Debates of Oct. 24th, 2017

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give the member an A+ for assistance, but an F when it comes to what is important to Canadians.

At the end of the day, the Minister of Finance has done the right thing. The 338 members of the House are all obligated to go to the commissioner of ethics, just like Minister of Finance. I have some breaking news for the member. The commissioner's office will look at what all of us are doing and will provide recommendations and advice to each and every one of us on our personal affairs and on what we need to do to be compliant with the act. It is no different than the Minister of Finance. For Liberal, NDP, and Conservative members, letters of concern are addressed to all political parties.

What really gets me, and I have said this before, is that the Conservatives and the NDP are so closely knit on this issue. They have this sense that because things are going so well with respect to the Government of Canada and with so many initiatives, every chance they get, they want to criticize the Minister of Finance, today included.

The Minister of Finance delivered great news for Canadians. He talked about the cut in the small business tax, from 11% to 9.5%. This will generate and create more good, solid, middle-class jobs. However, the Conservatives and NDP together say that this is bad.

We talked about an enhancement. Look at how many children we have lifted out of poverty in 18 months. We are talking about tens of thousands of children in every region of Canada. The Minister of Finance announced that this was not good enough, that we could do better. This government is committed to doing better going forward.

The NDP and the Conservatives want to focus their attention on the Minister of Finance and his personal finances. He is doing what he is obligated to do, just like the member across the way, which is to listen to what the commissioner has to say and to act accordingly. In fact, last week, the Minister of Finance said he would go even further by putting certain things into a blind trust and divesting himself of some shares. This is not required of him. The commissioner did not say that he had to do this. The commissioner did not go to other members and say that they had to do this. He is in full compliance.

As opposed to trying to assassinate the character of the Minister of Finance, by recognizing what he has done in contributing to the well-being of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, I think we would see a much more productive opposition. When hundreds of billions of dollars are spent, members will find many areas to look at. There are many suggestions the opposition parties can look at and maybe they can even generate some ideas of their own. We are not afraid of accepting good ideas. If members have something of value to contribute, by all means, present it.

However, the Minister of Finance is following the commissioner's advice. To try to give the impression that he is in conflict and has not followed the laws is a false impression.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell my colleague that his timing is perfect, because I am really not in a good mood today. When I listen to him, it really makes me angry. We are not here to be told what they did for the middle class or for children, as he claims. We are here to talk about the integrity of the Minister of Finance.

When one carries the finance portfolio and manages millions of dollars that belong to Canadians, the very least one can do is make sure to avoid any conflict of interest. One needs to use common sense. We realized what was going on on this side of the House, as did the media, but unfortunately the Minister of Finance no longer wants to answer them—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we know is that the Minister of Finance is in complete compliance with the Ethics Commissioner. My suggestion to Canadians, the media, members opposite, or anyone else who is following this is to understand that we have the independent office of the commissioner. It is independent. Contrast that to what the Conservatives and the New Democrats are saying, and it is night and day. We have the independent officer saying that the Minister of Finance is in compliance, and we have the members of the opposition, who have nothing good to say about the Minister of Finance and never have, saying that they do not like this about the Minister of Finance.

At the end of the day, if they have concerns, they should raise them with the commissioner and wait until the commissioner comes down and provides a report. The minister himself said that he will have a meeting with the commissioner and that he will look for any other advice or recommendations that Mary Dawson—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

Foreign Affairs

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I come before the House tonight with a weighty issue. The question I originally asked was some months ago, and it related to the fact that the government bought Broadway tickets for a representative of the corrupt government of Maduro in Venezuela. That was wrong, but I want to get to the heart of the matter. What is the Liberal government going to do to help the people of Venezuela? What material action is the government going to take?

Why is this important? I have a large Venezuelan community in my riding and in the broader community of Calgary. It is very vibrant. There was just a Venezuelan Cultural Day celebration. My friend, Miguel Arturo, is a proud member of that community. What gets to my heart is that when I talk to him and members of his community, as much as they are proud of their heritage, they are panicked. They are beside themselves because of what is happening in their country.

What is happening in Venezuela right now should light the world on fire. We should not be looking at this as a partisan issue. What this corrupt dictator has done to that country should be a concern to all Canadians who believe in democracy, the rights of parliamentarians, and human rights in general. Economic collapse aside, the reality is that parliamentarians are being violently harassed. The parliament now is illegitimate.

My friend told me that there were regional elections for the governor of each of the states on October 15. The elections were held without supervision or audits, and anyone who might have been elected from an opposition party basically had to swear fealty or be approved by the illegitimate parliament.

I was at the Inter-Parliamentary Union meetings that took place last week. It was astounding to watch what happened to the woman from Venezuela who brought forward a motion for an emergency debate on this crisis, in a multilateral situation. I am speculating, but I think she was harassed into removing that resolution from the floor.

If Canada is going to have a place in the world, we have to respond to Venezuela, and I would like the government to do this. I would like the government to stand up at the United Nations and ask it to appoint a humanitarian aid coordinator. It is a sort of back-door, easy way of getting the United Nations to acknowledge that there is a humanitarian crisis. It would also acknowledge the fact that aid organizations cannot deliver aid to Venezuela right now. Any aid shipments are either being turned away or expropriated and distributed to people who are loyal to the government.

We have to realize that this is not just a quasi-crisis. There is no food in Venezuela. There are no human rights. People who are any sort of political dissident are being rounded up. This is happening in a country that was once economically viable and that was once marginally peaceful. It is in our backyard.

There is a huge community of Venezuelans in Canada who expect us to put our money where our mouths are as legislators.When we stand up and say that Canadians or Canadian legislators support human rights, it is not about nice words. We have to take action. My plea to the parliamentary secretary, who is a reasonable human being, is to show the Venezuelan community what the government is going to do as a tangible action to support them.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will know well that this government stands up for human rights, the rule of law, and constitutional order around the world. That informs all of our multilateral efforts, and that is the case when it comes to Venezuela as well. In fact, Canada has been a leading voice denouncing the deteriorating economic and political situation in Venezuela.

In addition to bilateral actions, Canada is working with hemispheric partners who are keen to do whatever they can to help resolve the suffering of the Venezuelan people. This is the Lima Group, which will meet for the third time later this week in Toronto, hosted by our Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is a body that is coordinating support for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela.

Just let me reiterate. We have been strongly and repeatedly raising our concerns to the Government of Venezuela and its ongoing campaign of political repression, including politically motivated imprisonment and house arrests of political opposition members.

We are committed to working with those hemispheric partners that I just referenced, to pressure the Maduro government into meaningful and effective negotiations with the opposition, and we will continue to stand in solidarity with the Venezuelan people as they struggle to restore democracy.

We know that this has been an issue and that Canada is leading with like-minded partners to help resolve that and put the focus on restoring constitutional order, democracy, and respect for human rights back to Venezuela.

We have taken a multi-pronged approach to our engagement. We feel that is most important in helping to address what we know is a deteriorating situation.

Again, we have actively participated and led in all three Lima Group meetings, the first of which was on August 8, the second on September 20, and the third being prepared to take place this Thursday in Toronto.

We have been vocal in a number of different declarations that have come out of the Lima Group, including a declaration on the situation in Venezuela, the statement by the Lima Group on the takeover of the functional competencies of the Venezuela national assembly, and the declaration of the second meeting of the Lima Group on the situation in Venezuela.

In addition to our forceful work within that group and through other multilateral channels, our actions under our sanctions measures in Canada have been a priority for us in our ability to promote and defend democracy and human rights, which as I mentioned, are central to our international foundation.

We imposed sanctions on 40 top Venezuelan officials in September, including President Maduro himself, again under the Special Economic Measures Act. Those sanctions impose prohibitions on dealings in property, and they freeze the assets of those listed persons.

Our minister has been intimately engaged with this file. She has hosted a group of like-minded meetings in May in Washington and attended the OAS general assembly in Mexico in June, which is where she called for a return of democratic order. In September at the UN General Assembly, the minister hosted a meeting of CARICOM foreign ministers to rally support for our view of how to resolve the situation in Venezuela. In October, she spoke with Spain's minister of foreign affairs on how Spain could engage. She has had conversations with the U.S. Secretary of State.

It goes without saying that the Government of Canada and Canadians are deeply concerned with this deteriorating situation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the confines of multilateralism, and I understand that the government is raising the issue in multilateral formats, but to be honest, the people of Venezuela and the people of Venezuela who are in Canada right now expect us to do more than just provide decorations and statements. That is great, but we need to advocate for concrete action.

I am wondering if my colleague would commit to at least taking the suggestion back to his minister, both for the Lima Group meetings and also for a position that could be taken to the UN, to at least look at Canada advocating for the United Nations to appoint a humanitarian aid coordinator specifically for Venezuela. This would acknowledge the fact that there is a humanitarian situation in Venezuela but would also hopefully help coordinate the efforts of NGOs that are trying to deliver aid in the region and get food and supplies to the people of Venezuela who are suffering.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague raises that point. Tomorrow I will have an opportunity to host a round table with a dozen or so NGOs, academics, and other people who are engaged in the situation in Venezuela, and ask for their advice on how Canada can continue to engage and play a leadership role on this file.

Again, I will reiterate that Canada has provided humanitarian support. We are engaged with our peace and stabilization operations program in the region. We are leading through the Lima Group. We have placed sanctions on 40 members of the Venezuelan regime, and we continue to stand up for human rights, the rule of law, democracy, and the return to constitutional order in Venezuela. Canadians and Venezuelans in Canada can count on our continued leadership.

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to follow up on a question I asked of the Minister of Natural Resources back in May. I asked him about the review process he had set up for the National Energy Board, which has come up with some very offensive recommendations, quite frankly, including basically alleging that Calgarians and the people of Alberta are unable to operate ethically as National Energy Board members and that the board's functions should be moved to Ottawa closer to politicians and lobbyists.

I am grateful that as a result of the work of the official opposition and others, it has backed down from that recommendation. However, the question I asked in May was why the Liberals were making it harder for job-creating energy projects to proceed. Since May, we have seen several major multi-billion dollar projects not proceed in Canada, in part because of the red tape and interference in those projects by the Liberal government.

When looking at the investments necessary to create an LNG processing facility, to create a pipeline that crosses multiple provinces to deliver Canadians oil to Canadian refineries, investors need certainty before they are willing to spend tens of billions of dollars to proceed with their investments.

The government has sent signals to these international investors and Canadian investors in energy projects that these are not secure investments. When it rejected the northern gateway pipeline, what message did that send? It signalled that even if one can get a project through the National Energy Board process, even if one can get a permit from the government, even if one can get cabinet approval for a project with 209 binding conditions, a change in government can mean that a multi-year process is upended with the snap of a finger. If the political whims of the Prime Minister are such that he is opposed to a pipeline going through a forest he is fond of, that project can be cancelled, even if three-quarters of a billion dollars has been spent getting it to approval.

What message does it send if the rules are changed in the middle of the application process, or the goal posts are continually moved as they were with energy east? We saw a process that was restarted, with a new board being appointed. We saw the rules change, with the National Energy Board being forced to examine the upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions of the product that would flow through the pipeline, something that has never been done before in Canadian history and is certainly not required of the foreign tankers coming into Canadian ports, whether in New Brunswick, Quebec, or even Vancouver.

The Liberals changed the rules of the game, and that is bad for investment and competitiveness. What we lost was a $55 billion increase in our GDP. We lost 15,000 construction jobs when energy east was killed.

I know that from the parliamentary secretary's prepared notes, she will talk about the Trans Mountain pipeline, and that is great. That was approved using the Harper government's process, with the same 157 conditions that were imposed by the Harper government. The Liberals layered on another ministerial process onto that, which did not change a single recommendation and did not really do anything except add to the cost. That is what the government has done.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Chilliwack—Hope's question is both timely and important. Unfortunately, it is also very uninformed.

When the member first raised this issue in the House last spring, theMinister of Natural Resources hoped that all sides could at least agree that the National Energy Board we inherited was not perfect. He hoped the member opposite could see how significant reforms could benefit Canada's energy sector, with greater predictability and clearer timelines for the proponents and investors of major energy projects. The minister reminded the member opposite that our new approach for reviewing major resource projects already in the queue was delivering results.

However, it seems the member opposite has chosen to ignore all of that, to ignore the resource projects we have approved and to ignore the thousands of good, middle-class paying jobs these projects represent.

I will talk about those projects, projects like the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline that will create 15,340 jobs and open new markets overseas; the Line 3 replacement pipeline that will create 7,000 jobs and allow more Canadian oil to reach markets in the United States; the Woodfibre LNG facility; the Towerbirch expansion pipeline; the Côté gold mine, the Black Point Quarry, and Sisson mine. How have we done all this? We have done it by engaging meaningfully with indigenous communities, listening carefully to Canadians, and restoring public confidence in our environmental and regulatory processes.

Our goal is to ensure the conditions that will allow us to get Canadian resources to market sustainably, create good, long-term jobs in the energy sector, and maintain Canada's energy security in tomorrow's low-carbon economy.

We saw a great example of that earlier this month when the Minister of Natural Resources capped a six-month national conversation by Canadians by hosting the generation energy forum in his home city of Winnipeg. The forum attracted more than 600 top experts, industry representatives, and indigenous and community leaders from across the country and around the globe. It built on the input from more than 350,000 Canadians who had participated online in the generation energy virtual conversation, the single largest public engagement ever undertaken by Natural Resources Canada and one of the largest in Canadian government history.

The very sad part is that not one of the members of the Conservative Party came. Not one member of the Conservative Party was interested in having a conversation with Canadians about Canada's energy future. It was very disappointing.

The message is clear. Canadians are engaged in our energy future. They value innovation and they are optimistic about our country's ability to be a global leader in the energy transition to a clean growth century.

Our government is laying the foundation for long-term sustainable jobs and a cleaner, brighter future than anyone might have possibly imagined.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member did not have any interest in addressing the competitiveness concerns I raised.

When energy east was killed by government regulation, Denis Coderre, a former Liberal minister and the Liberal mayor of Montreal, celebrated. He took credit for it and said that this was a great day for Canada, which he had helped bring about. Not a single Liberal stood to counter that. I want to give her the opportunity right now to condemn the remarks of Denis Coderre, who celebrated the death of 15,000 energy jobs and tens of thousands more in the energy sector.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the global energy markets are rapidly changing. The energy transition is already under way and the energy mix will change. However, the pace and scope are uncertain, so long-term, predictable, inclusive policy direction will be critical. That was an indisputable take-away from generation energy earlier this month. It is also an approach we have set into motion with an open, transparent, and inclusive new way to review projects, which is yielding thousands of good, new jobs.

Our government's efforts have launched Canada on its way to a stronger economy, which we heard earlier today from the Minister of Finance, with healthier communities, and a more sustainable future for generations to come.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.)