House of Commons Hansard #235 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was young.

Topics

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Before we resume debate and the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, I will let her know that there is a bit less than two minutes left in the time remaining for private members' business this evening. She will have her remaining time when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap for this piece of legislation. As I listened to the debate tonight, I want to express how profoundly disappointed I am in the response from both the NDP and the Liberal members, who have indicated that they are not going to support this piece of legislation. When I first heard about what he was proposing, and I saw the bill tabled, having gone through the worst fire season in British Columbia, and having lived in the midst of it, I was very excited about what he was looking at doing. There are times in this House where we are very disappointed with what the other parties do and how they respond. Certainly, there is no question that this is one of those times.

We need to put this into a bit of perspective. I will focus predominantly on our volunteer fire departments, our first nations fire departments, who work their hearts out to support communities. They fundraise for their equipment. They train every weekend or one evening a week, then are called to go to very difficult circumstances and can arrive there and find out that someone has stolen their hose or played with their regulator and has put their life in danger.

Just as we recognize that sometimes when things happen in, for example, a church situation there are aggravating circumstances, I would suggest, and I hope I will be able to articulate this more, that this is another example of a very important aggravating situation, and I really wish those parties would reconsider their position.

I look forward to having eight minutes later.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo will have eight minutes remaining in her time when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Families, Children and Social DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I stand again in the House to talk about the deep need for Canadian women and families to have access to affordable, universal child care in our country. Something most other OECD countries have, Canada still does not.

This is the argument. Families need universal, affordable, accessible, publicly-funded child care to get women into the workforce. Universal child care would create jobs and the fiscal surplus generated would mean no net cost to taxpayers. Child care workers need better wages to ensure their own economic security and also to encourage their retention in the field.

Again and again, we hear the cost to families of unaffordable child care. Women tend to earn less than their male counterparts because there is no pay equity legislation in Canada. The government has still not legislated it.

When there is a lack of access to affordable child care, it tends to be the woman who drops out of the workforce to look after kids. When she returns to the workforce, she tends to only have available to her part-time, precarious work. Women throughout the world, and in Canada as well, have an unfair share of unpaid labour.

Not having access to unemployment insurance, or pension contributions or benefits because they are working part-time, means that many women end up behind, financially, and the lack of affordable child care is at the root of it. My sister and her husband had to leave Toronto because their child care costs were more than their rent. This is not sustainable for young families and it is not a good investment.

Last month, the OECD was in Ottawa investigating Canada's commitment to its feminist agenda and its gender lens on policies and programs. The OECD had observed previously about Canada that affordability and quality in child care overall was still an issue “forcing many women to drop out of the labour market or reduce their working hours during childrearing years. This affects women’s earnings levels: full-time employed women in Canada earn on average 19% less than men.”

On Friday, I was at a launch of the State of the Child report, which is done every couple of years in Nanaimo. It was the greater Nanaimo early years partnership, and I really applaud its work. It hosted all government agencies at all levels of government. The report found that children in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith were living in poverty. The children were between the ages of zero and five. This has increased to 24% of the population. It is a terrible number and reflects a lack of access to government services and employment support in our community.

There is good news on the horizon. The IMF said that the Liberals could afford to spend $8 billion a year on child care and the program would pay for itself. Why did the Liberals' 2016-17 budget not allocate money for new child care spaces? Increasing the Canada tax child benefit does not help if there are no places to spend that money.

Families, Children and Social DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

Saint-Jean Québec

Liberal

Jean Rioux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for raising the important issue of child care in Canada in this House.

Family is the most important thing in life. We want our children to be happy and to have everything they need for a good start in life.

Children are Canada's future. We need to do everything we can to help them reach their full potential.

Sadly, only one in four children in Canada has access to quality child care. For many families, the lack of affordable, high-quality child care leads to tough choices.

Some parents are forced to sacrifice their career because they cannot afford child care. Others work multiple jobs to make ends meet.

No one should have to make tough choices like these. Child care should be inclusive.

What are we doing about this? Our government recognizes that high quality child care in the early years of a child's life is crucial to social, emotional, and cognitive development.

Last year, in budget 2016, our government invested $500 million in early learning and child care, including $100 million in early learning and child care for indigenous children. That is only the beginning.

This year, in budget 2017, we are also proposing to invest another $7 billion over 10 years to support flexible, affordable, high-quality child care and create spaces across the country. We will get there.

On June 12, federal, provincial, and territorial governments agreed on the creation of a multilateral early learning and child care framework. This framework sets out a long-term vision to ensure that all children can experience an enriching environment of quality learning and early child care.

Since then, three other provinces have entered into bilateral agreements, and in the coming weeks and months, we will continue to work with our provincial and territorial partners.

A total of $1.2 billion will be allocated to address each jurisdiction's unique early learning and child care needs.

Together, we are going to develop action plans, monitor progress, and ensure that low- and middle-income families have improved access to child care.

What is more, we are in the process of developing a framework for early learning and child care with our indigenous partners, a framework that will reflect the unique cultural needs of first nations, Inuit, and Métis children across Canada.

We are working closely with the provinces and territories, stakeholders, and experts to improve data collection and the dissemination of key early learning and child care information.

We are investing $95 million to close data gaps in order to better understand what child care looks like in Canada and track progress.

We are also investing $100 million for innovation practices on early learning and child care so that we can find new ways of helping our children reach their full potential.

Together we will give every child in this country what they deserve: an equal opportunity to succeed.

Families, Children and Social DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, here is the difficulty. The government has announced that it is lifting 300,000 kids out of poverty but will not provide the numbers, so we cannot verify that number. It has increased the Canada child benefit. That is a nice thing, especially if it is paired with creating new child care spaces. Most western countries do this, but Canada, federally, still has not. The budget in 2016 and 2017 creates no new child care spaces.

Child care advocates, such as the Canadian Child Care Federation, say that the extra money in the Canada child benefit will help families pay the bills, but with no new child care spaces, there is nowhere to spend that money on child care. It does not make child care any cheaper.

Morna Ballantyne, of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, says, “All the evidence shows that cash payments to parents will not make child care services...more accessible and will not resolve the...crisis that is putting children, families and economic growth at risk”.

What will the government do to help families and working women now with affordable child care?

Families, Children and Social DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Rioux Liberal Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, all Canadian children are entitled to an equal opportunity to succeed, and we believe that quality early learning and child care services provide a solid foundation for their future success.

That is why the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour is working closely with the provinces and territories to offer early learning and child care systems that improve the lives of Canadian children and their families.

Three-year funding agreements with the provinces and territories have already been signed under the multilateral early learning and child care framework. By signing these agreements with the provinces and territories, we have taken historic measures to support Canadian families, with an emphasis on helping families who need child care the most.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, here it is, another night and again I am rising to address the issue of our fighter jet replacements here in Canada and how the Liberals have turned this whole fiasco into a circus.

I first raised the question we are dealing with tonight back on June 13. I was wondering about how the government was going to go out and sole-source 18 Super Hornets from Boeing when the government is in an argument with Boeing over the trade action it took against Bombardier.

We know it is very unlikely that the Liberal government is going to deal with Boeing now, and the minister has even called Boeing an untrusted partner.

Back in May I raised the question, and 13 former commanders of the Royal Canadian Air Force said that instead of buying Super Hornets, just a small fleet of Super Hornets, from Boeing, which may take years to actually procure, if there was a so-called capability gap that the defence minister had imagined, the best way to address that need to increase the fleet from 77 legacy CF-18 Hornets is to go out and buy legacy F-18 Hornets from other countries, such as Australia.

Back on May 29, the minister said:

Yes, there were options for buying old ones. No, we do not want to buy used equipment; we want to invest in new planes.

Lo and behold, the minister has actually gone and tasked members of the Royal Canadian Air Force and those in the government in charge of procurement to go and evaluate those used legacy Hornets, those F-18s that are down in Australia.

It is interesting to note that the Australian auditor general did a report on the legacy F-18 Hornets. Right now Australia plans to roll down those planes, and withdraw them from service in 2020, because they are buying new F-35s. If anyone is confused, the Australians had also bought 24 new Super Hornets. In 2010, Australia bought brand new Super Hornets, the F-18s, and are going to use them until 2025.

Our fighter jets, our legacy fleet of CF-18s, are only tasked to fly until 2025. Time is crunching down on us here. We are now looking at less than eight years—it is seven and a half years—to replace our entire fleet. Buying those Super Hornets is not possible.

The problem is that these legacy Hornets coming from Australia, that the auditor general has said would be retired in 2020, three years from now, have significant aged-aircraft issues, which are resulting in maintenance durations and costs becoming less predictable. All but nine of the aircraft have experienced structural fatigue above that expected for the airframe hours that have already been flown. That fatigue count is higher than that of even the legacy Hornets here in Canada and those in the U.S. navy.

Why would we want to buy these old, worn-out, stressed-out, beat-up legacy Hornets from Australia? Why does the government not get on with the fact that we need to have an open and fair competition right now to replace our CF-18s, and let everybody compete so we can get the new aircraft on time, in the best interests of our taxpayers, our aerospace industry, and the safety of our pilots?

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

8 p.m.

Saint-Jean Québec

Liberal

Jean Rioux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and for his interest in National Defence matters.

In the new defence policy released on June 7, the government reiterated its commitment to providing the Royal Canadian Air Force with the equipment it needs to conduct its operations.

The policy clearly states our intention to procure 88 next-generation fighter jets to replace the aging CF-18 fleet. We need 88 fighter jets, but we know that our air force currently does not have 88 fighter jets, which is why we need an interim fleet.

We will hold an open and transparent competition for the permanent replacement of the CF-18s.

A fleet of modern fighter jets is essential for defending Canada and North America and for contributing to international peace and stability. We agreed to acquire an interim fleet until a permanent replacement is in place to ensure that we have 88 fighter jets to help us meet our obligations.

We had serious discussions with the U.S. government for the purchase of 18 Super Hornet fighters from Boeing, as my colleague mentioned. However, our government strongly disagrees with the decision of the U.S. Department of Commerce to impose countervailing duties on Bombardier's C Series aircraft at Boeing's request.

Our government stands up for the interests of the Canadian aerospace industry and its workers.

Naturally, we have ended our relationship with Boeing, a company that has gone after our industry and wants to put thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Canadians out of work.

Our government will remain actively involved in the investigations taking place in the United States, including at the United States International Trade Commission, and we will defend the interests of Bombardier, the Canadian aerospace industry, and our aerospace workers.

I am sure my colleague opposite would agree that this is a very unfortunate situation. In the meantime, we are continuing our efforts to procure a fleet of 88 next-generation fighter jets.

We will launch an open and transparent competition for the permanent replacement for our fighter fleet during this term. The replacement fleet for the CF-18 fighter jets must be versatile, resilient, and interoperable with our allies and partners in Norad and NATO.

Preliminary consultations with potential suppliers are under way, and we hope to release the bid documentation within this term. We are not going to cut any corners in this process. We want to be sure to engage suppliers.

In the meantime, we are taking steps to ensure that Canada remains a reliable partner that our Norad and NATO allies can count on.

First, we are investing in our existing CF-18 fleet. We are going to make sure it continues to operate effectively and reliably until the new fighter fleet arrives.

Second, we are also exploring the acquisition of interim fighter aircraft to supplement our current fleet. Buying F-18s from the Royal Australian Air Force is one of the options on the table.

The actions we have taken will help us determine the best way to supplement the CF-18 fleet so that the Royal Canadian Air Force can fully meet our Norad and NATO obligations simultaneously until the new permanent fleet is fully operational.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence that experts are saying that the government is definitely on the wrong path and has been misleading Canadians on the capability gap.

As a matter of fact, there is an organization under National Defence called Defence Research and Development Canada. It is a research division of National Defence. It wrote, back in 2014, that there was no need to pursue a bridging option. It went on to say, “The costs involved with bridging options make them unsuitable for filling capability gaps in the short term. Any short term investment results in disproportionately high costs during the bridging period.”

Lieutenant-General Ken Pennie, former chief of the air staff, said back in the fall that this is a politically motivated decision and that he certainly would never recommend that.

Again, politics are completely obscuring the ability of the Royal Canadian Air Force to get the right plane at the right dollar and in the right amount of time, because we know that the current fleet of CF-18s can only fly until 2025. Going beyond that is really going to undermine the ability of Canada to be a trusted partner.

If the government was so concerned about fulfilling our obligations to NORAD, NATO, and our own national security, it would get on with an open and fair competition immediately.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

8:05 p.m.

Saint-Jean Québec

Liberal

Jean Rioux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new defence policy is a forward-looking plan that includes key investments in Canadian Armed Forces equipment.

We plan to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force's CF-18s with 88 advanced fighter aircraft. The competition to permanently replace the Royal Canadian Air Force fighter fleet will be open and transparent and will happen within this term.

We will continue to explore the purchase of fighter aircraft to enable the Royal Canadian Air Force to fully meet our Norad and NATO obligations simultaneously until the new permanent fleet is fully operational.

We are determined to make sure the Canadian Armed Forces are well equipped and well trained to keep us strong and secure at home and fully engaged in the world.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, again this evening and for the past several months, I have been asking the same question and I keep having to come back because I never get any real answers.

Obviously, we are talking about the Minister of Finance's ethics. When it comes to ethics, a number of things come to mind. For me, there are things that come to mind from way back when.

In the past, the Liberals had us used to a level of ethics that I would describe as questionable. They were on the opposition benches for 10 years and, unfortunately, they did not learn a single thing the whole time they were in the penalty box, as we say in hockey.

The Minister of Finance's mistakes keep piling up. His first mistake was to tell everyone here in the House, the media, and the people in his party that he had put his assets in a blind trust. We just found out today from the Auditor General that that was not true. The media had previously reported that as well.

When he was caught red-handed after countless questions from all the opposition parties, it was easy to see that he realized that he was caught. That is when he went to see the Ethics Commissioner. He paid a ridiculous amount for getting caught.

Members opposite are still trying to get us to believe their story, which I find deplorable. It is far less serious to admit one's mistakes than to keep saying that they did the right thing even after that turned out to be completely false.

The Auditor General told us so today. The media exposed it. The Minister of Finance paid a fine, so it would seem that his ethics remain questionable and are increasingly being called into question. I find that unfortunate because it is the first time in Canada's history that a prime minister and his finance minister are both under investigation.

What is it going to take for members of the Liberal Party to acknowledge their mistakes? Are they really waiting for those of us on this side of the House to get fed up and ask for an inquiry?

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

8:10 p.m.

Louis-Hébert Québec

Liberal

Joël Lightbound LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague; I hold her in high esteem and very much enjoy working with her even though we are on opposite sides of the House.

She is right when she says that the question she has asked today has been asked many times in the House. I have answered it many times during question period, so she will not be surprised if my answer is no different than the 15 other answers I gave them this afternoon.

The Minister of Finance arrived in Ottawa after leaving the private sector to serve the public, at great cost and sacrifice to his family. When the opposition makes assumptions and false allegations, it does nothing to encourage people to leave the private sector to serve the public as the minister did. Incidentally, the minister has served Canadians by achieving remarkable results for the Canadian economy. We have the best economic growth in the G7, half a million jobs have been created since we took office, and the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in 12 years. The previous government had the worst record for job creation and economic growth since the Second World War.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

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

That is completely untrue.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is true. I invite the member to look at the numbers, which speak for themselves.

With regard to her question, when the Minister of Finance arrived in Ottawa, he did what is expected of all ministers, all parliamentary secretaries, and all members. He went to see an independent and impartial institution, the Ethics Commissioner. He presented his situation to her and followed her recommendations. The Ethics Commissioner has been very clear about that. She recommended that he put in place a conflict of interest screen. That measure was good enough for the member's former colleague, Denis Lebel, and for the member for Milton. The minister put that screen in place from the get-go, and it is still in place today. The Ethics Commissioner herself said that this was the best measure of compliance to ensure that the minister followed the rules that govern us here in the House, and that is what he did.

The member talked about blind trusts and the $200 fine in the same breath without explaining what really happened. What everyone needs to know is that the minister has always declared all of his assets to the Ethics Commissioner. That includes the property in France to which the member referred that led to the $200 fine. Because of an administrative error, the corporation that owned the property was not properly declared. The property itself was known to the Ethics Commissioner, along with all the rest of the minister's assets, because he did what we are all expected to do, which is work transparently with the commissioner.

It is also worth pointing out that, to avoid further distraction, the minister announced that he would place all of his assets in a blind trust and divest all of his shares in Morneau Shepell, which he did. He even said he would give any profit on those shares since the election to charities in the Toronto region. That is what the minister did and, I should point out, that is what he has been doing for years, because he and his family are leading philanthropists. That is what he did to avoid distraction and concentrate on the work he is doing for the Canadian economy and Canadians. His two-year record is much better than that of the previous government, which did a poor job of managing the economy for 10 years.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, we are talking about ethics. We are talking about the Minister of Finance's ethics. Frankly, I could not care less what the Liberals have done for the middle class because that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the Minister of Finance's ethics.

To go a bit further, let us not forget that we are no longer in power. It is the Liberals who are in power, and they are the ones who have to be squeaky clean. When they were sitting on this side of the House, they were the ones who made ministers lose their jobs over a matter of $16. We have yet to make any allegations. We have questioned the Minister of Finance many times about his ethics, but no one here has made any allegations against him whatsoever.

If the hon. member wants to get into what it means to make allegations, let us talk about it. There were allegations in the context of the Gomery commission. That is not what we are talking about, but if he wants to take this further, that is where we will take this. If the Liberals want to wait for the opposition MPs to get sick of nonsense answers and start calling for an inquiry, I will be the first to call for one.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, whom I hold in great esteem, I did not even talk about the middle class in my previous four-minute answer. I talked about the Minister of Finance's economic record and about the Ethics Commissioner, who is tasked with protecting the integrity of Parliament. We respect this wholly impartial and independent institution.

The Minister of Finance has been working with the Ethics Commissioner since he first came to Ottawa, and he will continue to do so as long as he is a member of Parliament, just like all other members. Determinations are to be made by the commissioner, not by the opposition or government. It is up to the commissioner to make sure every member follows the best course and meets the highest standards of integrity.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

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 8:17 p.m.)