Debates of Nov. 24th, 2016

Pensions

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today the Liberals shut down an attempt to bring Liberal fundraisers to appear before committee. It is almost as if they had something to hide. Yesterday, they shut down an entire committee when New Democrats proposed that the Liberal CPP legislation be fixed so that it no longer penalizes women. These sunny days are indeed getting shorter and shorter.

Can the finance minister explain how he allowed this CPP bill to be drafted without the standard protections for women and why he continues to refuse every attempt to fix it?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the government and the finance minister achieved a historic agreement with the provinces and territories to expand the Canada pension plan. That is going to make a significant and positive difference in the lives of Canadians in terms of a secure, dignified retirement.

We are aware that more could be done in respect of the dropout provisions for disability and child rearing and, in fact, the Minister of Finance will raise these provisions at the next meeting of the provincial and territorial finance ministers in December in the context of a triennial review of the CPP.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess they are trying to say it is the provinces' fault that they left women out.

Let us talk about Pierre Trudeau, and no, I do not mean the foundation. In 1977, it was clear that the Canada Pension Plan Act penalized parents who chose to stay home to raise their children, so 40 years ago, his government changed the plan. Now the same debate has surfaced again, but this Liberal government is refusing to protect women.

Our question for the government is this: what would Pierre Trudeau have thought of this?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Minister of Finance is actually raising this issue with provincial and territorial finance ministers when they meet in December to address this issue.

Beyond that, our government introduced the Canada child benefit, which will raise over 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty, which will mean that for a single parent making $30,000 per year, they will receive $6,000 more per year, tax free, from the Government of Canada. That is because we are doing more for the families who need it.

Why did the NDP vote against those provisions?

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that Canada 2020 just introduced some rules to provide a framework for fundraising activities involving the Prime Minister and Liberal ministers, recognizing that there is a serious problem.

Given that Canada 2020 recognizes this important problem, why is it that the government opposite finds it impossible to also recognize that there is a problem and that it is breaking the ethics rules that the Prime Minister himself put in place?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should know, and I believe she is well aware, that we are following all the rules regarding political financing.

We were the ones who strengthened the rules to make them stricter. When we follow the rules in place, as we have always done, and all information about our political party is made public, there can be no conflict of interest.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal family seems to be feeling a bit of panic. Once again, the Liberals have been caught red-handed. It is in their DNA.

When the Prime Minister breaks his own ethics rules, everyone has carte blanche to do so. As we have seen, this time it was Canada 2020, which is very close to the Liberals, that was forced to bring in rules to control access to ministers and the Prime Minister. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

When will the Prime Minister finally do the same and stop giving Liberal donors privileged access to members of his government?

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Red Deer—Lacombe made some allegations in here, false allegations.

He stated that we cannot find an instance where Prime Minister Stephen Harper or anybody in the former cabinet previously had so-called cash for access events. What has actually happened? On May 19, there was one; on January 30, there was one; on May 6, there was one.

Would the member, in essence, like to retract that, or would the Conservative Party acknowledge that what we are doing is no different than what they did?

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals confirmed what we have been saying for weeks, that the Prime Minister's open and accountable government rules are merely a prop.

These rules state that there should be no “appearance of preferential access” in exchange for political donations. After breaking these rules for months, I guess the Liberals had no choice but to admit they were merely a prop.

How can Canadians have any faith in the Prime Minister's integrity when he clearly has no respect for his own rules?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that Canada has some of the strictest rules in the country in regard to financing.

If there is no breaking of the rules or the laws, there is no conflict of interest. I indicated very clearly that under the Conservative government, Conservatives had the very same type of fundraising events that we are seeing today. I cited three of them, for instance. I would suggest that in fact there is no conflict of interest here.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Shenglin president pays $1,500 for access to the Prime Minister and then gets his new bank approved, that is what we call preferential access and conflict of interest.

When a Chinese billionaire attends a cash for access event with the Prime Minister and donates $1 million, and $50,000 goes to erect a statue of the Prime Minister's dad, Canadians know this is a conflict of interest, especially when the wealthy Chinese billionaire is a political adviser to the Communist government in Beijing, the same government the Liberals want a trade deal with.

Does the Prime Minister actually believe any Canadians are buying this nonsensical excuse?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, the manufactured indignation does not change the facts.

My colleague referred to the bank approval. She knows very well that that bank approval was given in July 2015 by her former colleague, the then-finance minister Joe Oliver.

They keep talking about a donation to an independent foundation that does great work for Canada. The Trudeau Foundation has confirmed that that particular donation, the conversations, and discussions began in 2014 with respect that donation.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I think I heard the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands eight times today and he has not had the floor, so let us listen the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

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

Mr. Speaker, the ethical walls are crashing down on the Prime Minister. We learned today that the Liberal think tank, Canada 2020, is running away from this Liberal fundraising quagmire to protect its own integrity.

The Ethics Commissioner has called these Liberal fundraisers “unsavoury”, and the Commissioner of Lobbying is undertaking an investigation. Why is it that everyone except the Prime Minister can see that these cash for access events are unethical?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised. I thought maybe the member would apologize for misleading the House yesterday when he tried to give a false impression.

Let me suggest to the member that he needs to recognize what he should have said was in fact on May 19, 2015, there was $500 a ticket to attend a fundraiser with the finance minister of the time, Joe Oliver. On January 30, 2015, there was another $500 dinner sponsored by the employment and social development minister, Jason Kenney, so there is more to it, and I was expecting the member to actually apologize for misleading the House yesterday.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. Be careful how we characterize the acts of other members.

The hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wondered what kind of defence they would try to chuck across the floor today. It is obviously a lot different than the one they tried yesterday.

Canada 2020 gets it. The Commissioner of Lobbying gets it. The Ethics Commissioner gets it. The former Liberal deputy prime minister, Sheila Copps gets it. I watched Peter Mansbridge last night. I think he got it. Good God, even the Toronto Star gets it. They all understand that these Liberal cash for access events are unethical. When will the Prime Minister put a stop to these cash for access events?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have said on many occasions that at the end of the day we look at our laws and rules, and we as a party have followed those laws and rules. Nothing has been broken here. If we do not break the laws there is no conflict of interest. In fact, I would refer to, whether it is the New Democrats, or the Conservatives, where they have had to pay back monies.

There have been no laws broken here, so there are no conflicts of interest to be challenged on this issue.

Infrastructure

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

Basically, Mr. Speaker, their defence is that they are as bad as the Conservatives were.

In a fit of honesty, the Minister of Finance admitted that small municipalities would not really benefit from the infrastructure bank.

The minister said that private investors were looking to invest in major transformational projects that will produce revenues with a high rate of return.

Michael Sabia talked about a rate of 7% to 9%. These investors will not be interested in bridges or roads if the return is not so great.

Why take $15 billion that could have been used by municipalities such as Rimouski or Jonquière, and hand it over for projects that are tailor-made for Toronto or Montreal?

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

Mr. Speaker, we understand that infrastructure is the foundation for building strong and sustainable communities of all sizes, including rural communities and small communities.

Let me share some information. Out of more than 980 projects that we approved so far, more than 600 of those projects are in communities with a population of fewer than 100,000 people. We are helping all communities to build the necessary infrastructure they need, because we understand we need to grow the economy across the nation.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, every day it becomes clear the Liberals have been dishonest about their infrastructure bank. When asked repeatedly if people should expect to pay more to use this infrastructure the finance minister deflects and obfuscates. The Liberals never mentioned they would use public infrastructure to pass revenue to the private sector through user fees and tolls. Why are they doing this now, and why did they mislead Canadians during the campaign?

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

Mr. Speaker, we were elected on a platform to do historic investment in infrastructure, including the creation of the infrastructure bank. The role of the bank is to build more infrastructure for Canadian communities. We will do that by providing low-cost loans and loan guarantees, as well as taking an equity stake in projects that otherwise would not have happened.

Our role is to grow the economy, create jobs for Canadians, and make sure that all communities are prospering.

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and Kathleen Wynne are at it again.

Canadians paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for Wynne's high-level staff to move to Ottawa to run the PMO. What do we get for that? We get the same disastrous Ontario green energy plan that is now being pushed onto to all Canadians.

Now we learn that the federal Liberals paid over $23,000 for public relations services for Kathleen Wynne's recent trip to Israel.

All of us know that Ontario is broke, but why are Canadian taxpayers paying for Kathleen Wynne's public relations bills?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, on an ongoing basis, our government consults with and engages Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.