Debates of Sept. 30th, 2016

Softwood Lumber

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

Madam Speaker, I would like the negotiators to be constantly working on this.

More than 400,000 jobs in Canada will be at risk if the agreement is not signed by October 12. More than 135 Quebec municipalities are relying on this agreement for some breathing room. We know that Quebec issues are of no interest to the Prime Minister. Fortunately, this agreement is something that concerns the entire country.

When will the government finally take responsibility and be respectful of Canadian workers, who definitely do not want to be unemployed in two weeks?

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

Madam Speaker, we are working very hard on this file. The minister just went to Saguenay to speak with industry representatives and the workers.

Listen to what others have to say about our work. The Conseil du patronat du Québec noted “the efforts of the Minister of International Trade...on behalf of Quebec's forestry industry.” The Quebec Forest Industry Council says it is pleased with our position on Quebec's forestry regime. The positions of Quebec's industry and workers are reflected—“

Natural Resources

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Pacific NorthWest LNG project is a $36-billion investment that would create thousands of well-paying jobs and allow Canada to export clean energy to the world.

Today Canadians see the news that the project's proponent is considering selling. In the spring, we warned the Liberals that delaying the rigorous assessment process longer would put the project at risk. While the Liberals held up the approval process, did they know the project's investors were considering getting out?

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

Madam Speaker, unlike the party opposite, we understand that the only way resources will get to market in the 21st century is if we can get a balance between the environment and the economy.

We did a review. We spent the time necessary. We have conditions that are reasonable. I can quote from many different people who acknowledge that these are conditions that are normal with any project. They are conditions that are responsible. Really, it is up to the proponent to decide, and right now the issue is low commodity prices.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, time is of the essence for LNG, but the Liberals added barriers to the process at the worst possible time. The Pacific NorthWest LNG project is supported by the vast majority of local first nations, the City of Fort St. John, the BC Chamber of Commerce, and the Government of B.C. It is important to all of Canada. Approval is one thing; getting it built is another.

Are the Liberals working with the proponents to ensure that none of the conditions are permanent roadblocks so the project can get started and Canadians can get back to work?

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

Madam Speaker, we believe in rigorous environmental assessments, and we believe that what we have done has paved the way for the project to go ahead in a sustainable way. Once again, it is up to the proponents to determine if the economic conditions are there to go ahead.

I can read from a number of different people, including the CEO of the Business Council of British Columbia:

This decision paves the way for Canada to compete in the international LNG market while continuing our climate leadership on a global scale.

Health

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, when the Liberals took office, they said that the one-way conversations with the provinces were over. However, from what we have been hearing about the health transfer negotiations, it seems nothing has really changed.

The Quebec health minister thinks that the federal government's approach is a trap. Isn't that the truth. The Liberals are trying to sugar-coat it, but they are offering the provinces the same $36-billion cut to federal health transfers that the Conservatives before them were offering.

Can the minister explain the difference between the Conservatives' health care cuts and the Liberals'?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, the difference is that our government is working hard with the provinces and territories. We are having excellent discussions with my counterparts across the country. Yesterday, I spoke to the Quebec and Ontario health ministers. We will continue to work together.

I would like to remind members that the Canada health transfer is going to increase by over $1 billion next year, bringing it up to more than $37 billion.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health called her cut to the health care escalator reasonable.

The Liberals used different adjectives when this cut was first announced by Stephen Harper. The member for Vancouver Centre, who was the Liberal health critic, said it was walking away from medicare. The member for Toronto—St. Paul's, now a Liberal cabinet minister, said it would leave Canadians “out in the cold”. The member for Ottawa South called the Conservatives' approach “unconscionable and indefensible”.

How does the minister explain to Canadians this blatant, undeniable reversal?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, this is a government that is interested in collaborating with all of our partners across the country. I will remind the member opposite to clarify something that he said yesterday. He talked about health care spending increasing. In fact, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, across this country annual health care spending has declined by an average of 0.6% since 2011. That is in the context of the Canadian health transfer increasing by 6%.

We are going to increase it next year. There will be more than $1 billion extra added to the Canada health transfer. In addition to that, there will be new investments in the areas important to Canadians.

Ethics

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

Madam Speaker, last fall, the minister disclosed that he had a personal relationship with the Irvings. The Ethics Commissioner has banned him from any dealings with the Irvings. Apparently he does not think it applies to cocktails with Irving lawyers and lobbyists. Given that the minister is in charge of all litigation involving the government, could the minister tell us how many ongoing cases the federal government has with Irving or with Cox & Palmer?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, Canadians expect our ministers and MPs to adhere to very high ethical standards.

I therefore invite all opposition members to familiarize themselves with the document tabled in the House today. It clearly indicates that the minister's participation in the event is not a problem. The minister took it upon himself to seek the Ethics Commissioner's advice about the invitation. As everyone can see, her answer was very clear: the minister's attendance at the event is not a problem.

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

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard recently stated, “law firms are not able to confirm whether any person or company is a client, as such matters are confidential”.

An easy Google search revealed that Cox & Palmer represents the Irvings. When did the minister request a ruling from the Ethics Commissioner, and at that time, did he disclose that Cox & Palmer represents the Irvings?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, once again, I would invite the opposition members to consult the document that was tabled in the House, which states very clearly that the minister can attend the event.

This is an annual event organized by a law firm during which guests can meet with members of Toronto's business community. The minister has absolutely no access to the client lists of Canadian law firms, which they cannot legally disclose.

Once again, the minister got the Ethics Commissioner's permission to attend the event.

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

Madam Speaker, moments ago the Liberal House leader tabled only one email of a string of several between the Minister of Fisheries and the Ethics Commissioner concerning his attendance at a law firm representing the Irvings. When will the Liberals table all emails and all documents between the minister and the commissioner? When will they tell the House the truth, and what is the minister hiding?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, once again, I would invite the opposition members to consult the document that was tabled in the House, in which the Ethics Commissioner states very clearly that the minister's participation in the event is perfectly acceptable.

I wonder if the members opposite are calling into question the work and ethics of the Ethics Commissioner, who gave the minister permission to participate in the event.

The minister will continue to participate in events where he can promote the interests of Atlantic Canada and the rest of the country.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries confirmed that he will be the guest of honour at a cocktail party organized by the law firm that represents the Irving family.

Yes, the minister checked with the Ethics Commissioner, and the media is reporting that the minister provided some information. However, did he provide all the information? For instance, did he indicate that the law firm hosting the event represents the Irving family? We do not in any way question the work of the Ethics Commissioner, but we do wonder about what the minister told the Ethics Commissioner.

Did the minister indicate that the event is being hosted by the law firm that represents the Irvings?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, I will repeat myself, because this is important. The minister got the green light from the Ethics Commissioner to attend this event.

They want to talk about it, let us talk about it. The interim Conservative leader charged taxpayers nearly $10,000 to stay in Ottawa while she was living in an official residence, also paid for by the public, according to records from the House of Commons. If they have a letter or document stating this, I would love to see it.

The Environment

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Environment told CBC that she approved the Pacific NorthWest LNG project because measures will be taken to protect salmon spawning areas. The trouble is, these salmon do not spawn at the mouth of the river. What is actually threatened are juvenile salmon in what DFO has called one of the largest and most diverse wild salmon watersheds in the world.

How can Canadians have confidence that the minister's measures will actually protect the environment and our salmon when she does not even know where salmon spawn?

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

Madam Speaker, our government makes decisions based on science and evidence, and we rely on our experts across government, who have been working on this file for the past three years. I apologize if I misspoke, but the reality is we rely on our expert public servants who are scientists to make decisions, and the 190 responsible conditions were based on that science.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, if the environment minister were standing up for the environment instead of paving the way for development, we would all feel better.

On Wednesday, the Union of BC Municipalities passed two resolutions calling on the government to deal with an improved oil spill response in the marine environment, but the Liberals seem to be in favour of tanker increases that will further threaten those coasts. We have a continued legacy of serious gaps in our oil spill response capacity. Local governments are alarmed. Our local coastal environment and economy are at risk.

I want to know what the government will do.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, Canada is very much focused on improving marine safety in our country. In fact, it was part of my mandate letter. I have been working with my colleagues from fisheries, from the environment, and from other portfolios to make sure that we in Canada will not only have proper marine safety measures put in place but that we will improve our capability to respond to spills on all of our three coasts.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, the UN Civil Aviation Organization, the UN agency responsible for aviation, has its head office in Montreal, a source of pride to all Montrealers.

Montreal is also hosting that organization's 39th triennial assembly, which began on September 27.

Can the Minister of Transport tell us about some of the discussions taking place at the assembly regarding greenhouse gas emissions and the role our government is playing on this critical issue?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mount Royal for his question.

The Government of Canada is proposing concrete measures to reduce or limit greenhouse gas emissions in the international aviation sector. We are proud of our role. I was actually there for the opening of the ICAO assembly, where I gave a speech and met with my international counterparts. We believe it is extremely important for all 191 countries to reach an agreement to limit greenhouse gases, and Canada has an important role to play.

Health

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, almost one year ago Ottawa's regional minister slammed on the brakes on plans for a new Civic Hospital in her own riding, because, we were told, hospital construction would interfere with valuable climate change research. Yet a report posted on the environment commissioner's website confirms that all the research happening on the land will be done at least five years before shovels even go in the ground for the new hospital.

Did the member of Parliament for the area and the environment minister read this information before she decided to block the construction of a hospital in her own riding for at least a year?