House of Commons Hansard #60 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was medical.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Order, please. I want to remind the members to keep the heckling down. When the minister has the floor, respect should be afforded to her to finish her response. We all want to hear what she has to say. If it continues, someone will end up losing a question because we are losing time.
The minister still has 16 seconds to finish, but I see that she is done.
The hon. member for Bow River.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Madam Speaker, I might see things simply. However, the constituents in my riding are very smart and intelligent. They believe that when considering change, we should evaluate current practices versus change. Can the Liberals explain why their options do not include first past the post? Why can Canadians not have this choice in a referendum?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Madam Speaker, the system we currently have was inherited from the 19th century. We currently exist in a multi-party democracy. We currently exist in a Canada—
Democratic ReformOral Questions
An hon. member
We have the strongest democracy in the world.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Order, please. I want to remind the member for St. Albert to pay some respect to the House. Thank you.
The hon. minister.
Maryam Monsef Liberal Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Madam Speaker, during the last election, over 60% of Canadians voted for parties that were promising electoral change.
Why did Canadians choose this? Our current system is inherited from the 19th century. Canada is one of only three OECD countries that operates under the first past the post system. It is time to modernize.
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Madam Speaker, it might occur to the minister that those three OECD countries are also the oldest and most stable continuing democracies in the world.
The minister has been misleading this place by citing referendum turnouts at the provincial level. The fact is, in 1992, the last time we had a national referendum, 72% of Canadians voted, versus 63% in the last three federal elections. In Ontario and B.C., voter participation in the electoral reform referendum was higher than in the general elections.
Why has the minister been misleading this House?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Madam Speaker, let us talk about the facts.
The Ontario referendum and the B.C. referendum did not include nearly half of the population of those provinces. I understand that is okay for the member opposite. I understand that the voices of half of Canadians who will be affected by these changes are not relevant to the member opposite.
That is not the way we do things. That is not what we promised Canadians. We will ensure that we embark on this process in an inclusive and responsible manner, unlike the members opposite.
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Madam Speaker, that non-answer reminds us of why Chantal Hébert characterized this minister's responses as “asinine”, “disingenuous”, “discredited”, “farcical”, and “[insulting] our intelligence”.
In fact, the voter participation in those provincial referenda was higher than in the general elections. People are more prone to vote on the quasi-constitutional nature of their electoral system; 72% of Canadians voted in the Charlottetown Accord.
Why does the minister want to exclude the voices of millions and millions of Canadians?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Madam Speaker, is 50% voter turnout okay?
We have a philosophical disagreement about our responsibility and the opportunities that exist for this Parliament to modernize our electoral system.
Those who do not engage traditionally in the electoral process, like young people, whose voter turnout has been dwindling for the past 20 years, with the last election being the exception, deserve to be included in this conversation.
The member opposite may not believe that, but we do.
Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, steel mills in Regina and across Canada have been hit by layoffs.
The Minister of Public Services and Procurement told the committee that just 19% of the steel in the new Champlain Bridge will be made in Canada. She could not tell us whether Canadian or offshore steel will be used in the Alaska Highway, the Alexandria Bridge, or other major federal infrastructure projects.
What will the government do to encourage the procurement of Canadian steel to support good jobs in our communities?
Leona Alleslev LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement
Madam Speaker, the government is committed to open and transparent competitions that balance the socio-economic needs of the government and the country with those of the industry that we have in this country.
We are committed to looking at that and understanding what the best balance in those procurements will be.
Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Madam Speaker, steelworkers in Hamilton and other communities across Canada have suffered from the economic downturn and foreign takeovers, and also from the unfair competition with subsidized foreign steel.
This week the U.S. imposed a fivefold increase in tariffs on Chinese cold-rolled flat steel, due to unfair subsidies and dumping.
However, in Canada all we get are consultations. When will we see real action from the Liberals to stop steel dumping and protect good Canadian jobs?
Chrystia Freeland LiberalMinister of International Trade
Madam Speaker, I am very seized with the issue, and very much share these concerns about Chinese steel dumping.
I have been consulting actively, including most recently in Arequipa, Peru, where I was at the APEC trade ministers meeting. We are working hard, particularly with our EU and U.S. counterparts on this issue.
It is an urgent matter for Canadians, and we are working toward a solution.
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Madam Speaker, yesterday, the National Energy Board recommended the Kinder Morgan pipeline project for approval.
It is a clear statement that building pipelines in Canada is in the best interests of Canadians. The Liberals' own environmental assessment said that oil is going to be extracted somewhere, so it should be right here in Canada.
Will the Liberals accept the science-based study of the National Energy Board and approve this project, and all the economic benefits that come with the Kinder Morgan project?
Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Madam Speaker, as we said and we promised Canadians, we would put together a ministerial panel, which is one action that our government is taking to ensure major resource projects carry the confidence of Canadians.
We have asked that the panel members travel the pipeline route to hear from and talk to indigenous peoples and local communities, and report back to the minister by November 1, for a decision on or before December—
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Madam Speaker, this panel is confusing for everyone, even the parliamentary secretary. The panel is going to reconsult with those who have already been consulted.
The evidence clearly shows that this project can go ahead safely and responsibly. How can three people be expected to have a more thorough process than a process that was going on for over three years?
What is missing from the arm's-length National Energy Board process that is causing the Liberals to delay this important job-creating project?
Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Madam Speaker, in January, the Premier of Alberta spoke positively about our panel and its role of consulting those who believed they were not heard, and its goal of helping to inform the process of getting our natural resources to market sustainably.
We are building bridges and relationships with our indigenous peoples, industry partners, and communities along the project. We look forward to doing that work.
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Madam Speaker, the Liberals are deliberately creating instability in the energy sector. Let us hear what experts have said who spoke at the natural resources committee.
The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said that, “right now it's not clear how they're going to get to the outcomes with the current process. ...it's a bit up in the air.”
Suncor said that project delays “increase uncertainty and make investment...more problematic”.
Why are the Liberals driving away investment in Canadian energy and creating more uncertainty for this struggling sector?
Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the member opposite that in addition to the panel, and to ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to be heard, an online engagement tool will be launched when the panel begins its work in early June. Canadians have asked that their views be heard on these important decisions. We are providing them with an opportunity to do just that.
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Madam Speaker, pipelines are the safest way to transport energy, contributing $11.5 billion to our GDP and creating more than 33,000 jobs last year.
Yesterday, the NEB approved the Kinder Morgan pipeline after a very thorough assessment. Meanwhile, the Liberals have introduced redundant review principles, adding more uncertainty to the process and undermining the credibility of Canada's regulatory institutions.
Will the Liberals accept the NEB's expert recommendation and approve the Kinder Morgan pipeline?
Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Madam Speaker, we have received a 39,000 page report from the National Energy Board, and we will review that report. However, we have heard from Canadians that they did not have confidence in the flawed process that has been used over the past 10 years. Indeed, we have committed to ensuring that Canadians have a voice, that our indigenous peoples are consulted in communities along the proposed route.
When that report is received November 1, it will be considered, with a decision on or before December 19.
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Madam Speaker, this week, we heard more stories of the appalling abuse of temporary foreign workers: people treated like slaves, paid $2 an hour, having their health care taken away, and deported when they are injured on the job.
It is hard to believe that this is Canada in 2016. While the minister has called this exploitation unacceptable, what we have not seen from the government is a commitment to hearing from migrant workers directly and a plan of action to end the abuse.
When will the government and the minister step up and take action to end the exploitation taking place under her watch?
Rodger Cuzner LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment
Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns with the questioner, as does the minister. Certainly the temporary foreign worker program has been a concern. We talked about it in our platform, as did the NDP talk about undertaking a review.
We know that committees are masters of their own destiny. That is why I was surprised as a parliamentary secretary to see that the member, when she had an opportunity to convince the committee to undertake a study, led with EI and not with temporary foreign workers. I suggest that the study go back and encourage those—