House of Commons Hansard #82 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was parliamentarians.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Liberal government adopted Stephen Harper's deplorable greenhouse gas reduction targets. This week, the government is adopting Stephen Harper's draconian health care cuts even though, before the election, the Minister of Foreign Affairs criticized the Conservative government because it “unilaterally refused to extend the funding agreement”.
Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he talked about real change?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the real change is that, for the first time in 10 years, the federal government is working with the provinces. We are going to discuss how to create a health system that meets Canadians' expectations. We are listening to Canadians, who want a better health system. We will respectfully work with the provinces to provide health care to Canadians.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, so often the Prime Minister's words simply do not match reality.
He said that last October 19 marked the start of a new era in labour relations with the federal government, but Canadian workers need more than words. They need a government that provides real support for labour rights.
If the Prime Minister truly believes in the right of collective bargaining, can he tell us if he will support our legislation banning the use of scabs, once and for all?
Here is a straightforward question for the Prime Minister. Will the Liberals vote for or against our anti-scab bill?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we were elected on a platform of creating growth and strength for the middle class in this country. We know that labour is an essential partner in creating that economic growth. We are focused on growing the economy in ways that support middle-class families and those working hard to join the middle class. That is why in our close working relationship with organized labour, like our close working relationship with business leaders, like our good working relationship with the provinces, we believe in collaboration and respect to make sure that growth for the economy helps the middle class.
Denis Lebel Conservative Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, obviously, the number one concern for Canadians is jobs. We can create jobs by approving projects and we can protect jobs by making decisions and negotiating things like a new softwood lumber deal with the Americans, for instance.
The former Liberal government abandoned the forestry industry, which suffered the consequences for years. October 12 is just around the corner. I hope we can reach a deal with the United States so that we can continue logging. I hope this issue does not have to go to court.
Is the Prime Minister willing to make a commitment to the forestry industry?
Chrystia Freeland LiberalMinister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, the last agreement expired under the previous government's watch, as the opposition is well aware. We, on the other hand, have been actively involved in negotiations.
I was pleased to hear the member for Cariboo—Prince George express appreciation for our work in committee. On August 18, he said, “I can appreciate that there's been a considerable amount of work to this point done by both Global Affairs and the minister.”
We want the best deal for Canadian workers, not just any deal.
Denis Lebel Conservative Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we see results. It is all well and good for the government to discuss the matter, hold 70 consultation panels, and travel all over the country engaging in political posturing, but it has not achieved any results. Actions speak louder than words.
For now, there are no results. What the minister said is all well and good, but the agreement expired last year. There has been a year's grace. We hope that the government will quickly sign an agreement. We need more than just idle talk. We need action.
When will we have an agreement?
Chrystia Freeland LiberalMinister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the last agreement expired on the previous government's watch.
The Conseil du patronat du Québec “commended the government for all that it has done in defence of the Quebec forestry industry”. The Quebec Forest Industry Council is “pleased with the government's position on Quebec's forestry regime”.
Only the opposition refuses to acknowledge the work we are doing to protect Quebec and Canadian workers.
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have always taken pride in my math. It has always been pretty good, but I will tell members that I have been racking my brain trying to think of how it is possible for someone to rack up more than $120,000 in moving expenses to move down the 401 from Toronto to Ottawa. Even if the Prime Minister's Office moved its staff by dog sled and pack mule, and if I use Liberal mathematics, I still cannot come up with $126,000 in costs.
Will the Prime Minister please stand up and explain to the House why it cost so much to move one of his staff 450 kilometres down the 401?
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism
Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House time and time again, this relocation policy has been in place since the 1970s. This policy was last updated under the previous government.
We have also heard how Stephen Harper's office, when he was prime minister, approved over $300,000 in relocation expenses, including one for $93,000.
Our government recognizes that more can be done, and that is why our Prime Minister has asked the Treasury Board to revisit the relocation policy.
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, if I had any hair, with an answer like that, I would pull the rest of it out.
If I had known that a U-Haul was this expensive, I would have offered to take a load of stuff for Gerry in my Ford F-150.
The fact is that this is classical Liberal entitlement. The government keeps repeating that these were policies that have been in place for years. However, I can tell members that it is true that no government before the current government has ever abused this policy.
Will the Prime Minister come clean and admit that the million-dollar move was way out of line?
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism
Mr. Speaker, all members in this House have heard what I have to say. Yes, I repeated it several times so we can remember that the former prime minister Stephen Harper's office also approved $300,000 in relocation expenses, including one of $93,000 for a single individual.
More importantly, why do we not share what Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, had to say?
He said:
The federal relocation program—which applies to hundreds of moves annually, including moves by employees of government, military and RCMP—exists for a very good reason.
Our government is committed to reviewing the policy.
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Mr. Speaker, for days the Liberals have defended personalized cash payouts for the Prime Minister's best friends. On Friday, after being caught, they said the expenses were unreasonable because they had no justification or receipts. The Prime Minister's poor judgment allowed him to sign off on something his friends now call unreasonable.
Once again, what exactly are personalized cash payouts?
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism
Mr. Speaker, the policy that the member is referring to has existed since the 1970s. The previous government had no problem approving it. As recently as 2011, the previous government had no problem approving $300,000 in relocation expenses, including one for $93,000.
Let us go back to Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper. He asked, “Do we want a fair and independent determination based on consistent rules, or do we want [the member for Saskatoon—University] to impose his arbitrary and personal opinion on people—
Government ExpendituresOral Questions
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Liberal House leader only knows her approved talking points. Ironically, they were probably written by the staff to whom she forked over all of the money.
Approved personalized cash payouts for moving expenses must be accounted for. We have no answers.
Why do the Liberals only believe these expenses were unreasonable once caught?
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism
Mr. Speaker, the question definitely means a lot coming from the member reading her question.
I will remind members in the House that this policy has existed since the 1970s. I will remind members in the House that this government recognizes that this policy needs to be reviewed. That is why our Prime Minister has asked Treasury Board to review the relocation policy.
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a solemn promise to achieve reconciliation with indigenous people. However, the Minister of Justice continues to undermine that commitment. The proceedings against residential school survivors are piling up at her department and she is challenging a court decision that found that survivors suffered a perverse miscarriage of justice.
Can the minister tell us why she is breaking her government's promise to achieve reconciliation? Why is she continuing to fight in court against residential school survivors?
Carolyn Bennett LiberalMinister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the government promised to ensure that justice will be served to the victims of this dark chapter in Canadian history and that they will receive the compensation to which they are entitled.
We are very concerned about the possibility that some victims have been refused the compensation they are entitled to. I asked my department to look into how this situation can be rectified. Justice must be served.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Superior Court has ordered immediate compensation for a residential school survivor who suffered a “perverse” miscarriage of justice under the IAP. It was a brutal case. For what possible reason would the justice minister send her lawyers to try to have that case overthrown? The Prime Minister promised survivors that he would end these tactics.
Whether it is supporting Site C or fighting residential school survivors, will the Prime Minister tell the House why his justice minister is still using the discredited Stephen Harper playbook to impede indigenous rights in court?
Carolyn Bennett LiberalMinister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs
Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinarily important to us as a government that all of the people who may not have been able to win their case in court be able to have that reviewed. We have to look at it. I have instructed my department to look at it. We will make sure justice is done.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, today another member of the Prime Minister's cabinet had to stand in the House of Commons and admit that he personally signed off and submitted false information to parliamentarians. Once again this confession only came after the Liberals were caught. When it comes to transparency, the buck stops with the Prime Minister.
Parliamentarians on behalf of the Canadians they represent should not have to rely on access to information requests to uncover the truth.
Will the Prime Minister stand and apologize to Canadians for letting his cabinet hide information from them?
John McCallum LiberalMinister of Immigration
Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment to Canadians to be open and transparent.
These expenses were entered under proactive disclosure nine months ago, but it turns out they were entered under the wrong column. I realized this earlier today and just over an hour ago I recorded this point in the House of Commons. I will be resubmitting the answer to the Order Paper question as soon as possible.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health signed off on an official response to Parliament stating that she had not expensed any charges for limos, but we found out she actually charged thousands of dollars for that very thing.
The Minister of Natural Resources did the exact same thing. Now we have the immigration minister hiding moving expenses in an official response to Parliament.
Can the Prime Minister stand up and explain to Canadians, if his ministry is hiding all of these things, why Canadians should believe anything his government says?
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians know is that the previous government did not do the work it was elected to do. This government recognizes that these policies can be improved.
Members on this side of the House have recognized where improvements can be made, and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship stood in the House and corrected the record. It is something that the previous government would not know much of, but when it comes to correcting Order Paper questions, the previous government did it more than 10 times.
