Debates of May 5th, 2016

International Trade

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the trans-Pacific partnership will have serious consequences for Canada. We are talking about losing 60,000 jobs and our sovereignty. The arguments against the partnership continue to mount.

This morning, at the Standing Committee on International Trade, Jim Balsillie, said that under the trans-Pacific partnership, the best thing that a Canadian technology company could do is to move to the United States.

Is the government refusing to release an economic impact study on the trans-Pacific partnership precisely because there are so many problems with the agreement?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is opposed to the TPP without having read it, but this government is committed to consulting Canadians, and that is what we are doing.

Next week, the Standing Committee on International Trade will consult Canadians in Montreal, Quebec City, Windsor, and Toronto. This will be a very important consultation and debate for our country. I appreciate the contribution of the opposition members.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we saw the trans-Pacific partnership at the same time that the Liberals did, and that was after the campaign, after the election, after it was kept in secret by the Conservatives.

The fact is, the minister refuses to release an impact study and refuses to launch the public consultations that the Liberals promised.

The committee's work is not her own. However, we are hearing very troubling testimony. Today, RIM founder Jim Balsillie warned, “There will never be [another] large Canadian tech company under the TPP”. He has also said that Canada would be a colossal loser.

Why is the minister proceeding with a deal that will so badly damage Canada's tech sector?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that is simply not true. The NDP opposed the TPP before even reading it during the campaign. We were all there.

We made a commitment to consult with Canadians, and that is what we are doing. Next week, I am delighted that the trade committee is actively consulting with Canadians. It will be in Montreal, Quebec City, Windsor, and Toronto.

This is a very important national debate. It is important not to cut it short.

Air Canada

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Minister of Transport was at committee discussing his Air Canada bill. When asked by one of his own members how carrier maintenance obligations affect its competitiveness, he had no answer. Shockingly, he responded by saying, “It's a big, serious question and I don't have the answer at my fingertips..”.

If the entire purpose of this legislation is to make Air Canada more competitive, could the minister at least have done his homework before introducing this bill?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I always do my homework before I speak.

I want to make it very clear that one of the reasons we are amending this act is not only to prevent litigation in the future, but also to allow Air Canada to have more flexibility when it is competing in a very competitive environment domestically and internationally.

We know that by removing from Air Canada a certain obligation with respect to where it must do its maintenance, we will allow it to be more competitive. We are convinced of this, and that is why we are doing it.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with that answer, it is clear that the Minister of Transport still has not done his homework.

I also asked if he could tell the committee what Air Canada's maintenance costs are, to which he responded: “No, I can't tell you what the costs are..”.

Let me try again. The minister obviously cannot explain the bill. Can he at least provide a shred of evidence to support it?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my hon. colleague is simply going on a fishing trip here.

It is expensive for our airlines to maintain their airplanes to make sure they are very safe. It is a significant amount of their fiscal expenditures every day of the year.

We are providing Air Canada, which has over 400 airplanes, with some flexibility in deciding where it will do its maintenance while holding on to the obligation that it must do some maintenance in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers and Canadians are very concerned about the government's position on support for the aerospace industry, which is extremely important to our economy.

When we recently asked the Minister of Transport why he had pushed through Bill C-10 under a gag order, he said that it was to make Air Canada more competitive.

Will the minister finally admit that he is leaving the door wide open for Air Canada to sacrifice good-quality jobs here in Canada?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Not at all, Mr. Speaker.

Because Quebec and Manitoba decided to drop their lawsuit against Air Canada, we were able to make amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act, through Bill C-10. That is what we are doing.

However, I remind my colleague that Air Canada is still required to perform maintenance in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if shipping the maintenance jobs out of the country is going to make Air Canada more competitive, I have some serous concerns about how the Liberals are handling this file.

While Quebec's economy minister has urged the government to take its time with its bill, the Minister of Transport seems to be in a real hurry to shut down debate for reasons that he himself cannot explain. There really is something fishy going on.

Can the minister clarify his position and explain why he was in such a hurry to shut down debate?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I am in no hurry. In fact, I will speak very slowly to explain to my colleague.

We decided to change the legislation through Bill C-10, as I have been saying from the beginning, because the governments of Quebec and Manitoba decided to drop their lawsuit against Air Canada. This gives us the opportunity to clarify the legislation and give Air Canada more flexibility in making decisions regarding the maintenance of its planes.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

As members know, disagreements in this place are to be expected, but members' comments must remain respectful.

The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

Post-Secondary Education

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, ever since the old Liberals slashed billions in funding for post-secondary education, the cost of tuition has skyrocketed. Now, according to the parliamentary budget officer, a majority of Canadian students are from higher-income families.

The PBO also said that a majority of federal funding is benefiting these same wealthy families and the Liberals' recent budget will not significantly change the situation.

The Liberals claim to help the middle class, but they are actually doing the opposite. Why do they not help all students to get a good, quality education?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing in budget 2016. We are helping 250,000 lower-income Canadian students with grants that are going from $2,000 to $3,000, which is a 50% increase. We are helping another 100,000 middle-income Canadian students, going from $800 to $1,200, which is a 50% increase. We are making an enormous difference for the students of today. We know that is going to help us today, and tomorrow.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister just does not get it. The parliamentary budget officer's report confirms today that federal measures to foster access to post-secondary education primarily benefit students from high-income families, and the announcements in budget 2016 will change nothing.

We have also learned that the government spends less on post-secondary education for indigenous students. Furthermore, almost 40% of students are more than $25,000 in debt by the time they graduate.

The government says that it wants to help Canadian youth and the less well-off to join the middle class. Then what is it waiting for to make post-secondary education accessible to everyone?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we understand exactly the problems faced by students today. That is why we included some measures in budget 2016 to help them.

For example, we are going to increase grants by 50%, from $2,000 to $3,000, for 250,000 students. Grants for middle-income students will increase from $800 to $1,200. That is a big change for them and for the country.

Canada Post

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post provides important services for my constituents in Laurentides—Labelle and for all Canadians.

All across the country, people are dismayed at the lack of respect and service cuts that the previous Conservative government imposed on Canada Post. In rural ridings like mine, these impacts are even more noticeable.

During the last election, the Liberal Party committed to a comprehensive review of the crown corporation. Would the minister responsible for Canada Post please update this House on the status of that review?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada promised Canadians that they would have a say in the service that Canada Post provided.

Today, we are keeping that promise. Today I announced an independent review of Canada Post.

The review will be a two-phase process, which will be completed by the end of this year.

An independent task force will prepare a discussion paper that presents viable options for Canada Post, following which a parliamentary committee will consult with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We are encouraging all members of the public to take part in this very important review.

Ministerial Expenses

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the House leader is once again being thrown under the bus by his friends on the front bench. He has turned himself into a human pretzel trying to defend the justice minister's questionable fundraising, and he is now assuming the position for the trade minister and her Hollywood agreements.

Will the trade minister finally table those agreements, or is she prepared to pay for the ongoing House leader's chiropractic treatments with her own money?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is my job to promote Canada to the world. That is what I did in California, meeting with business leaders, cultural leaders, and the international media.

The Conservatives oppose the positive message that I delivered on television about Syrian refugees, and to the LA Times about reducing income inequality. I was proud to do it, and I would do it again.

The Conservatives' failure on these issues is why Canadians rejected their government last fall and why they are sitting on that side of the House.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the minister's marketing is working so well that the trade numbers of the U.S. are down by 6.3% in March alone.

The question is simple. Did the trade minister mislead the House leader? That is just not cool.

Will the House leader stand in his place and apologize for not being the House leader but for being the House “mis-leader”?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, here is one of the things I said on TV during that visit: “I think it is incredibly important, particularly...after the Paris attacks, particularly now with [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] raging around the world, to stand up for real diversity and to say our diversity is our strength.”

Now, more than ever, the Conservatives should be joining us in speaking up for our belief in diversity around the world, including in the United States.

Democratic Reform

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said, “We are in discussions with the other parties” to set up a committee on electoral reform. He explained that the reason why it has not yet been struck is entirely the fault of the Conservatives and the NDP, since both parties will not give consent without unreasonable preconditions. This whole process is imaginary. I have met with the relevant minister exactly twice in six months, once in December at my request, and once at a breakfast, where she sat at my table for less than 10 minutes. My NDP homologue says it is the same thing with him.

Why did the Prime Minister just invent this patently false story about opposition delay?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize through you to the member in the House. We are engaged in many different processes. We know how important electoral reform is and how passionately members of the House feel about it. I look forward to ensuring that we get moving on this committee in short order.