Debates of Sept. 21st, 2016

Foreign Affairs

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the Conservatives did nothing to improve Canada's relationship with China, the economy, the development of human rights, or the defence of Canadians. The Conservative Party still does not understand that we need a strong, stable relationship that enables us to talk about real issues, share our concerns, and meet the priorities of Canadians.

Our government will always stand up for Canadian law and Canadians. We have extraordinarily high standards for extradition treaties, and those must be upheld by everyone we work with.

National Defence

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 26 days since the Liberals said they would send Canadian troops on a mission to sub-Saharan Africa, but we still cannot get any straight answers out of them on what exactly the plan is or how it serves our national interest.

This mission will be dangerous and Canadian troops could die. It is clear that the Prime Minister wants a seat at the UN Security Council, and is using our troops as a pawn to achieve his goal. The Prime Minister owes Canadians the facts about this dangerous mission.

What is his real motivation, and are Canadians' lives worth it?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians made it very clear that they wanted a government that re-engages constructively and positively on the world stage not just for a question of moral responsibility, because we are so incredibly lucky here in Canada, but because we can create peace and security that will have positive impacts in Canada and around the world.

Canada has a role to play, and we take that very seriously. At the same time, we will reflect carefully on how Canada can best engage and welcome all voices to weigh-in on how we are going to hold up Canadian high standards of success, and create the impact we have on the world.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians also thought they were electing a government that was going to respect Parliament. They wanted that change.

Whether it is the Latvian deployment or any future peacekeeping mission, Parliament should be consulted and there must be a vote.

Could the Prime Minister simply explain why he no longer believes that Parliament should have a right to vote on these important issues?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I said many times throughout the election campaign and have said since, I have a deep respect for every parliamentarian and their capacity to represent the views of their constituents on a broad range of issues.

I look forward to robust debate on many different issues over the coming months and years as we look at the best way to serve Canadians. That is what Canadians expect, and that is what we are going to deliver.

Foreign Affairs

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

How about a vote, Mr. Speaker?

The Minister of Immigration promised that Canada would never sign an extradition treaty with China so long as China still had the death penalty.

However, the Prime Minister is meeting with the Chinese Premier this evening to talk about an extradition treaty. He just confirmed that. He said the government should not blow hot and cold.

Who should Canadians believe, the Prime Minister or his Minister of Immigration? They are both saying exactly the opposite of one another.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have always been very clear. We need to have a dialogue with the Chinese government on many issues that are of concern to Canadians. We are also listening to the concerns of the Chinese government.

We have very high standards regarding the behaviour of any country with which we sign an extradition treaty. We will not sign an extradition treaty in situations where people are facing the death penalty. This is a change that we made after the previous government left office, because we know that Canada must always defend anyone who is facing the death penalty.

The Environment

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, are we talking about people “facing the death penalty” or people “in countries that use the death penalty”? The Prime Minister is trying to fudge the language.

On climate change, Canada has been left wearing the dunce cap. Canadians have had to bear the burden of both the Conservative and the Liberal governments' failure to address this very real global threat.

There was a glimmer of hope that things would finally change, but this government got on board with Stephen Harper's targets. Can the government explain why it is betraying future generations like this?

I repeat: the Liberals are on board with the Conservatives' targets.

What is behind this betrayal?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, for many years now, various governments, including ours, have talked about targets, but nobody has introduced a concrete carbon pricing plan. That is exactly what we are going to do.

All the provinces agree that we need to reach these targets and comply with the Paris agreement. They agree that carbon pricing is part of the solution. The provinces are unanimous on that. We are moving forward because Canadians expect us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister committed in Paris to restoring Canada's credibility on climate change. He cannot download that. He cannot subcontract it to the provinces. Canada signed. His platform says that Stephen Harper's targets are catastrophic. Hmm, no applause.

Now, suddenly, Canadians are expected to look the other way while he hits copy-paste on the Conservative climate plan.

Could the Prime Minister please explain whether his environment minister just got it wrong, or is he offering no other climate change targets than those of Stephen Harper?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Outremont makes a grave mistake when he talks about the Conservative government's plan. It had no plan on climate change. It had no plan on reducing emissions, and that is why we have put in place a concrete and realistic plan to reduce emissions.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I am having trouble hearing the answer. I know all members want to hear the answer.

The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to working with the provinces because we know the only way to reduce emissions is to get everyone to agree, just like the provinces agreed that we have to ratify Paris, just like the provinces agreed that we need to price carbon pollution. There is unanimity on that, and that is what we are moving forward on.

Forest Industry

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Yes, the climate will balance itself, Mr. Speaker.

The issues that people across the country talk to us about are jobs and having enough money to support their families. There are issues that can be dealt with now. Take, for example, the softwood lumber issue. The government promised a solution after 100 days of deliberations and discussions, but nothing has been resolved yet.

Will the Prime Minister please commit today to telling all families who depend on the forestry industry that there will be an agreement that will satisfy Canadian workers?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to hear the member for Lac-Saint-Jean saying that because his government did nothing to get the negotiations started. Our government, on the other hand, has been actively negotiating with the Americans from the outset. The Conseil du patronat du Québec even indicated that it “commended the Minister of International Trade, the hon. Chrystia Freeland, for all that she has done in defence of the Quebec forestry industry.”

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. parliamentary secretary is well aware that we do not refer to members in this House by their names, but by their titles, which in this case is the title of minister.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the former minister of international trade began the discussions. The negotiations were under way. He began the discussions with our American partners. At that time, the agreement was still valid for another year. That year went by while the current government dragged its feet. It is easy to put all the blame on the former government, but the Liberals are in power. They wanted to be in power. Now, they must make decisions. They need to make a decision on this issue and sign the agreement in the best interest of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the former government did not start the process. We took on this issue from the outset and we committed to resolving it. We held consultations. There is unprecedented co-operation with producers, industry workers, and the provinces and territories. We do not want to reach just any old deal. We want a good deal for Canada.

Government Expenditures

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister personally signed off on $220,000 in moving expenses for his own political staff. The chief responsibility of the Prime Minister is to be honest and forthright with Canadians in the House. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about these expenses. They are wrong.

Will the Prime Minister be honest with Canadians and rise today, and tell us which of his friends received these outrageous payouts?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House to share with Canadians that we have built a diverse team of passionate, hard-working, extremely qualified Canadians to deliver the change people voted for.

Many people moved across this country with their families and children to serve in Ottawa. As part of this process, some employees received help in relocating.

There have been rules in place on relocation of public servants and political staff since the 1970s. In fact, the current rules for relocation have been in place since 2008, and have applied to every minister's office since.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister personally approved over $126,000 in moving expenses for one senior aid in the PMO. I am not sure what one can move for $126,000, but I imagine that it is very fragile.

People in Alberta are struggling and losing their homes, savings, and livelihoods, but the Prime Minister is more concerned with making sure that his friends are compensated. How can the Prime Minister justify to struggling Albertans this absolutely ridiculous waste of money?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for providing me the opportunity to share with Canadians that the party opposite should know what the current guidelines for relocation are, given that it wrote them.

Tens of thousands of Canadians applied to be part of the team for the mandate this government is going to advance. We are proud of the diverse team of passionate, hard-working, extremely qualified Canadians we hired to deliver the change people voted for.

Canadians expect public resources to be used responsibly and economically, and we are committed to living up to these expectations.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, $1.1 million was handed to Liberal staffers moving to Ottawa for six-figure jobs. The Liberal House leader herself provided over $70,000 to just one staffer.

The rules say that it is at the minister's discretion. Does the minister think that forking out a million dollars to Liberal political staff is the best use of Canadian taxpayers' money?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, it is the party opposite that put the rules into place, and the rules were followed.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing Liberals use the words “open” and “transparent” in the responses to the million dollar move, which is ironic, given the lack of details provided to Canadians.

If the Liberal House leader is so transparent, can she tell us exactly who she gave this $70,000 to and what the money was supposedly for?