Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 27702
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
View Andrew Saxton Profile
2015-06-19 11:23 [p.15345]
Mr. Speaker, despite the fragile global economy, let us be clear about our record. Since the recession, we have created 1.2 million net new jobs, including 59,000 in May. We have the lowest taxes in 50 years and the lowest debt in the G7. We have a balanced budget, and with a balanced budget we are on the path to a more prosperous Canada. We are putting money back into the pockets of Canadian families.
Canadians simply cannot afford to go back to the high-tax, high-debt ways of the Liberals and the NDP. That would kill jobs and harm the economy. Now is not the time for reckless spending and untested leadership.
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
View Andrew Saxton Profile
2015-06-19 11:25 [p.15346]
Mr. Speaker, the only plan we have heard from the Liberals is to raise taxes. The Liberal leader's proposed dramatic payroll tax hike would kill jobs in Canada and impose a $1,000 tax hike on every Canadian employee. In contrast, we have lowered taxes for the middle class, and all Canadians, saving a typical family of four $6,600 this year. While we are putting money back in the pockets of Canadians, the Liberals want to take it out.
Now is not the time for reckless spending and untested leadership.
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
View Andrew Saxton Profile
2015-06-19 11:26 [p.15346]
Mr. Speaker, at least our leader does not think that budgets balance themselves.
The Liberal leader thinks it is unfair that all families benefit from our low-tax plan. While we are focused on creating jobs, the Liberal leader is pushing a dramatic payroll tax hike that would kill jobs and hurt the Canadian economy. Canadians have a clear choice: the high tax Liberals, or our low-tax plan for all Canadians.
Now is not the time for reckless spending and untested leadership.
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2015-06-19 11:35 [p.15348]
Mr. Speaker, every time Canadians turn on their TV, it seems the waste and the unethical spending just gets worse. Either they see news stories about Conservative appointees using public funds like their own personal piggy bank, or they see their money being wasted on government advertising: $750 million of their money, public funds, on nakedly partisan propaganda.
Canadians have had enough. They are ready for change. How can the minister stand here time and time again and defend this misspending? Why will he not take responsibility and end this grotesque waste?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
View Peter Julian Profile
2015-06-19 11:37 [p.15348]
Mr. Speaker, it is so sad. This is a party that came to Ottawa claiming that it would do things differently, and then the Conservatives went to work for themselves, just like the old corrupt Liberals. They are making an embarrassing mockery of question period, of course. Conservatives are tired, out of touch, and under criminal investigation.
Canadians are sick of the Senate scandals. They are sick of the wasteful spending. They are sick of the entitlements of the government, and Canadians stand ready for change, so why will Conservatives not get on board with the NDP leader's practical plan to bring real change to Ottawa?
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, on June 11, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said in the House that 20 RCMP officers were in Surrey and “that boots are already on the ground”. The Conservatives even had the gall to repeat that in the House yesterday and today. Unfortunately, it is not true.
The city of Surrey has confirmed that not one of the 100 promised RCMP officers is on the ground in Surrey. Why are the Conservatives misleading the public and saying that new officers have arrived when they have not?
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
View Andrew Saxton Profile
2015-06-19 12:00 [p.15352]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville for that excellent question.
To benefit that member's constituents and all Canadians, our Conservative government brought in historic relief that is saving $6,600 this year for a typical two-earner family of four. Under our government, Canadians are paying the lowest taxes in over 50 years.
However, the Liberal leader pledged to impose a mandatory $1,000 tax hike on middle-class workers. Now is simply not the time for risky NDP and Liberal high-tax schemes, reckless spending and untested leadership.
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 21 petitions.
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2015-06-19 12:13 [p.15355]
Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions.
One petition is on defined benefit pension plans, with signatures from all over the country. The petitioners draw attention to the fact that the conversion of defined benefit pension plans to target benefit plans, or so-called shared-risk plans, strips pension benefits of legal protections.
The petitioners call on the government to reject any such change that would allow employers to renege on existing defined benefit pension promises, and instead move to improve the retirement security of the 62% of workers who do not have workplace pensions.
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2015-06-19 12:13 [p.15355]
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is yet another one in this place calling for the government to restore home postal delivery. The signatures are from all over the cities of Victoria and Esquimalt, and the petitions are before the House for tabling.
View Bob Zimmer Profile
CPC (BC)
View Bob Zimmer Profile
2015-06-19 12:14 [p.15355]
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today.
One calls upon the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to condemn discrimination against girls through sex-selective abortion and do all it can to prevent sex-selective abortions from being carried out in Canada.
View Bob Zimmer Profile
CPC (BC)
View Bob Zimmer Profile
2015-06-19 12:14 [p.15355]
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I bring today calls upon the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.
Mr. Speaker, this is the last time I am going to be able to call you “Mr. Speaker”. We are going to miss you, but we wish you all the best.
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,334 and 1,335.
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if a revised response to Question No. 1,290 and a supplementary response to Question No. 1,300, both originally tabled on June 16, 2015, as well responses to Question No. 1,147 and Questions Nos. 1,324 to 1,333 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
View John Duncan Profile
CPC (BC)
View John Duncan Profile
2015-06-19 12:18 [p.15358]
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find agreement to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2015-06-18 10:03 [p.15255]
I have the honour, pursuant to section 48 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, to lay upon the table the report of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015. This report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2015-06-18 10:03 [p.15255]
I have the honour to lay upon the table the 2014-15 annual reports on the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act from the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.
These documents are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to six petitions.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2015-06-18 10:13 [p.15256]
seconded by Mr. Rathgeber, moved for leave to introduce Bill C-699, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act (scientific research).
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour. I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert for seconding the bill.
This is a bill that deals with an issue that has been very much of concern to Canadians, that scientific research conducted within the Government of Canada has not been as accessible as it used to be.
The act to amend the Access to Information Act for scientific research, the short title of which will be the public access to science act, references that access and the pursuit of scientific knowledge and information is a pillar of a healthy democracy, that public policy, as developed within this house and throughout the Government of Canada must rest on evidence, and that evidence comes through scientific research.
The effect of the bill would be very straightforward. With the passage of the bill, all publicly funded science in Canada must be made public, must be made public expeditiously, and must be accessible to all Canadians.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2015-06-18 10:17 [p.15257]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today and hope for unanimous consent to table only those portions of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada report that have been fully translated into both official languages. This includes calls to action and the testimony of survivors.
We have had the important work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission accepted at Rideau Hall by the Governor General; and in this place seven years ago, the Prime Minister made a really significant and historically meaningful apology for the residential school legacy.
It is an important move, as we close this Parliament, to accept those portions of the report that have been fully translated so that the matter of truth and reconciliation is taken up in the House of Commons, accepting the documents, though not necessarily endorsing the recommendations.
I ask for unanimous consent.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2015-06-18 10:27 [p.15259]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions, all of which are from constituents within Saanich—Gulf Islands.
The first petition calls for an aggressive climate strategy. The petitioners have set out the goals that were once accepted in a piece of legislation passed under the name of my colleague, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, calling for a reduction by 2050 of 80% of carbon dioxide levels below those of 1990.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
The second petition, Mr. Speaker, calls upon the Government of Canada to act on the issue of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The petitioners compel the oil and gas companies to disclose all the chemicals that they are currently using and to conduct a comprehensive environmental review, among other measures.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2015-06-18 10:28 [p.15259]
Mr. Speaker, the last petition is very timely given that the Supreme Court of Canada has given one year's notice to deal with the issue of end-of-life decisions.
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to respect the will of Canadians and enact legislation with clear guidelines to physicians to allow competent, fully informed and terminally ill patients the option of physician-assisted death.
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
View John Duncan Profile
CPC (BC)
View John Duncan Profile
2015-06-18 10:33 [p.15260]
moved that Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations, be read the third time and passed.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Dan Albas Profile
2015-06-18 10:46 [p.15262]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech and for his work as a parliamentary secretary. He does a fantastic job for this government and also for his riding.
What I would like to ask him is actually further to what the previous member asked about: trade.
I believe that Canadians are fair and practical people. We want to see Canadian businesses succeed, not just here in Canada but abroad. I think many of those businesses would benefit by knowing that when we sign free trade agreements and see tariff-free access and see our services being able to go to those countries, and vice versa, there would not be gaps on the regulatory side. He mentioned international shipping issues and whatnot. Canadians know that, first, we can compete abroad, but if we do not have harmonization, those kinds of irritants will hinder Canadians from getting out and trading, and I think Bill S-2 would help set some guidelines for that.
Would the member please further explain in terms of trade and harmonization?
View Don Davies Profile
NDP (BC)
View Don Davies Profile
2015-06-18 10:50 [p.15262]
Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition trade critic, I am most interested in this discussion. There are some very good points being made on both sides of the House.
Obviously, trading jurisdictions have a shared interest in making sure that goods and services can flow as freely as possible across borders. However, I am wondering about some of the difficulties that could come up in that regard. As an example, the United States allows hormones in its milk, whereas Canada does not. When there are different sensitivities and sensibilities of populations over something that may involve public health or different views on things like that, there could be difficulty determining which jurisdiction is going to prevail in that regard.
I am wondering if the hon. member has any comments on that type of issue and how he sees the ability of each country or jurisdiction to maintain democratic control over their standards. How does that play into the bill?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2015-06-18 11:17 [p.15265]
Mr. Speaker, I certainly would never mention to that colleague that she did not make sense. I find she makes very good sense.
I am very concerned by the incorporation of regulations by reference. It is fine for the Conservatives to say that it has been done in the past in other laws, but the increasing and sweeping use of incorporation of regulations by reference does reduce public accessibility. It reduces our knowledge of what is moving through the Canada Gazette. It reduces the opportunity for Canadians to know what regulations they have to meet. I have seen it referred to in the media as a “sleeper law”, something that appears so dry that it does not gain public attention, but which does have deeply anti-democratic implications.
Would my hon. colleague like to expand on why she believes she continues to make sense?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Dan Albas Profile
2015-06-18 11:52 [p.15269]
Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's exchange with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, he indicated that he would repeal any dynamic incorporation by reference such as amended from time to time. The parliamentary secretary said that there were many incorporations by reference on the previous Liberal government's watch. Could he please tell us which of those dynamic incorporations by reference he would seek to repeal specifically that were done under the Liberal watch?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Dan Albas Profile
2015-06-18 12:19 [p.15273]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her speech. She is a big advocate for western Canada and for all Canada. I am glad to see that she has embraced incorporation by reference as much as she has western business.
The parliamentary secretary has already discussed the benefits of free trade and non-tariff access for Canadian manufacturers and Canadian businesses. Could she also discuss the importance of making sure that when Canadian businesses and enterprises, supported by her ministry, decide to go out into the world to compete, which they can, we harmonize in ways that serve everyone's best interests, both consumers in each country and business interests, so that we can have Canadian products enjoyed right around this globe?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Dan Albas Profile
2015-06-18 12:45 [p.15276]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her speech.
I thank the member across for her kind comments. I believe the member cares about the work of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations as much as I do. However, I am disheartened to hear that she heard a comment that was lamentable, because that committee has a lot of importance, particularly in the regulatory state in which we live.
I would ask the member to square the following.
When she was the co-chair of that committee, under her chairship, we often wrote to ministers of the Crown asking for retroactive legislative validity on the concerns of the committee. She argued at that point, as the chair, that it was the appropriate thing to do because sometimes a government would come across a situation where the will of Parliament was not perfectly expressed and unaccounted for situations arise. Yet, the same member rails against legislative validity that was in legislation before the House just recently. How does she square the two? She says that it is not proper for a government to do one thing, but then, as a chair, she actually suggests the government do that very thing.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Dan Albas Profile
2015-06-18 12:51 [p.15277]
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate my hon. colleague's answers and her thoughtfulness. I would like to make a quick reference to my previous question.
The representative from the NDP, the co-chair from Hamilton Mountain, recently asked for legislative remedies retroactively on behalf of the committee. That is because we believe, as a parliamentary joint standing committee, that there are certain times where the will of Parliament has not been properly anticipated and thus changes need to be introduced legislatively to allow that to happen. That is a very normal process. Again, why do the NDP thinks one thing is appropriate at committee and another thing in this place?
The second point I would make is on the member's last point on section 18.6 about a person not being liable to be found guilty of an offence because of any contravention in not having accessibility to a particular regulation. There are no protections right now for people like that. Does she not agree that putting this protection in place will create a little more certainty for people when they are found in the situation that she cited earlier?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Dan Albas Profile
2015-06-18 12:55 [p.15277]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and all your colleagues who have helped run this Parliament, as well as everyone who makes this place operate so well. We are very gifted to live in such a strong democracy, Canada. I love our country and I want a better life for all my kids, so it is an honour to stand in this place and join the debate on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla.
I would like to talk about Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, which the government has put forward in order to create greater certainty. In my speech today, I would like to touch upon a few different things.
We have heard time and time again that incorporation by reference has had a very common, long-standing use by drafters to be more efficient in the drafting of regulations. Let us say there is a reference in a set of regulations to the Criminal Code. Rather than having to print out the entire code, a reference can simply be made to it, with the expectation that someone would be able to quickly open up the Criminal Code, find the relevant provision and therefore not have to reproduce the entire Criminal Code in a set of regulations. This is efficient for the drafters and legislators who have to look at these regulations, for example, the Joint Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, as well as preventing everyday citizens from having to read through things that are not relevant beyond a basic reference.
Let us take a step back and talk about why Bill S-2 is relevant today, why it is important and needed.
If we go back to the 1960s and 1970s, many of us probably grew up listening to members of Parliament. They stood in their places in this chamber and discussed what was important to them, such as wanting more oversight on consumer protection and more discussion about regulations that would allow better health and safety in workplace environments.
As democratically elected people do, they listened and put forward various rules, but as they did that, they found that by simply putting statutes into place, oftentimes there was not enough in the statutes to direct officials in the various ministries who were delegated the authority to act under those laws and, thus, the need for regulation. What we saw was the rise of the regulatory state, where it was no longer appropriate. In many people's perspective, there have always been two different schools on regulation making. One is that highly competent professionals are given the discretion to apply administrative rules, but, again, those are subject to issues of fairness because not everyone can agree on what is fair.
Therefore, the system went to being more of prescriptive administration, where certain key things were laid out. The reason regulations were so important was because oftentimes the law would give broad outlines of what was wanted and then the department that was delegated the authority, working with the minister and the justice department, would then draft administrative regulations to ensure that most, if not all, situations were anticipated.
As we grew in stature, as the economy and the population grew, as well as demands for better protections, whether we are talking about transportation or consumer protection, these regulations began to increase. Therefore, there were concerns about oversight, which I believe the justice minister of the day, John Turner, decided, at the beckoning of colleagues from all across this place, that there needed to better oversight of these administrative regulations. Therefore, the Joint Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations was created, an opportunity for parliamentarians from both chambers to ensure that what was being debated in both houses and passed into law was found in the regulations and that nothing contravened any of the obligations of government, such as the Bill of Rights, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that all official bilingualism was being kept.
Since then the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations has basically had the purview of every single directive and regulation under the Statutory Instruments Act, and I have had the great honour of working with the council and the committee of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. Peter Bernhardt and his team are very committed Canadians. They feel very strongly and work very hard for all of us, and as parliamentarians we need people like that to make good choices.
Often we hear, either in this place or in reports, that there is no consensus-building in Ottawa. I want to say just the opposite. The reason many people do not know about the Joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations is that everything is done by consensus, or at least 99% of it.
That is because we have our debates here. The democratic vote is taken. The will of Parliament is expressed and becomes law. Then the laws are put into place by independent regulators or departmental regulators, and that is important. If issues come up, we have already had the debates and the will of Parliament has already been expressed. The only question is how we carry forth. Is there a drafting error? Is there an area where we need to make clarification?
The joint standing committee has done very good work over the years. It has a number of roles. It is an immensely powerful committee, and I am privileged to sit on it. I am privileged to learn a little bit more about the other place and have an opportunity to work with senators, because there are senators who care very deeply about the future of Canada, just as we do.
Over the years, the committee has made growing use of incorporation by reference. Why is that? It is because incorporation by reference is a long-standing drafting technique. As more regulations come into effect and our economy becomes more integrated with the world economy as well as with overlapping provincial regulation, it only makes sense that there needs to be a common understanding, and incorporation by reference makes it easier for everyone to be able to read what the law means under the regulations.
Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, is a response by government. It is a guidebook, so to speak, as to when and where incorporation by reference would be used, whether it be static, which is just a simple reference to a particular document as it was at that time, or dynamic, where there may be changes.
We have heard from a number of people, including myself in previous speeches, about Canada's enormous capacity in technical expertise. We lead the field in reaching international consensus because we have such strong standards at home and are able to share those standards while including other countries' standards.
I would like to take a step back and also point out that it is not just the rise of the regulatory state since the 1960s. Other things have also affected us. In the 1990s and early 2000s, there was globalization. Technology has changed the way businesses interact and the way we interact as people, and it happens on a daily basis.
When we talk about these things, we talk about Canada's place and standing in the world and how we are making sure that our great Canadian products have better access to markets.
The previous Liberal government's five international trade deals have been cited many times in this House. With this government, there are 43. That is important to note, because as we open up tariff-free access to Canadian products, we also have to make sure there are no barriers. One example of a non-tariff-based barrier to trade might be a standard in one country that is not accepted in the other. We may have the best widget, food product, or, in my case in Okanagan—Coquihalla, bottle of wine, but if it does not harmonize with that standard, we cannot send it there. This becomes a very real issue.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice mentioned earlier, a good example of that is the co-operation between President Obama and this government beyond the border in making sure that the interregulation trade councils are able to harmonize where it makes sense for everyone. I will reiterate: where it makes sense for everyone. We are sovereign nations, but it is sometimes in our enlightened best interests to work with others.
Again, we have the rise of the regulatory state. We have globalization. We have increases in technology. Everything is accelerating, so it only makes sense to start to clarify when these incorporation by references would happen. I will give the House a good example domestically of how this would help.
It is very easy for someone to use a smart phone find out what the current interest rates are. It is easy for someone to find out what the consumer price index is. However, if we were to fix that in regulations and make reference to the rate of interest as set by the Bank of Canada, it may be difficult to say in static reference what that is. Most people would just say that the rate is calculated for a certain tariff or certain fee with the consumer price index. Now they would be able to go online and find out what that current rate is. That makes it more certain and easy for people to access. That is a basic incorporation by reference that should be dynamic.
Should we be using this tool of dynamic incorporation by reference on everything? I would say no, but that is why we are having this debate here. We need to determine when it is appropriate. The scrutiny of regulations committee has raised concerns about it, and that is why we need to put in place a bill that would specify when to use it. This would empower us as legislators. It would clarify for government departments when it is not appropriate. It would clarify it for the justice department, which drafts many of the regulations. As I said, it would also make it easier for individuals and businesses locally to be able to determine what they would need to do.
I want to quickly go back to how this would benefit Canadian businesses internationally, because this is an important area for me. For example, Canadian marine manufacturers have said to me that when they are trying to sell their products abroad, their products need to be certified to international standards. It makes no sense for us to have regulations here in Canada that basically reproduce a whole international standard when we can simply make reference to it as that international standard changes, as it often does.
We are not alone in this world. We are a dynamic country, but we are still small in terms of size. We certainly punch above our weight, and I am going to continue to advocate for whatever we can do in that way.
The important thing here is that when we allow incorporation by reference, we are allowing Canadian businesses to succeed, and when Canadian businesses succeed, not only does it put food on the table because workers are able to draw income from good work, but it is also something we take great pride in.
While I am on the need to harmonize these regulations, I will mention that the hon. Minister of Industry met with his provincial colleagues about a week ago to discuss interprovincial trade barriers. Many of these barriers are regulatory, and they have a profound impact on wine producers in my province. We have the same situation at home, and I am thankful that the Minister of Industry has been able to create a consensus with all of his provincial colleagues that the status quo is no longer tenable. I applaud that. We also need to make sure we are doing the same thing here.
I have heard some criticisms and I am going to repeat some of them, although I am going to just incorporate them by reference. I am also going to give a little feedback that I hope will address some hon. members' concerns.
One concern has to do with official languages. Some people have said that the regulations will not be in English and French. That is absolutely false.
Everything that goes through the Canada Gazette process has to be done in both of Canada's official languages, and that will continue. That is important for people to know. Those regulations are produced by Canadian regulators, and they need to be in both official languages. All of us agree that it should be that way.
Second is accessibility. Some people have pointed out that accessibility means different things to different people. I will provide an example.
If I were to open a standards for Canadian electricians textbook and look through it, it would not matter if it was English or French. I would not be able to understand it, because I do not have that technical expertise. Many times these standards are in very specific industries. They have specific jargon and require specific expertise. The Government of Canada should work with those existing authorities and, through our technical committees, make them as clear as possible.
We could email the regulations to every single person in Canada, but most people would find them either irrelevant or else unreadable because they lacked the expertise or training to apply those standards.
It is important to note that the Internet is making things more accessible all the time. Many people utilize Google to go onto international websites of different languages. Suddenly they are able to read that website in very good English. Of course, as those algorithms continue and as the scope of the Internet's reach continues to enlarge and gather more data on how we speak and what we mean by certain things, that accessibility will only get better, so it is important to note that technology is, to a large extent, really making it easier for anyone to access information.
There have also been some issues raised about retroactivity. On the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations, we ask ministers on a regular basis to consider legislation as a remedy for a situation that was not originally contemplated and needs to have the force of law behind it. This happens on a regular basis.
What we are mostly talking about here are references in regulations that basically say “as amended from time to time”. That should not be controversial. It just means that when a new safety apparatus or standard has been put forward, that is the new standard. We are the ones who decide that. If we do not like it, as Parliament we can ask the government to change the standard. We do the choosing.
I also want to address the sovereignty issue. This House, combined with the Upper Chamber, decides what the law is in Canada. That is something I believe in.
I would like to give a good example of the rhetoric of the NDP. It sometimes does not always follow consistently from committee to here in the House. We had members of the NDP at the joint standing committee raise concerns around the convention on international trade in wild fauna and flora. It is an international convention that protects wildlife so that humanity can maintain our world heritage of these different endangered species. I think all of us would agree that it is an important thing. That is why we are part of it. However, New Democrats said they were upset that the government had not yet acted upon the latest convention, because it has to go through the regular gazetting process, and they were complaining about it. They were saying it was not appropriate.
Perhaps with the use of incorporation by reference, the moment Canada, along with anyone else, agrees with an international convention, it could become regulation automatically. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have the benefits of the regulatory state without saying that things we all agree on should be done and put in place right away. It should not take years to put in place simple changes when they could be put in place quickly through incorporation once everyone on the international stage has been involved.
The NDP sends out these different messages. That approach does not create certainty and it does not always contribute to the public good. I do admit that there are some legitimate criticisms, but there are trade-offs in every policy, whether we are talking about trade or a new measure coming forward. The NDP only wants to see the negative side.
. We know our country was built on hard work and sacrifice. We know that Canadians are fair and practical people. We know that when Canadians compete, they can succeed. They need their government to make sure they have access. Bill S-2 is a meaningful approach that would give certainty to the government, to Parliament, and our businesses and would create better outcomes. That is how this place should work.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Dan Albas Profile
2015-06-18 13:17 [p.15280]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the viewpoints of the member opposite. She has legitimate viewpoints and we have ours. If the member would like to go to the transcripts of the standing joint committee and look up specifically the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora she would find that we encouraged the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development to work with Treasury Board on a process to go forward with dealing with the convention so that we were able to meet our commitments internationally. Her own colleague pointed out that she sits on that committee, so she can reference that.
When it comes to the terms of accessibility, right now incorporation by reference is happening. It happens because the regulatory state has grown. We need to find a process in order to say when it is legitimate for a government regulator or quasi-judicial regulator to utilize it. We are giving greater certainty.
Again, technology is addressing accessibility more and more. The business language most people accept is English. The language of diplomacy is French. I would imagine that many of the things, including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, is widely available and I would suggest that the member read it because I think she would end up supporting that convention.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Dan Albas Profile
2015-06-18 13:20 [p.15281]
Mr. Speaker, actually someone raised this very point at the standing joint committee and I simply addressed it with this. I have a friend, who has passed since then, who owned an electrical company and I asked him about this very specific thing. I said that apparently in Canada there is a charge for the most current electrical code. He pointed out that electrical codes are very technical, that they have to be ahead of the field because Canada has some of the highest requirements in the world and that electricians right across the country have no problem paying for something because it allows them to make sure that for whatever job they do, they are not liable. He showed me the codes. They are not easy to read unless one has the required training.
The member is simply fearmongering. The system of these standards has existed for a long time. Oftentimes it is industry itself that has created the process so that it has joint standards and is able to be regulated easily or to create a sense of certainty for Canadian consumers. That member is simply fearmongering.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Dan Albas Profile
2015-06-18 13:22 [p.15281]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for what he does for his constituents, and of course for his service on the scrutiny of regulations committee. Oftentimes we have complex files on a variety of issues. This gentleman has knowledge of wildlife, conservation efforts as well the environment, and in some cases, he is able to bring to us knowledge that the rest of us simply do not have, which speaks to the diversity of Parliament.
I would point out, as I mentioned at second reading, that we have so many different bodies that operate on an international level, such as NRCan, where we send people to join in on these international technical committees.
Canada punches above its weight. We want to see the best standards not just for Canadians but worldwide. We also want to make sure that our Canadian companies adhere to these standards and that there is harmonization in as many jurisdictions as we can get so that we have greater certainty for trade.
We have a great country. We are trying to maintain it as best we can and in fact improve upon it. The opposition can call Bill S-2 a sleeper if they want, but it would simply codify practices that are already ongoing which would make this country stronger.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Dan Albas Profile
2015-06-18 13:24 [p.15281]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member allowing me to say one more time what an honour it is to serve in this place with everyone.
I would simply point out that what the government is attempting to do through this legislation is to create better certainty for everyone: for government, as to when incorporation by reference should be used when it is drafting regulation; for us as legislators, so we have a better understanding of when we delegate authority to a particular minister or the Governor in Council that we understand the language that can used. Again, Parliament can be very specific in its law making of when it is not appropriate as well. There is nothing in Bill S-2 that is contrary to that. Last, it would give protections to individuals, such as in the cases I raised earlier on proposed section 18.6:
A person is not liable to be found guilty of an offence or subjected to an administrative sanction for any contravention in respect of which a document, index, rate or number—that is incorporated by reference in a regulation — is relevant unless, at the time of the alleged contravention, it was accessible as required by section 18.3 or it was otherwise accessible to that person.
This would protect Canadians.
That is the entire reason why the government of Canada exists.
It is why the Conservative Party, this Conservative government and our Prime Minister are seeking at every front to make Canada stronger, Canada fairer, Canada more free. That is what we do when we put forward bills like this one.
View Kennedy Stewart Profile
NDP (BC)
View Kennedy Stewart Profile
2015-06-18 14:01 [p.15286]
Mr. Speaker, last week in Burnaby, local residents from my riding rallied to bring attention to the lack of affordable rental housing in our community. They are calling on all levels of government to work together to address our urgent housing crisis.
The #Don'tHave1Million campaign is sounding the alarm that middle-class families just cannot afford B.C.'s skyrocketing real estate prices.
While successive Liberal and Conservative governments slash federal funding for subsidized housing, New Democrats are committed to making life more affordable for Canadians.
I am proud to say that last week our leader announced that an NDP government would sustain investments in crucial social housing agreements, including co-ops, and provide incentives for the construction of 10,000 low-cost rental units. This would help provide the relief Canadians need.
I am proud to be a part of this side of the House, and I look forward to being part of an NDP government.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, next month, Clinton, British Columbia, will be on the world stage as the Mill Girl Follies represent Canada at the 15th Annual International Folklore Avalanche festival in Germany.
The Mill Girl Follies is a troupe of dancers that began in 2011 doing the cancan in celebration of the gold rush era that has contributed to the history and development of the Cariboo region. They have since expanded their repertoire to include other skits, songs, and dances, such as the Charleston. The troupe prides itself on its inclusivity, featuring dancers of all ages and talents, and has been a great source of fun and exercise for everyone involved.
From July 2 to 5, the troupe will be accompanied by 100 Mile House singer-songwriter Katie Kidwell in Germany. There they will join ensembles from 13 other countries in 3 days of performances in what festival organizers call a cheerful meeting of cultures.
Special thanks for all those who contributed to their fundraising efforts. Congratulations to the Mill Girl Follies on the success so far, and we will all be backing them as they represent Clinton, and Canada, in Germany.
View Richard Harris Profile
CPC (BC)
View Richard Harris Profile
2015-06-18 14:08 [p.15288]
Mr. Speaker, that is what we get when we leave this place, a nice hug from the minister.
After 7 elections and 22 years, all I can say is that it has been quite a ride and an experience that not every Canadian gets a chance to do, but those who do are very fortunate indeed.
I want to thank my wife Annie for her constant companionship throughout these many years. She is amazing.
I thank my constituents of Prince George—Bulkley Valley and Cariboo—Prince George for their support and those beautiful margins they always gave me.
I want to thank Jeanne, Theresa, Soraya, and Victoria. I call them my wonder women, and they made me look good, and even better when I could not be in the riding.
I thank my colleagues in the House, my Conservative colleagues and my colleagues across the way. I have just been accused of being a tiny bit partisan, but we know how this is played.
I thank the incredible House of Commons staff and all the friends I have made.
I head to Osoyoos, B.C., where the snow never falls, the sun always shines, and the golf season is 10 months long. I thank everyone very much.
View Kelly Block Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, our government's record in office speaks for itself: 1.2 million net new jobs since the end of the recession, overwhelmingly full-time, high-paying, and in the private sector, the best record in the G7 by a considerable stretch.
However, we should not expect the leader of the NDP to know his facts, because yesterday he was out there saying businesses need to pay higher taxes. When asked what the tax rate is exactly, he did not know and stated that it was three points lower than it is. That is typical of the NDP. It does not know what the taxes are. It just knows everyone's taxes have to be higher.
On this side of the House, we lower taxes, while the NDP and the Liberals are trying their best to raise them.
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2015-06-18 14:15 [p.15289]
Mr. Speaker, decades of Liberal and Conservative governments, decades of waste and unethical spending, millions squandered defending bad legislation, hundreds of millions more wasted on propaganda, and Liberals threw away almost $1 billion before that.
Conservatives dingwalled taxpayers at the Mint, and more than 30 senators are now under police watch. Decades of a revolving door, with well-connected Liberal insiders trading places with well-connected Conservative insiders, a culture of entitlement.
However, the times they are a-changing. The NDP showed how to end 43 years of entitlement and brought real change to Alberta. Gather 'round people. Brimming with confidence and optimism, Canadians young and old are ready for change. Conservatives and Liberals,
...don't criticize What you can't understandYour sons and your daughtersAre beyond your commandYour old road is rapidly agin'......get out the new one if you can't lend your hand
For come October, the times they are a-changing.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
View Ralph Goodale Profile
2015-06-18 14:24 [p.15291]
Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of grinding mediocrity under the Conservative government, Canadians are saddled with $157 billion in new Conservative debt; $4,400 in new debt for every man, woman and child in the country. The Conservatives have increased the net tax burden in five of its last six budgets; they have reported 53 monthly trade deficits, including the worst in Canadian history; and they have the worst economic growth record in eight decades.
If that is the best the Conservatives can do, why do they not just get out of the way?
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
View Ralph Goodale Profile
2015-06-18 14:25 [p.15291]
Mr. Speaker, there are 200,000 more unemployed Canadians than before the recession. The numbers from the government are not getting any better. Even worse, the economy actually shrank through the first quarter of this year.
Growth for all of 2015 is projected at 1.5%. That is no better than Europe. At least 24 major economies are set to grow faster this year than will Canada's. That is the hard reality of 10 years under that broken government.
Why is its promise to Canadians just more of the same: more brokenness, more failure?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2015-06-18 14:34 [p.15292]
The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2015-06-18 14:34 [p.15293]
I did not hear anything in that question that brought it back to the administration of government. I see the hon. parliamentary secretary rising. He can answer it if he likes, but I did not hear anything that tied it back to government.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2015-06-18 14:36 [p.15293]
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
View Randall Garrison Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, not only is the Senate plagued with major ethical problems, it has delayed and derailed legislation that was passed twice by the democratically elected House. Bill C-279 would have guaranteed equal rights and protections for transgender and gender variant Canadians.
Given that the Senate is still blocking equality for transgender Canadians, will the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness respect the will of the House, and act now to protect the safety of transgender people? Will he immediately issue guidelines to guarantee equal and respectful treatment for transgender people at our borders and in our corrections system?
View Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, when Canadians reach out to the CRA, we expect them to be provided with quality service and accurate information. We encourage anyone who believes that they may have received incorrect information from the CRA or has any complaint of that nature to make a formal complaint. That is what the CRA taxpayers' ombudsman's office is for. It is a position that this government brought into place.
We do expect the CRA to continually improve its service and the quality and accuracy of those services. We have implemented several measures which are ongoing to do that.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2015-06-18 14:53 [p.15296]
I will take this opportunity, this far into this Parliament, to remind the hon. member to direct his comments to the Chair and not directly to his colleagues. As the member knows, I certainly am no friend of Mr. Putin's.
The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
View Jasbir Sandhu Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jasbir Sandhu Profile
2015-06-18 14:57 [p.15297]
Mr. Speaker, gang violence in my community is in a state of crisis. There have been over 36 shootings in Surrey since March. The Conservatives have to be pushed every step of the way, and yet fail to take action. They have resisted supplying more RCMP officers and critical investment in youth gang crime prevention programs.
Now the Minister of Public Safety says 20 new RCMP officers are on the ground, but reports say this is not true. Have the additional RCMP officers made it to Surrey yet, yes or no?
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the promised boots are already on the ground to fight gang violence in Surrey, but the truth is there are no new RCMP officers on the ground in Surrey. The current complement of RCMP officers is 703, exactly what it was more than two months ago. The minister misled the public. The people of Surrey deserve better.
Will the Conservatives stop playing games with my community's safety and tell us exactly when the 100 new RCMP officers they promised will actually be deployed?
View Fin Donnelly Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, there is another fuel spill in Vancouver's harbour. This time, 5,000 litres of diesel spilled into False Creek. It took over five hours for response teams to arrive. This, on top of another bunker fuel spill in April, shows just how much the Conservatives' cuts have hurt the Coast Guard's capacity to respond to spills. The economic and environmental impacts of a major oil spill in Vancouver would be devastating.
When will the Conservatives reverse their reckless cuts and open the Kitsilano Coast Guard station?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2015-06-18 15:06 [p.15298]
Mr. Speaker, it has been referenced a few times in the House during question period that His Holiness Pope Francis has issued an extraordinarily powerful encyclical, a rare event from the Vatican, and I want to quote in part what he said:
We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels — especially coal... — needs to be progressively replaced without delay.
Given the Prime Minister's acceptance of the G7 language for decarbonization, he appears to agree, except for the part “without delay”.
Given that the Prime Minister believes this can happen in 85 years, can the minister tell us if it can happen by mid-century?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2015-06-18 15:07 [p.15299]
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill: Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
View Ralph Goodale Profile
2015-06-18 15:08 [p.15299]
Mr. Speaker, if the sensibilities across the way have been offended, I am happy to apologize. That still does not sanction the quality of the question.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2015-06-18 15:10 [p.15299]
Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, June 17, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Victoria on the motion at third reading of Bill S-4.
Call in the members.
Results: 1 - 60 of 27702 | Page: 1 of 462

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data