Debates of Oct. 28th, 2016

Employment

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, yesterday Vegreville was blindsided. The Liberals will shut down the immigration case processing centre. That means the jobs of 280 people will be gone and 250 spousal jobs will be impacted. Three local businesses are owned by worker families, and a quarter of the students in the town's schools are kids of workers. There was no consulting, no consideration of costs or spin-off consequences. Will the minister stop this out-of-touch deliberate attack? It will devastate the people in and around Vegreville.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, there is a very strong business case to shift this operation from Vegreville to Edmonton. Everybody working in Vegreville will have an opportunity to work at the new location, and there will be a net addition of jobs in Alberta because of this move.

It is the responsibility of the government to spend taxpayers' money wisely, to improve the efficiency of immigration and reduce processing times, and that is what this move will do.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, Vegreville cannot take another hit. Farmers and energy families are already struggling. The Liberals' planned carbon tax will hurt them even more and hike the cost of everything. There are 100 houses on the market in town. This will mean 200 more. A single mom of two, who had moved from Edmonton to Vegreville to raise her kids in rural life, cannot commute or afford to relocate. Will the minister reverse this decision, save her job, and all of the others?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, members of this House will understand well that there are pressures in immigration, that there are inefficiencies that have to be improved. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to accept this strong business case that will not only result in a net addition of jobs but will also result in a much greater efficiency. It will allow us to provide better customer service and reduce processing times over time.

I point out that all of those who are currently working in Vegreville will have an opportunity for alternative employment in Edmonton.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

We have to talk. You are killing the town.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. I want to remind the member for Lakeland that she has had her time to speak. It is time to hear the minister. I think that we owe that respect to everybody.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

Indigenous Affairs

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister loves talking about nation-to-nation relationships. Clearly, however, his definition is different than ours. A real nation-to-nation relationship means respect, but it also means action.

Instead of eliminating racial discrimination against first nations children, he prefers to question the numbers brought forward by experts like Cindy Blackstock.

Is that really what the Prime Minister's most important relationship looks like?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, we are very pleased with the work we have been doing with indigenous people in Canada. Rebuilding and renewing our relationship with Canada's first people is a priority for us as a government.

We are also proud of the work we have been able to do in tackling the real reforms that are necessary to the child welfare system on reserve, which will help lift many indigenous children in this country out of poverty. We are the first government to really tackle this problem, and we will make sure it happens.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, rather than comply with the tribunal ruling, the indigenous affairs minister hired a consultant who claims that meeting the $155-million shortfall would be like throwing money around like confetti. It might be confetti to the government, but it is life and death for too many children.

Speaking of throwing money around, we learned that the minister did not bother to spend $900 million from her budget. That is money that could have gone to children, to houses, and to education. With all of that money unspent, how come the Liberals cannot find the money to be in compliance with the ruling and stop fighting Cindy Blackstock and the children? Why can they not put that money where it is needed?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, we have to be very clear. The tribunal ruling is one that we have accepted, as a government. We are taking concrete actions to implement it.

In addition to that, the tribunal ruling said that the Government of Canada should invest in the child welfare of indigenous children based on the need in the country, not based on a number that the New Democratic Party or some individual wants to put forward. It has to be based on what children need in the country. That is what we intend to do.

Ethics

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, Apotex is suing the federal government for $500 million. Apotex has been actively lobbying the finance minister, and its chair will host an exclusive cash-for-access event, starring the finance minister. However, it gets worse. The finance minister sits on the cabinet committee on litigation management, which reviews lawsuits against the government.

Canadians are not naive. They can see that this is a blatant conflict of interest; therefore the question is why the Liberals cannot.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to repeat for the member something I indicated earlier. Federal politics is subject to some of the strictest political financing legislation and regulations in the country. All members of Parliament in all parties fundraise, and we all abide by the exact same rules. When the rules are followed, no conflicts of interest can exist, and we continue to follow the rules.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are beginning to realize that the Liberals' ethics are rather loose.

By way of evidence, we learned that the Minister of Finance, the very same member who sits on the cabinet committee that looks after the government's legal proceedings, is cooking up fundraising activities with Apotex, a company that is suing the federal government.

Does this fundraising campaign with Apotex show a lack of judgment on his part, or is it a blatant conflict of interest?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, these are the same rules that the Stephen Harper Conservative government followed.

It is important that we recognize that all members of Parliament and all parties fundraise, and we all abide by the exact same rules. We have some of the most stringent rules in the country. When the rules are followed, no conflicts of interest can exist, and we will continue to follow those rules.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and his cabinet have wide-ranging powers and influence. They have a responsibility to represent all Canadians, not just those who can pay to be heard. This is the important part of this. The Prime Minister himself even told his ministers that they should not give or appear to give preferential access.

Yesterday, the Commissioner of Lobbying said what the Liberals are doing is worth investigating, and the Ethics Commissioner said the whole thing is unsavoury.

Will the Prime Minister and his ministers stop using their privileged positions to fill Liberal Party bank accounts?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, again, I would like to reinforce what I have been attempting to get across to the members. That is, that all members of Parliament, in all political parties, fundraise. We all abide by the exact same rules. Events like these are one part of every party's fundraising and engagement work.

Federal politics is subject to some of the strictest political financing legislation and regulations in the country. When the rules are followed, no conflicts of interest can in fact exist. We continue to follow the rules.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, reading the same talking points time and time again does not make any more of an answer either.

Cash for access is the name of the game for the Liberal Party, and the finance minister is all in. While middle-class Canadians in my riding and across Canada are struggling to make ends meet, drug companies and venture capitalists are wining and dining the Liberal privileged in a downtown Toronto condominium.

It has only been a year, but already the Prime Minister and his party are dealing middle-class Canadians out. Would the Prime Minister agree that the speed with which his party has stacked the deck is unprecedented, even for Chrétien Gomery standards?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, again I will repeat. Events like these are one part of every party's fundraising and engagement work. Federal politics is subject to some of the strictest political financing legislation and regulations in the country, and the party fully complies with the Elections Act in all cases.

When the rules are followed, no conflicts of interest can exist, and we will continue to follow the rules. These are the same rules that all members of Parliament and all parties that fundraise follow, and we all abide by those same exact rules.

Finance

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday morning at the Standing Committee on Finance, we heard from Dominic Barton, the chair of the Prime Minister's Advisory Council on Economic Growth.

He freely admitted recommending that the government take $40 billion of public money to attract $160 billion in private infrastructure funds. Clearly, the private sector will get a return on its investment with revenues that will come from things like tolls and user fees on these infrastructure projects. When you put a public asset or its revenues in the hands of the private sector, that is called privatization.

When did the Liberals talk about privatization or possible privatization during the election campaign? I must have missed that.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, our goal is to engage with the municipalities, with the provinces, and with the territories as well as with the private sector to deliver more infrastructure, not less infrastructure. We made a historic commitment to invest $120 billion over the next 10 years, and we are living up to that commitment.

Indigenous Affairs

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, October is Mi’kmaq History Month in Nova Scotia, where we recognize the history and heritage of the Mi’kmaq people in our region.

As I look forward to opening the Pictou Landing administration centre next Friday, I recognize as well Dan Christmas, appointee to the Senate, and his long-standing contributions to the community, given his work in driving economic development in indigenous communities.

I wanted to take this opportunity to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development about ongoing efforts to foster economic development across all our indigenous communities.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Central Nova, for the question.

Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples is very important. Indigenous peoples have an important to role to play in Canada's economic growth. Our government has invested more than $30 million in economic development projects for indigenous communities.

It is my understanding that the hon. member will be visiting the Pictou Landing First Nation to celebrate one of these investments. A $650,000 allocation was made through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for the development of a community centre.

Health

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, asbestos is the number one cause of occupational death in Canada. Thousands of Canadians are diagnosed with cancer annually due to exposure to the deadly substance. Fifty-five countries have already banned it. Regional councils and mayors support its ban. Countless petitions calling for a ban have been presented in the House.

Five months ago, the Prime Minister pledged to ban asbestos. Every day action is delayed, more lives are lost. This is an urgent matter.

When will the Minister of Health implement a complete ban on asbestos?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Science]

Madam Speaker, ensuring the health and safety of Canadians is a top priority of this government. On asbestos, the science is clear, and that is why this government will be banning asbestos. Our government has already taken steps toward this goal, including a ban on the use of asbestos in new government construction and a national asbestos inventory. We are currently assessing options, but we can assure the House that our plan will be a whole-of-government approach.

Employment

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, thousands of people are losing their jobs in the oil and gas sector. Marian Hanna, the president of the Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists, has provided me with data showing that women are losing their jobs at an even higher rate than men, especially in management positions.

Why is the minister abandoning oil and gas jobs, especially for women?