House of Commons Hansard #108 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.

Topics

Public SafetyOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Len Webber Conservative Calgary Confederation, AB

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are dying every day from illicit fentanyl. We assume that the minister followed health committee testimony ahead of the opioid study that is later this week. We were told by the RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency that almost all of the illicit fentanyl on Canadian streets is coming from one single country. Unless we turn off that tap, these deadly drugs will continue to pour onto our streets and kill Canadians. Can the minister confirm that China is the main source of illegal fentanyl; and what has she done to stop it?

Public SafetyOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Regina—Wascana Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice, and I have had a series of consultations with our provincial counterparts. The provinces of Alberta and British Columbia are particularly concerned about this issue. It is a health issue. It is also very much a criminal justice issue and an import issue. We are working on a strategy at the moment to address all aspects of this very serious problem. Fentanyl is a scourge upon this country, and we all must work together to make sure we deal with it effectively.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am following up on a question asked yesterday of the Minister of National Defence by my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. It is about the Shawnigan Lake quarry, which has been shown to violate its permits. It was approved for contaminated-soil disposal, but downstream, where 12,000 residents of Vancouver Island depend on it for drinking water, there are carcinogens: toluene, chromium, and aluminum. The source, unfortunately, is that DND is using this facility for the disposal of contaminated soil from CFB Esquimalt. Will the minister immediately end shipments of contaminated soil to this quarry?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

North Vancouver B.C.

Liberal

Jonathan Wilkinson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Mr. Speaker, provincial and territorial governments are responsible for approval, licensing, and monitoring of waste-management operations in this country. The Province of British Columbia issued a permit relating to the establishment of a soil remediation facility in Shawnigan Lake. Environment and Climate Change Canada officials have conducted a review and are monitoring the situation. However, at this time, no potential Fisheries Act violations have been identified. Potential pollution issues and prevention issues related to the issuance of the permit should be directed to the environmental protection branch of B.C.'s Ministry of Environment.

Committees of the House—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Yesterday, following question period, the member for Beloeil—Chambly rose to request that I investigate whether a member of the Press Gallery had been prevented from attending a committee meeting, as had been reported on social media. At the time, I undertook to review the situation and can now inform the House that a journalist did in fact initially experience some difficulty accessing yesterday’s meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence.

This was due to an error on the part of security personnel assigned to the room, who believed that the committee meeting in question was taking place in camera. Such meetings, of course, have restricted access.

As soon as security personnel were made aware that the meeting was in fact a public one, the journalist was permitted to attend the committee meeting and observe the proceedings.

The importance of proper access to parliamentary proceedings cannot be overstated as it is an integral component of our parliamentary democracy. I can reassure the House that all efforts will be made by the Parliamentary Protective Service to ensure that such an incident is not repeated in the future.

I would like to thank the member for Beloeil—Chambly for bringing this matter to my attention and to the attention of the House.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 33 petitions.

Foreign AffairsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard—Verdun Québec

Liberal

David Lametti LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled Canada-Mongolia Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, done at Ulaanbaatar on September 8, 2016. An explanatory memorandum is included with this treaty.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to its study of the supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year 2016-17.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the order of the second reading of private members' bills introduced in the Senate and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2) the report is deemed adopted.

Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Deb Schulte Liberal King—Vaughan, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C-238, an act respecting the development of a national strategy for the safe disposal of lamps containing mercury. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendment.

Canadian Environmental Protection ActRoutine Proceedings

November 16th, 2016 / 3:15 p.m.

NDP

Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-321, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (prohibition of asbestos).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce a bill that would ban a deadly substance, asbestos. I have heard from many constituents who have lost loved ones to this terrible scourge, and the epidemic of asbestos related deaths must be stopped.

I am always open to working with the government to ensure the health and safety of Canadians. I hope all members of the House will support the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Friday, March 11, be concurred in.

I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to talk about the business of the finance committee and also about where the government is taking our country from a financial, economic point of view, or should I say mismanaging our economy as it stands today. It could be entitled “A trail of broken promises”.

Let me deal with three of the more major broken promises on which the government campaigned, yet today still has broken the solemn promise to Canadians.

The first is on deficits. The government believes it can spend its way to prosperity. This has been tried by other governments. In my province of Ontario, where I was in business for 25 years, I watched consecutive Liberal governments and NDP governments try to spend their way to prosperity, and it ended in disaster. Today, it is a disaster in Ontario, with our province being the most indebted sub-sovereign government in all of North America.

The promise that was made by the government was small deficit spending. Instead, we find out in the fall economic update that the deficit will be $31 billion for this fiscal year. Let me register that with Canadians one more time. The deficit will be $31 billion, not the $10 billion that was promised. Not one job has been created since the Liberals were elected as a result of spending this money. It is a false message that we can spend our way to prosperity. It is a disaster.

The second is lowering taxes for small business. We all campaigned on doing that, all of our parties. However, when we received the budget last spring, something was missing. It was that small business tax reduction.

All of us know the importance of small business. All of us know the statistics, that 80% of good paying, full-time jobs are created by small business. What does this mean to individuals who are planning expansions, or perhaps who are employing 20 people and are on the verge of employing 10 more or five more people? It means companies have to stop and give it a second thought. It means that as the government moves forward with additional taxes on them, mainly the CPP hidden tax increase, a payroll tax, along with what is coming with the carbon tax, they are now looking at their situation a whole lot differently. In fact, they are thinking that maybe they should just stay small, or reduce the size of their operations, or depending on how long the owners will be in the business, perhaps it is not worth the effort anymore. Many businesses are making that decision.

Make no mistake, as a government, we were heading in the right direction. We were telling them about the tax reductions they would be allowed, the credits for new hires, the EI holiday for new hires, things that were incentives to small business. What we have seen are total disincentives since the present government came to power.

Perhaps the one we heard most about from businesses, large, medium and small, at finance committee during our pre-budget consultations and after the budget was when the government would commit to what it said it would do during the election campaign, which was bring us back to balance. In other words, if the Liberals are to deficit spend because they made that promise, they broke that by spending three times as much as they said.

However, when will the Liberals bring the economy back to balance, bring the books back to balance? We have seen, since the Liberals have been in power for over a year now, that there is absolutely no intention to bring things back to balance.

This is a record that is replaying itself. I remember a time in the early years of my own business when governments were spending like drunken sailors, and there was no plan. It had to come to a reckoning, and it came to a reckoning, with the government having to make major cutbacks in provincial health transfers. It was done in an arbitrary way. It was done without consultation. It had to be done, because deficits had grown beyond the country's ability to go any further in terms of debt repayment.

Another issue has resulted since this administration has come into power, and that is that investments are exiting this country right now. The investment community has looked at things it was intending to do to expand, and it is leaving. Let me give the House an example in my riding.

There is a company in my riding that does heavy forging. It forges large pieces that go into oil and gas and hydroelectric installations. I am talking about forgings the length of this room and four feet in diameter. The company is a huge energy user as a result. Let me talk about this company from a couple of fronts.

First of all, this company also has operations in the United States. When it looks at the cost of producing in Canada, it factors in, every month, enormous costs for electricity and gas. The company is located in the heart of southern Ontario. Ontario today has the highest electricity rates in all of North America. What does that mean for this company? It means that the provincial government does not really care how much electricity is costing it. How much would it be to move its operations south of the border, which is going to happen to more and more companies?

Further to that, at the federal government level, a carbon tax is coming into place. The last time there was an analysis of a carbon tax was during the 2008 election. During that election, there was a Liberal proposal on the table to bring in a carbon tax. The owner of this forging company calculated, per employee, how much more cost would be borne by the business as a result of that carbon tax. At that time, the analysis was $9,000 per employee per year. Do the math. It would be 400 good-paying jobs times $9,000 per employee. I do not have the math for what the Liberal government is proposing now, but it is going to be more than $9,000.

The decisions of this company ride on being competitive worldwide. Those 400 jobs could very well move south of the border. Then there are the changes in the landscape with the new administration in the United States. The new administration in the United States has said that it will reduce taxes to the lowest possible level to bring back to the United States industries that have fled and other industries that want to locate there. Many states have already been doing it with tax holidays for companies, property tax holidays, and credits for employees for a period of time. There have been many incentives. Many of them have been resisted by businesses.

As this go forward, the competitive nature of the way companies like this operate will pretty much be the death knell of many of them in Canada. I fear that. I come from a blue collar community that has a heritage of manufacturing, which we have seen go offshore for many years. The ones we have left, we want to keep, because they are good-paying jobs.

Yet the present government has not created one job over the course of the time it has been in power. “Spend, spend, spend” has been its mantra, never with a plan to pay it back.

I urge all members to pay attention to what is going on in—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Before we go to questions and comments, there is a lot of noise coming from the floor. If members want to have conversations, please take them off the floor, because there are important discussions being had here.

Questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservative Party chose this particular report. I think Canadians appreciate what is actually happening. An enormous amount of work has been done by the finance committee for this particular report. We can appreciate that what is important to Canadians is important to this government. We have demonstrated that in the 2016-17 budget, a budget that delivers, in many ways, tangible items.

We can talk about the tax increase for Canada's wealthiest 1%, or, most important, the middle-class tax cut. We can talk about the Canada child benefit expansion. There is so much more. There is the increase in the guaranteed income supplement.

Would the member not agree that the finance committee has an important role to play in looking over the implementation budget, which should be going to the committee shortly?

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

Madam Speaker, to answer the question, there is absolutely a key role for the finance committee to play. It is to make sure that governments do not go into deficit without a plan to come out of deficit and without a plan to balance.

At the finance committee, we heard from the finance minister on a number of occasions. When asked this question, all we had was an evasive answer at first, and then no answer thereafter.

What we heard from witness and after witness, including banks and representatives of small and medium-sized businesses, was that they were elected to run a deficit, but when were they going to take it back to balance? The answer is that they have no answer.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for the opportunity to consider the committee's pre-budget consultation report.

We know that infrastructure was a big part of the Liberal plan, and a promise. It was certainly talked about in the pre-budget consultations. There was a lot of controversy, it seems in the report, from various groups, about whether going ahead with a certain model of infrastructure bank was actually a good idea. One of the suggestions, to be sure, was to further study the idea.

We heard just in question period today the extent to which the government's own Minister of Infrastructure and Communities is confused about how its Canadian infrastructure bank model is actually going to work. The Liberals did not do the study and have not issued any conclusions, yet they have announced the infrastructure bank, which is passing strange. In fact, they have already met with the investors they are supposed to be using the bank to leverage, even though, by their own admission, they have no idea how the process is going to work.

I would just like to hear what the hon. member has to say about rushing ahead with a project and really having no idea where it is going, where it is going to end up, what the goals are, and what it is going to cost Canadians.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member is actually drilling down to the fact that perhaps this will be another one of those promises, without any detail, that will come back and haunt the economy.

Let us be very clear. What investors at this level want to do is make as much profit and as much margin as they can on their investments, and they want to reduce risk. We do not know yet, but we are very close to perhaps knowing what investors think. If they can offload the risk to taxpayers by having this bank, yet gain all of the return and profits from these projects, this will be the perfect scenario.

We are watching very closely what the government does in terms of the structure. It has given us no details at all.

While we have a model that is working, what we call P3, the government is deciding to undo that on the speculation that investors will be the ones who will cover both sides of the equation, profit and risk. However, they perhaps will not take the risk, and it will be left to Canadian taxpayers.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I am not trying to backseat drive here or anything like that.

With all due respect to my colleague from Carleton, I did have to listen to him quite a bit on Sunday, and I think the House would like to hear some good Saskatchewan wisdom. So I move:

That, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands be now heard.

I did see him standing up before the member started speaking.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed will please say nay.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.