Debates of Jan. 28th, 2016

Ethics

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when someone has a hard time answering, that is because there are problems with transparency, accountability, and democracy.

Something interesting came to light this morning. The Commissioner of Canada Elections revealed that UNIFOR Local 524 made a non-monetary contribution to the Liberal Party of Canada, which is forbidden because the organization is not an eligible donor.

This kind of behaviour lowers democratic and accountability standards. How many other fishy manoeuvres like this one will never be made public?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House that we have introduced two bills to respond to attacks on the labour movement that were unwarranted, uncalled for, and undemocratic.

This was not called for by industry or labour. The repealing of these two bills will bring back fairness and balance.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister is confused about where her priorities should be. Why? It has come to light today that the Liberals received illegal union donations during the election.

This morning, the minister was repaying her union friends. She announced the Liberals have made it their priority to remove accountability and transparency from government.

The Liberal government had no intention to keep its commitment for accountability and transparency. Why is it important to reward union leaders rather than to come up with a plan to get Canadians back to work?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that confusing a meritorious public policy and legislative change was an accident that happened during the election in terms of compliance.

Let us be very clear. At the very moment that this was brought to our attention, the party followed the law, reimbursed the Receiver General, and the appropriate union signed a compliance agreement with the commissioner.

That is something that the members opposite had a very difficult time doing.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Yesterday was really good, folks. Let us get back to that nice tone of respect, because we hear things that we do not like sometimes. I am sure that in private meetings that happens too, and we can control ourselves. Let us try to do that and let us listen to the member for Foothills.

Labour

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is very clear is why the Liberals' priority is to reward union leadership. Just today, we found out that the unions illegally donated to the Liberals' campaign. It is no wonder that the Liberals want to hide this information from Canadians by repealing legislation that imposes transparency and accountability on union members.

Why do Liberals have so much time to defend union leadership but no time to come up with a plan to get Canadians, to get Albertans, back to work?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that there was a lot of time spent by the previous government looking at unfair, unjust attacks on the labour movement.

In this case, we are looking at a bill that was put together that attacks the labour movement. It makes it more difficult to certify and much easier to decertify.

That is not fair and balanced, and these bills need to be repealed.

Foreign Affairs

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the government seems blindly determined to normalize relations with the Iranian regime, I wonder whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs is aware of the latest poisonous utterances by the regime's supreme leader. Yesterday, on International Holocaust Remebrance Day, Ayatollah Khamenei posted a video on his website questioning the slaughter of six million Jews by the Nazis.

Does the minister really believe he can engage in a meaningful dialogue with a regime that not only denies history but regularly calls for the destruction of Israel?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member, who I had the pleasure of meeting last night at the ParlAmericas conference, where our diplomacy was in fine form.

As Minister Dion has stated, Canada needs to engage on the international stage—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for mentioning the minister's name.

As the minister has stated, Canada needs to engage on the international stage much more than before. Engagement takes different forms, and in our case, it does not mean that we agree with all of Iran's policies, by any stretch, but it is a pathway toward economic opportunity and dialogue and possibly regional security, and we are not going to give up.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

This is a good chance to remind those who give advice to parliamentary secretaries or those drafting questions to refer to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and not to the name of the minister. However, I am glad the member noted that as she replied.

The member for Thornhill.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given the government's vague intention to end sanctions against Iran, it is time for some specific answers.

Which of Canada's two dozen prohibitions against the Iranian regime does the government plan to lift? Given new U.S. sanctions, provoked by Iran's ballistic missile tests, will Canada now look the other way as Iran works on a weapon aimed at Israel? Finally, does the government really intend to de-list Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely currently reviewing our sanctions against Iran, and as part of this review, we are exercising rigour in ensuring that any changes do not open the door to trade in proliferation-sensitive goods and services, of course. However, we are acting in concert with our allies, like the U.N., like the United States, like Europe. We feel it is an important signal. Our foreign policy is based on talking, something that the opposition was not that good at in the past.

The Environment

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will be meeting with her provincial counterparts to talk about climate change. Since returning from Paris, the minister has not told us what Canada's targets are. Yesterday, the minister announced that impact on climate change would be a component of pipeline project assessments, but she said nothing about acceptable greenhouse gas emissions targets.

Can the minister tell us if the government is planning to introduce ambitious new targets or carry on with the old Conservative ones?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

We need a pan-Canadian plan to tackle climate change. That is what we are working on. I am very pleased to be meeting with my colleagues from all corners of the country today to talk about the plan.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in December, at the climate change conference in Paris, Canada committed to a 1.5-degree rise in global temperature. Yesterday the minister announced pipeline reviews that would include climate tests but could not say what a pass or fail would actually look like. A test only matters if they know how they are being graded.

The minister knows full well that current provincial efforts are not enough to meet the weak goal that Canada currently has. Canadians want to know the real impact a climate test could have for a government that does not even have a climate target.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for joining me in Paris at the climate conference and also for his useful comments.

We are committed to taking action on climate change. That is why I am meeting today with my colleagues from across the country to talk about what a pan-Canadian plan would be. It would be irresponsible to come up with a new target without actually having a plan to implement it, as the Conservatives did.

Taxation

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, National Bank economists announced that the federal deficit will reach $50 billion in the next two years.

It is disappointing that the current Minister of Finance still believes in the old Keynesian theories whereby more government spending will lead to greater prosperity and that he is still applying them. Canadians know that spending more money will not make our country wealthier.

Why is the Minister of Finance applying old theories and getting the government into more debt? These deficits will not create wealth.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we now know that our economic growth is lower than anticipated. Therefore, it is important to have a plan to improve our situation.

Our first step was a tax cut for the middle class, which will put more money in the pockets of nine million Canadians. The second step will also be good for the economy. We are introducing the Canada child tax benefit, which will help nine out of 10 families and hundreds of thousands of children who live in poverty.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance no longer has any credibility. During the election campaign, he said that tax cuts would be revenue neutral for the government. Today, all Canadians know that $1.7 billion has been added to the Liberal deficit.

If the government wants to create wealth, it should start by creating stable and productive economic conditions for entrepreneurs and businesses, not putting Canada into a never-ending debt spiral. That is not the solution. Instead, we should control public spending.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we have a plan to grow the economy, and we have already started.

In the 2016 budget, we will introduce infrastructure investments that will help us increase economic growth.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance was wrong when he said his government had inherited a deficit. His own department states that, from April to October, the federal government posted a surplus of $600 million. It is in black and white, posted publicly on its website and available for all to see.

We Conservatives left a surplus. Did the parliamentary secretary, in answering my question, wilfully mislead the House? If so, will he stand in his place, correct the record, and apologize.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity in December to introduce an economic and fiscal update to make absolutely clear the situation we inherited from the members across the aisle.

We inherited a deficit, a deficit of $3 billion. Ten failed years of low growth have led us to a situation where we have failed to make the investments that will allow us to grow the economy.

We have a new plan, one that will lead us to a place where we can actually grow the economy, to put Canadians in a better place in the future.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is shocking to hear this wrongful denial. The Liberals cannot even get a handle on their own baseline numbers. His own department is reporting a $600 million surplus for the first half of 2015. The Parliamentary Budget Officer forecasted a $1.2 billion surplus for the year, yet the finance minister and the parliamentary secretary appear to be working from a different set of numbers.

These are taxpayers' dollars, and Canadians deserve transparency. Could the parliamentary secretary explain where he got his numbers?