Debates of June 7th, 2016

Ethics

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect governments and ministers to act at the highest ethical standards. That is exactly what every minister of this government has done. Within hours of the Prime Minister asking me to assume these responsibilities, I proactively reached out to the Ethics Commissioner. I asked for her advice as to what measures could be put in place to ensure that there was no conflict of interest. Nor would there be an appearance of a conflict of interest. I will be following her advice at every moment, as I always have.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the part-time Minister of Fisheries has an admitted conflict of interest whenever it comes to the Irving family in New Brunswick. The Irvings have interests in fisheries habitat work, are involved in the Atlantic Salmon Federation, and the minister's advisory panel on Atlantic salmon. Irving Shipyards is also an important Coast Guard supplier.

When will the Prime Minister replace this part-time Minister of Fisheries with someone who can actually work on all of the files?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, l wish the member opposite would in fact ask questions in the fisheries portfolio that speak to the important economic interests that this department represents from coast to coast to coast in Canada, instead of fabricating and inventing conflicts of interest where none exists.

National Defence

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is it just me or does this whole fighter jet story feel like Groundhog Day?

After slamming the Conservatives for buying the F-35s without a call for tenders, the Liberals are gearing up to do the same thing. To replace our aging CF-18s, they are going to buy Super Hornets and, surprise-surprise, without going to tender.

Why are the Liberals acting so much like the Conservatives?

Why are the Liberals making the same mistakes as the previous government?

Is there anyone at the controls?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, we are committed to replacing our CF-18s and we will do our due diligence to do so. There is a capability gap that was created by the previous government and we will ensure that we will fill this gap.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees we need to replace the CF-18s. However, sole-sourced procurement is costly, bad for accountability and often ends up taking even longer to deliver the equipment we need.

In opposition, the Liberals complained about the Conservatives when they sole-sourced procurement for the F-35s. Instead, they promised Canadians an open, transparent competition to replace the CF-18s.

Why are the Liberals now doing an about-face, breaking their promise, and behaving just as badly as the Conservatives on procuring fighter jets?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I also stated in the past, even though we are launching a defence review, replacing our fighters and the national shipbuilding strategy are going to be going on a separate path, and that is what we have been doing. We are working very hard on that. We are doing all the thorough analysis. When all that work is done, we will be making the announcement for that.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, since taking office, the Prime Minister has repeatedly contradicted his minister's hints that a referendum might be okay.

Yesterday his objection was, “This process is more complex than the “yes or no” of a referendum.” I promised myself that I would not raise quantum computing or one-armed planks in question period, but facts are facts, and in this universe the decision whether or not to endorse a new voting system that his government will propose really is a binary decision, yes or no.

Based on this new information, will the Prime Minister now agree to hold a referendum?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, today is a great day. I am looking forward to the vote following question period where we all put our confidence in a parliamentary committee made up of all parties whose responsibility it is to reach out to all our constituents and bring their voices and their values into the conversation about electoral reform. I look forward to this co-operative and collaborative style of governance for many years to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's latest excuse to deny Canadians the final say in a new voting system from just earlier in this question period is, “we need open consultations, not a closed question”.

This, of course, completely contradicts the minister who yesterday said that consultations were only step one of a three-stage process. Therefore, at some point, when stages one and two are done, a closed question will be appropriate, something like this, “Should election 2019 take place under the voting system proposed by the government, yes or no?” Is that not a reasonable question?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, as always, we remain open and receptive to respectful and reasonable arguments. Today, we take step one of a long journey for which we are all responsible to ensure that as we move forward toward modernizing our electoral system and our democratic institutions, the voices of our constituents are included in our decision-making process. Let us focus on step one, one step at a time.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and father of the clarity bill felt that it would be necessary to hold a referendum before any changes could be made to the voting system. He said, “Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.”

Three quarters of the population share that opinion.

Can the Minister of Democratic Institutions tell us what she told the minister behind closed doors to make him go back on his own words?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, the process of electoral reform requires the attention and the care of all members of the House.

Today we will be voting on establishing an all-party committee whose responsibility it will be is to reach out to our constituents, particularly those who have not been included in this conversation in the past, to ensure that the process and the outcome is one that makes sense for all of us.

Let us focus on the work of the committee. There is a lot riding on this. We are all counting on it to do this work. I am looking forward to the vote today.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems like the Minister of Democratic Institutions cannot even keep her talking points straight for a single answer. She has told the House that she wants to hear from Canadians, while in the same answer has stated that politicians should make the decision.

Which is it? Politicians making the decision, or will the minister actually drop the talking points and leave this decision directly in the hands of Canadians through a referendum?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I have no notes at my disposal.

Let us review what we are here to do. Canadians have elected us to come to this place and to represent them with dignity and with full co-operation. That is what we are doing today. A committee will come together, made up of all parliamentarians, to reach out to Canadians and to hear from them first on what values and what aspirations they have for their electoral system. Let us recognize our responsibility to do this work right.

Once again, I am really looking forward to the vote.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while most Canadians are law-abiding citizens, we learned today of another service that KPMG provides to its wealthy clients. This time, it is recommending its tax avoidance scheme not only to avoid taxes, but also to allow its clients to avoid paying divorce settlements and alimony. It is shameful.

How can the Liberals continue to protect KPMG? When is the minister going to do whatever it takes to bring to justice not only KPMG's millionaire clients, but also the firm itself and its unscrupulous accountants, for developing this tax avoidance scheme on the Isle of Man?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, middle-class Canadians pay their share of taxes, but some wealthy individuals are avoiding paying their fair share. That is unacceptable and it must change.

CRA is investigating the taxpayers identified in the KPMG schemes, and the massive investment in our latest budget will help stop the organizations that create and promote such schemes for the rich.

This matter is before the courts, so I would caution the member. I want to reassure all Canadians that no one can shirk their obligations.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, another day, another scandal involving KPMG. It appears it was not enough for KPMG to just advise clients on how to evade paying taxes, now it has been caught devising schemes so clients could dodge their support, divorce, or alimony obligations.

Just how many more scandals do we need before the government finally launches a full investigation into the actions of KPMG?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague opposite that the KPMG schemes were denounced by the Canada Revenue Agency.

Our government is committed to fighting tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. We are keeping this promise through our historic $444-million investment.

We are committed to developing a fairer tax system for Canadians. That is what we promised we would do, and that is what we are doing.

Canadian Coast Guard

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the men and women of the Canadian Coast Guard work hard to protect Canadians and the bodies of water from coast to coast to coast.

I recently had the pleasure of taking part in an announcement in Sydney with regard to the Coast Guard college. Could the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard update us on what is being done to ensure that the college in Westmount has the resources and facilities it needs to continue producing qualified personnel?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my outstanding colleague from Sydney—Victoria for his strong support of the Canadian Coast Guard.

The Canadian Coast Guard in Sydney has been a world leader in the field of maritime studies for over 50 years. The member, on our behalf, announced $32 million on the weekend for a cleaner, greener college. These investments will reduce the facility's energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by over 20%.

The college is a top-notch facility, an example to other countries, and we are very proud of the work being done there.

Natural Resources

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has world-class assessment consultation and standards for energy projects.

Unfortunately, the Liberals and some anti-energy mayors do not seem to have figured that out yet. The Liberals create more complications and uncertainty by adding an extra layer at the end of the independent science-based review process.

Canadians need pipelines. These unnecessary delays do not help. Will the Liberals stop interfering and leave evidence-based decision making to the experts?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure this morning to meet with a mayor of a major Canadian city, Vancouver. I have also heard from the mayors of other Canadian cities who hold a different view on pipelines and major energy projects.

The sensible thing to do is to establish an independent panel of experts from western Canada to talk to mayors and others who have an opinion, after which the government will decide what it believes to be in the national interest.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are making upstream emissions a condition of pipeline approval. No other major infrastructure is held to the same bar, certainly not big city rail, and foreign oil imports are not either.

Provinces already regulate upstream emissions. Canada produces the most socially and environmentally responsible oil and gas in the world. When will the Liberals stop blocking Canadian energy?

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous government, we believe the environment and the economy go together.

I was very proud to stand with the Minister of Natural Resources when we announced interim principles that would rebuild the trust necessary so we could get resources to market in a sustainable way, in the 21st century. That also includes taking into account greenhouse gas emissions, because we need to do our part to tackle climate change. That is the right thing to do. That is the thing to do for our children. Also, it makes economic sense.