Debates of May 6th, 2016

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, like all families of prime ministers, a small number of staff provide assistance. Given the nature of the Prime Minister's responsibilities, and his young family, he employs two household employees who, in addition to performing other duties around the house, act as secondary caregivers to the three children. It should come as no surprise that the Prime Minister has a different family situation with three young children than the previous prime minister's family did.

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

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister was campaigning, he said that millionaire families like his did not need taxpayer-funded child care, but as soon as he was elected, he stripped Canadian families of the universal child care benefit and gave himself a $100,000-a-year child care benefit.

Why is the Liberal Prime Minister so focused on getting benefits for himself and his family and his Liberal buddies?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member brought up the issue of child benefits. The Canada child benefit, which we introduced in our budget, will help the Canadian families who need the help the most. A family making $40,000 a year in Canada, with two kids, would be $4,000 better off under our Canada child benefit. A single parent making $30,000 a year will be over $6,000 better off than under the former Conservative government. A family making $90,000 a year with two kids would be $2,500 better off than under the former government.

We are—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

Canada Post

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first the Prime Minister promised to restore home mail delivery, then the Prime Minister bizarrely accused the NDP of fabricating the quote. The problem for him is that we actually have it on tape.

Now we learn that one of the four people appointed to the government's new task force sits on the board of Shoppers Drug Mart, a company with direct financial interests in postal services. There is a term for this and one the Liberals are quite familiar with, and it is conflict of interest.

Will the minister agree to replace the member on her hand-picked task force for Canada Post?

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, it is as simple as this. It was a promise made and a promise kept. Our party committed during the campaign to undertake a review to ensure that Canadians receive quality postal services at a reasonable price, and yesterday we did just that. The four-person independent task force will prepare a discussion paper that will present viable options for Canada Post services.

Canadians are at the centre of the decisions we make. I encourage all members to get involved in this process.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the only review that is needed is of the tape of the Prime Minister promising to restore home mail delivery.

Summer is just around the corner, but we cannot help but notice that the Prime Minister's sunny ways have gone out the window.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said, and I quote,“We are committed to restoring home mail delivery. People expect a certain level of service and we are going to deliver it.”

Once he took office, all of that changed, and now everything is on the table. In other words, we can say goodbye to home mail delivery.

Is the Prime Minister not ashamed of misleading Canadians and breaking an election promise?

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, it is this government's job to ensure that we have an open and transparent and independent review to ensure that Canadians are receiving the services they need from Canada Post at a reasonable price.

The four-person independent task force will prepare a discussion paper and present all of the viable options for Canada Post. Following that, a parliamentary committee will engage with Canadians from coast to coast to coast on this important question and will report back by the end of the year.

This is an important review, and it will be one that we hope all members of the House and all Canadians will be proud to take part in.

Poverty

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this week, a Statistics Canada study showed that, over the past 30 years, it has become much more difficult for Canadians to move up the income ladder. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. That is the track record of the successive Liberal and Conservative governments. Even this Liberal budget does nothing to address this inequality.

When will the Liberals reverse that trend and actually do something about the growing inequality in our country?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, income inequality is a problem here in Canada and elsewhere. Our government's priority is to help the middle class and families that need it.

For example, our budget includes the Canada child tax benefit, which will really help Canadian families in need. We are going to continue to do that.

Taxation

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, their tax changes only benefit the wealthiest of Canadians. They also broke their promise on closing the stock option loophole, which benefits the wealthiest of CEOs.

The Liberals seem to hope that if they talk about inequality, people will be distracted from the fact that they are not actually doing anything about inequality. Therefore, with the new Stats Canada report showing us that income inequality is on the rise, will the Liberals now take concrete action to deal with this growing crisis and will they close the stock option loophole for the wealthiest of Canadians?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes that international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance are critical issues.

With regard to the Panama papers, I asked employees in my department to obtain the list of Canadian taxpayers, and I am pleased to inform the House that that information is now in the agency's hands. This is a worldwide issue and Canada is working with the international community.

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, Anna Gainey is the president of the Liberal Party. She is not a parliamentarian. She is not a cabinet minister. She is not even a diplomat. She does not have a thing to do with the business of the government, or at least she is not supposed to. Therefore, why did the Prime Minister think it appropriate to give special access in Washington to Liberal insiders, like Ms. Gainey?

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

Mr. Speaker, if I may just emphasize how important this was. This was in fact the first official visit to the United States of a Canadian Prime Minister since 1997. If we look at what was actually accomplished, the Canadian delegation engaged our American counterparts on many files, including climate change, environment and energy, international security, defence co-operation, the global coalition against ISIL, border co-operation, and trade and commercial relationships. There was a lot of good work done on behalf of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal family vacation gets a lot better. Stephen Bronfman is the top bagman for the Liberal Party. His job is to raise money for Liberal partisan politics, as long as it remains separate from the business of the government. However, the Prime Minister saw nothing inappropriate about inviting Bronfman down to Washington for cocktails and canapés at the White House.

Can anyone on that side of the House explain what possible government business the chief fundraiser for the Liberal Party had in Washington?

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

Mr. Speaker, I suggest the member realize he should get on focus with what Canadians want. They recognize that there is a need for an important relationship to be established between the United States and Canada. This is a Prime Minister that is—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order, please.

Now that it is quiet we can continue.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister has recognized the importance of the bilateral relationship between Canada and the United States and has made great strides in making a difference in improving that bilateral relationship.

The Conservatives should actually be applauding the government for its actions. Within six months we have been able to accomplish so much.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Minister of International Trade does not have a monopoly on questionable trips.

Yesterday we learned that when the Prime Minister goes to the White House, he brings along Liberal Party employees, his in-laws, and his nanny.

Can this government, which claims to be obsessed with transparency, explain to Canadians why it was necessary to bring 44 people to Washington and what their official roles were?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to the idea that the Conservatives are really out of queue with regard to the benefits of this particular trip.

At the end of the day, we need to recognize the importance of having a strong, healthy relationship with our neighbours to the south. This is something our government takes very seriously and is something where we have seen a great deal of co-operation between the different ministries and what is taking place in Ottawa. The government is making a genuine effort to try to get a more enriched middle class by looking at broadening the relationship between Canada and the United States.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, out of 36 million Canadians, only the members opposite think this extravagance is normal. To mere mortals, it makes no sense to bring Liberal Party employees on an official trip. They have nothing to do with the administration of government.

Can the government explain to Canadians what official role the Liberal Party's chief revenue officer, Stephen Bronfman, played within the Canadian delegation?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize the benefits of that particular trip. The Canadian delegation engaged our American counterparts on many different files, whether it was dealing with the issue of climate change, environment and energy, international security, defence co-operation, the global coalition against ISIL, border co-operation, or trade and commercial relations.

This was an important trip. Canadians realize that. The only ones who do not seem to realize the benefits are the members of the Conservative Party, and that is most unfortunate.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we get the feeling that some members across the way are feeling uneasy today. They must be wondering what they did wrong not to get invited to go to Washington. In addition to the chief revenue officer, the Liberal Party's national president, Anna Gainey, was also part of the delegation. A political party president has no role in the administration of government.

How can the Liberals say that it was appropriate to bring the president of the Liberal Party of Canada to Washington?

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

Mr. Speaker, I request the opposition to remain focused on what is really important, and to recognize that this was in fact the first official visit to the United States by a Canadian Prime Minister since 1997.

The relationship between Canada and the United States is our most important bilateral relationship. We have the longest, most peaceful and mutually beneficial relationship of any two countries since the birth of the nation state.

The Prime Minister discussed the revitalization of the Canada-U.S. relationship, and the importance of a closer partnership between Canada—