Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2016

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly a month since this House unanimously passed a motion to bring Yazidi women and girls to Canada.

We thought we won a victory for women who have been persecuted and enslaved by ISIS terrorists, but now government officials have admitted they are only targeting 50 women and girls to bring to Canada for safe asylum. These women deserve more than a token effort. Their lives are on the line.

Will the Prime Minister honour the spirit of this motion and do more for these girls?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, that number has nothing to do with our plans. Most important are events in the region, and our government has committed $1.6 billion to humanitarian capacity-building and military efforts in the region. But we will certainly honour our commitment, and my department is working very hard to devise a plan to bring in those who have suffered from the atrocities of Daesh, both Yazidis and others, into this country within the time period prescribed by Parliament.

Ethics

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, cash for access fundraising leads to conflicts of interest. Every government must do everything it can to avoid conflicts of interest, and that is even more important with the current government, whether it be the selling off of public infrastructure to private interests or the single sourcing of fighter jets to Boeing.

What will the federal government do to ensure that it is not making decisions based on who gave money to the Liberal Party?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite knows very well that the complete disclosure of all of the donations that are received by every political party, and stringent limits with respect to the maximum personal donations that can be made, ensure that there is no conflict of interest.

On this side of the House, we follow all of the fundraising rules and the Chief Electoral Officer himself has said that Canada's political financing laws are the most advanced, constraining, and transparent in the world. We agree with the Chief Electoral Officer, and we are happy to follow those rules.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really too bad that the Prime Minister will not answer these questions himself.

But the member of Parliament refers to all parties, but only one party is the government and can make that sort of decision.

We are talking about a $1-million donation to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation after a dinner that was attended by the Prime Minister.

Why are the Liberals not following their own rules?

I hope they will not answer once again: “We have the strictest rules in the country.”

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, it will be much better than that. The member knows very well that the Pierre Elliott Trudeau foundation is an independent charitable organization with no political affiliation.

I see my colleagues—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I am having trouble hearing the answer and I need to hear it.

The hon. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues seem to find it funny that the foundation is independent.

Perhaps they should ask former MP Chuck Strahl or former NDP member Megan Leslie about it, since they both sit on the board of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation.

Natural Resources

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible. They just do not get it.

Speaking of broken promises, the government seems to be preparing to table the approval of Kinder Morgan. The Prime Minister was crystal clear during the campaign that if the Liberals formed government the review would have to be “redone”.

Our question is simple. What does the government have to say to British Columbians who voted Liberal and now feel completely betrayed because the government is about to approve Kinder Morgan?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, we announced in January a new set of interim principles that would govern those projects that were currently under review. As part of those principles there was extensive consultation. In fact, there was a ministerial panel that worked up and down the coast. As a matter of fact, on the website there were more than 35,000 people who expressed themselves. That seems to me to be a much better process than the one we inherited from the previous government.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Their principles are interim, Mr. Speaker.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to put an end to Stephen Harper's approach to energy project development, but now that he is in office, the Prime Minister is not only taking Stephen Harper's approach, he is also using exactly the same process for approving pipeline projects.

My question is for the Minister of Environment.

Does she seriously think that our ecosystems will be better protected if the exact same approval is given by the Liberals instead of the Conservatives? Is that what she thinks?

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

Mr. Speaker, our approach is based on science and facts. We are listening to Canadians, and we are working hard to restore their confidence in our environmental processes.

That is how we do things, and that is how we will make our decisions.

Ethics

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, important files are piling up on the Prime Minister's desk. That is regrettable but not surprising.

Apparently the Prime Minister is in no rush to deal with the most urgent issues for the good of all Canadians.

Will all Canadians have to donate $1 million to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation to get the Prime Minister to listen to them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed. The truth will kind of set us free.

I must say that the opposition members do seem to be confused about how donations to charities actually work.

If they need a lesson on how independent charities and donations work, perhaps they should ask the member for Chilliwack—Hope to call his father. His father is a former Conservative MP who actually sits on the board of directors, so it might be worth making that telephone call.

It should be clear that the Prime Minister has absolutely no involvement in this charity.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are still looking for the $40 million. Maybe we will look in other places.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister talked about meetings to promote investment in Canada and economic development.

By making people pay for access to him, he often spends more time involved in Liberal Party fundraising than he does improving the lives of Canadians.

If people have to give money to the Liberal Party to get the Prime Minister's attention, can he explain the difference between affairs of state and the affairs of the Liberal Party of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear that we have in Canada some of the strictest rules in the country. There are many ways in which other jurisdictions raise money. Let us be very clear that there have been no laws broken, and if there have been no laws broken, there is no conflict of interest.

No matter how often the Conservatives and the NDP repeat it, the bottom line is there is no conflict of interest. It is as simple as that.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if that were the case, why did they vote against letting the Conflict of Interest Commissioner take a look at this in the first place?

The Prime Minister continues to stand in this place and defend his unethical and shady behaviour.

The Prime Minister's open and accountable government document spells out in his words, his rules, his promise, yet the Prime Minister himself hosted a cash for access event with Chinese billionaires. Two of those billionaires then made a $1 million donation to the Trudeau Foundation a week later.

We are not talking about fundraising laws. Why did the Prime Minister break his word, break his rules, and break his promise?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the fact that they are Canadians we are really talking about, Canadian donors.

The reality is that we have some of the strictest political financing regulations in the country and they are always being followed.

We find it peculiar that the opposition members are trying to politicize the particular issue, since they should very well know that the process for approval of this was in 2012 under the previous government. It was approved by the then minister of finance, Joe Oliver.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the government members do not understand the question being asked.

This is not about following the rules. The Liberals have an ethical problem following their own rules that the Prime Minister has set out for himself. He set the bar here for his government's ethical behaviour. We are not talking about the election financing laws. We are talking about the bar that was set here.

He has failed miserably to come close to even meeting that standard. This is about his rules, about his word, about his promise to the House and to Canadians.

When will the Prime Minister put a stop to these shady shenanigans?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member recognized that we are indeed following the rules and the laws of this land. That is something we are doing. When one is following the laws, there cannot be a conflict of interest. The Conservatives know that, because we are following the same rules the Conservatives had in place when they were in government.

We have a Prime Minister who is accessible to all Canadians, as is this cabinet, as are the members of the Liberal caucus, and there is no cost for that. We are in fact following the rules.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let us cut to the chase here. The Liberals' own open and accountable government guidelines are a charade. They have become a joke. The Prime Minister never intended to follow them and, frankly, his ministers might as well just rip them up.

That said, I have one question. Is there anyone on that side of the House who has a problem with the Prime Minister selling access and influence to billionaire communist donors for the favours they want?

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

Mr. Speaker, talk about pumping up their rhetoric.

We are all Canadians. The member should know that it is Canadians who donate to political parties, at least that is a part of the law. The law is important to recognize here, because, in fact, the Liberal Party has been following the law. This is why there is no conflict of interest.

At the end of the day, we have a government that is open to all Canadians, and that has been demonstrated in a very historic fashion. Never before have I witnessed, in my 25 years, a government that has been so aggressively progressive in reaching out, connecting with Canadians, and delivering on the policies that are important to Canadians.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely ridiculous. The Prime Minister's own guidelines say “there should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access...because they have made financial contributions”. Well, so much for that.

The Prime Minister cannot keep himself from giving—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!