businesses have noted a number of areas where firms and entrepreneurs are held back by internal trade barriers. For example, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business conducted a survey of over 6,000 of its members and identified many interprovincial obstacles, such as regulatory differences and burdensome and duplicative paperwork and permit requirements. These obstacles can significantly impair the ability of its members to expand across borders.

To address such issues, the CFIB and other prominent business groups developed a far-reaching vision paper to help inform government priorities for renewing the Agreement on Internal Trade. The vision paper advanced several principles. For example, it should be as easy to trade with another province or territory as it is with other countries. All businesses should have open access to all markets within Canada.

The business coalition identified a number of priorities for reform, such as modernizing the AIT to align with the commitments made to the EU; enhancing regulatory co-operation and addressing technical barriers to trade; ensuring effective and efficient dispute resolution; and ensuring an effective, transparent, and inclusive structure to govern internal trade.

It emphasized that regulatory and administrative barriers are the most prominent barriers to trade for small and medium-sized entrepreneurs. It also highlighted that past incremental efforts to improve internal trade have often not focused on the needs of the SMEs.

We are very mindful of the views of the business community, and the overall message we have heard is that now is the time for strong, collaborative action, by all governments, to work together to renegotiate the AIT. We are committed to advancing and finalizing those ongoing collaborative negotiations.

As the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development attested, there is goodwill and commitment on the part of the federal government and our provincial and territorial partners to get this job done. We need to continue in this positive manner and work to sign an eventual agreement. The timing of this motion could not be more wrong.

We are also committed to acting, as the federal government, to make it easier for entrepreneurs and growing firms to do business across Canada. For example, small businesses and entrepreneurs regularly cite BizPaL as an effective and efficient service for navigating jurisdictional differences in government permits and licensing activities for federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments.

While Biz Pal users are currently able to obtain the kinds of business registration forms required to operate in various jurisdictions, they are not able to acquire information on associated regulations, such as provincial regulations related to goods and services.

The federal government continues to work with willing jurisdictions through initiatives such BizPal to explore ways to make it easier for Canadian businesses to operate anywhere across the country.

Another area identified by business is the need to reduce differences across Canada in corporate registration and reporting requirements.

In Canada, when a business is incorporated, it must generally register and report in each province and territory in which it carries on, or intends to carry on, business. Our government is working collaboratively with provinces and territories to explore the feasibility of electronically connecting federal-provincial-territorial corporate registration systems. Such an approach presents an opportunity to help reduce the burden faced by businesses in the areas of multi-jurisdiction searches, registration, and reporting. This could potentially make it easier to find information on whether a firm with the same name has been incorporated elsewhere and would eliminate duplicate requirements across borders.

The government is also committed to broadening the use of the business number as a common business identifier among federal departments. Broader use of the business number would allow the federal government to cut red tape and expand electronic services for all businesses.

For example, the business number could eventually allow a business dealing with the federal government to register once to be eligible to access a range of federal programs and services for businesses instead of having to register separately under each federal service or program. This would make it simpler for businesses to interact with the government anywhere in Canada. Such actions would further foster domestic trade, given that many provinces are already using the business number and are expanding the range of provincial programs that are connected.

Finally, our government is working to better quantify the extent of existing trade barriers and to determine their economic impact. Such information is notoriously hard to assemble, calculate, and validate. However, we are taking a major step by building a comprehensive internal trade barrier index to catalogue barriers to internal trade.

The results of this work are expected late this year and should help all governments work better and understand the extent of existing barriers. It should also help governments prioritize areas to address that particularly impede the flow of goods and services across Canada.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that we are committed to listening and to acting. We want to understand the concerns of stakeholders and position ourselves to advance collaborative solutions. We are also committed to advancing meaningful initiatives that will help businesses compete and thrive.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the members of this House for allowing me to share our approach. We will continue to listen, collaborate, and act in the service of strengthening our domestic markets and fostering a more competitive and innovative economy.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canadians need to have the option of how to end their lives. Unfortunately, my father did not have that option. When he was diagnosed with an advanced case of cancer, we consulted with the doctor and asked for options. We were basically given very interesting options. We were told that if we were religious, to go pray, and if we were science believers, to go bet on the science that in 5% of the cases like my father's the person would die from a heart attack. The other 95% would suffer deeply and go through organ failure. Whether we believe in science or not, we were lucky that he made the transition as a result of a heart attack when he passed away.

During the town hall in York Region, I was greeted by a couple from Richmond Hill who shared their story with me. The husband was suffering exactly the same stage of cancer as my father and both of our stories really resonated with each other.

I believe that Canadians should have this option. My father would have suffered much less had he not experienced that prolonged mental distress. The government has announced that it will appoint one or more independent bodies to study advance requests in the context of medical assistance in dying. I look forward to being part of that consultation process and I invite all members in the House to participate. As I said, this is a journey of a hundred thousand miles and this is the first step. We have to take that first step, but we need to stay engaged.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the fact that there are three pillars that provide the proper safeguards in this matter. We are providing proper safeguards for the people. We are providing safeguards for the doctors and the nurse practitioners, and we are also providing safeguards for the medical associations as well as other practitioners.

I also want to mention that we will be working very closely with the provinces and territories to make sure those proper safeguards are put in place and the people who need the help are protected.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Montcalm.

I am humbled by the opportunity to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying), at third reading. It is an important issue facing all Canadians.

Every time I come to the House, I come I wearing three hats. The first is the hat entrusted to me as a member of Parliament representing my constituents of Richmond Hill; the second is the hat of a legislator working hard to make the best decisions for all Canadians; and the third is the hat of an individual with his own convictions and beliefs.

Today, I will open my heart and share my thoughts, hoping to reach the hearts of all Canadians.

Let me start by acknowledging how challenging an issue this is. It is difficult for a person to engage in a conversation about death, yet our government has honourably taken on this responsibility.

On April 30, I participated in a York Region town hall, where a sizeable portion of the attendees were from Richmond Hill. They passionately spoke to this matter from all sides. I am inspired by the passion found within my constituency, and I would like to assure them, and all Canadians, that we are in this together.

I am sharing my story with the House, a story that complements the perspective of my constituents, and the work that we do in the House.

This is the story of my father's journey dealing with the inner turmoil caused by cancer. It is the exact reason why I am so passionate about the bill. I wrestled with this issue because each one of my hats had a strong stake in this debate and the final decision to be made.

The difficulty of beating cancer is well known to many. However, despite the odds, my father fought this disease. He fought it with all his power and he succeeded. Unfortunately, his success was short-lived and he relapsed in no time.

As a loving and supportive family, we did everything for my father to keep him happy and comfortable during the end of his days. However, no matter what we did, it was not good enough to relieve his pain. No amount of moral and social support was stronger than his inner suffering. We provided him with palliative care, but it was not enough. It broke my heart to watch my father slowly lose himself through the process. At the end, he was more concerned about the impact of his suffering on us than on him. After all, his pain was alleviated with heavy doses of morphine. However, there was no remedy for his mental pain and the hit to his pride.

I have heard the concern that providing medical assistance in dying would negatively impact vulnerable people. However, as I stated before, what made my father vulnerable was not having the option to put an end to his journey.

Eventually, my father suffered from two illnesses, one physical and the other mental. The amount of pain he was going through physically began affecting him psychologically as well. He began isolating himself from us, and in the end was suffering alone.

I agree with the government's commitment to support quality end-of-life services and to continue working with the provinces and territories to improve palliative care. Canadians and the Richmond Hill community have made it clear that is what they want. To that end, the government has committed to a long-term investment into palliative care of $3 billion over four years. However, no amount of investment into palliative care would have relieved my father's agony.

My father's experience is not a unique one. I am sure that others in the House know of someone who has endured similar distress.

We have a big responsibility to Canadians. Our responsibility is to make Canada great, to provide Canadians with the means for a better life, to facilitate their realization of their vision, and to help them achieve their dreams and aspirations. We were elected to represent their wishes, to provide services, and to make legislation to achieve those ends.

Let us look at the data that speaks to what Canadians want. Polls show that a majority of Canadians accept the idea and would even request medical assistance in dying if it were available to them. Those polls also show that over the years the acceptance level of medical assistance in dying has been increasing. As Canadians became more aware of the matter, they began to empathize with those who suffer. In Richmond Hill alone, the local parliament project has shown that over 70% of my riding agrees that individuals who are terminally ill should be allowed to end their lives with the assistance of a medical professional.

In February of 2016, a Statistics Canada demographic analysis showed that persons aged 65 and over make up a record proportion of our population. It also showed that the proportion of seniors in our population has been increasing over the past 50 years, and the trend is continuing. What does this mean for us as legislators and representatives? It means that we must be forward thinking in our legislation and we must ensure there are mechanisms in place to deal with future problems.

The Carter case has shown us already that our current legislation is outdated, and the Supreme Court has asked us to update it. We are faced with a June 6 deadline. Let us ensure that we are prepared for this demographic shift and potential needs, such as the one on the table today. In order to ensure that we are prepared for this shift, we must ensure that we address key issues in our current system.

According to a research article published by the journal Palliative Medicine, in Canada, we need to streamline our legislative, financial, and regulatory affairs in terms of delivery of palliative care services. This means that once the legislation is passed we must continue to conduct studies and address lagging areas of hospice and palliative care services delivery.

I was fortunate enough to hear points of view from my neighbours in Richmond Hill during the town hall. They opened up their hearts and shared with me. The most powerful story came from people suffering with terminal illnesses, similar to the one my father had. They spoke of the importance of making advance requests, addressing the issue of mental illness, and access to mature minors. I am happy to hear that the government will appoint independent bodies to study these issues. I have seen members of the relevant committees work hard to ensure that they provide a reasonable approach to the legislation.

It is after carefully thinking through all these issues that I have decided to support Bill C-14.

I realize our government has genuinely worked hard on the bill. As it stands, Canadians do not have a choice on how to say goodbye to this world. My father died in my arms. He died in an attempt to say something to me, something I will never know. He did not choose when to leave me. He did not choose how to leave.

Through my declaration of Bill C-14, I am sending four messages. To my conscience, I can say rest assured that with this decision I have balanced the three hats and their responsibilities to the best of my ability. To my dad, I would say, “It took 10 years to understand what you wanted to say to me before you left me. Dad, in supporting this bill, I am happy to carry your wishes forward”. To my constituents and the Richmond Hill community, I want to assure them they were consulted, they were heard, and they are well represented.

To all Canadians, it has been a long and hard journey, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. However, in order for the journey to begin, the bill needs to pass. Let us work together to take that first step.

[Iran, May 20th, 2016]

Madam speaker, at the age of 18, I left Iran, in pursuit of my education. I could not have imagined then that one day I would earn the honour and privilege of standing in this House. I am proud to be an Iranian. I am proud to be a Canadian. I bring a unique perspective to the House few before me have. I understand the challenges and aspirations of many Iranian Canadians.

A regime does not define its people, just as the divisive nature of our previous government did not define Canadian values. It is disappointing to witness in the House some of my colleagues' attempts to conflate legitimate questions about the Iranian regime with the proud heritage of Iranian Canadian people.

Canada is better off when engaging with the rest of the world. Indeed, the world is better off when Canada is engaged.

I urge the House to heed the calls of countless Iranian Canadians advocating for reestablishing diplomatic and commercial relationships—

[Science and Research, May 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has been an important part of groundbreaking scientific discoveries in many disciplines. One specific area where we have made a great contribution is in stem cell research. From Canadian discoveries regarding cancerous stem cells to nearly mapping stem cell genomics, we will continue to help further scientific advances for years to come.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary for Science tell the House how our government will provide new funding to support stem cell research?

[Museums, May 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, museums in Canada and around the world will celebrate International Museum Day on May 18. It also happens to be the day that I met my wife 27 years ago.

This year's theme is museums and cultural landscapes. In a country like ours, where our rich natural heritage is such an important part of our culture and historical events that have shaped us, this is particularly appropriate.

In Richmond Hill, the Museum of the Streets is a new kind of museum experience, taking away the four walls of the traditional museum and opening up the heritage of the town for all to see.

This always open and free journey of discovery, where one is the tour guide through the streets, is showcasing all the obvious, and sometimes the not-so-obvious, signposts to our fascinating past.

I encourage all Canadians to visit the Museum of the Streets in Richmond Hill and all other wonderful institutions, and take advantage of all that they can offer.