Debates of March 20th, 2017

Financial Institutions

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

0Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve strong financial consumer protections that meet their needs. Our government expects that all financial institutions adhere to the highest standards when it comes to their consumer protection obligations.

The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada is launching an industry review of the matter of all sales of banks' practices. I have full confidence that the review will be thorough and that the agency will use all tools at its disposal to investigate and to address any non-compliance with the law.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the evidence and the stories keep piling up; something is indeed rotten in the state of Canada's banks.

High-pressure sales, toxic financial products, lack of consent, no disclosure, and even lies: that is how our banks are treating us, as household debt rises to a peak. Shareholders rule and to hell with the customers!

Is the Liberal government going to respond? Is the Liberal government going to support the NDP motion asking for a parliamentary inquiry on the questionable practices of Canadian banks?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to my colleague for his question.

Canadians deserve the strongest consumer protection legislation and fiscal plans. Our government expects all financial institutions to conform to the highest standards. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada is launching an investigation into the banks' sales practices. I have complete confidence that the agency will use its tools to deal with the situation.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are scheming to dramatically change the rules of the House to serve their own partisan interests. They want to shut the place down on Fridays, taking a day off at the same time as thousands of Canadian workers have been laid off. The Prime Minister only wants to have to show up here once a week for question period. These changes will diminish Parliament and greatly reduce government accountability.

Will the Liberals respect parliamentary precedent and only proceed with those changes that all parties will agree to, or will they ram through these changes to rig the system in their favour?

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

Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes the important work that the members of Parliament do in the House and in their constituencies. As the member of Parliament for the riding of Waterloo, I can assure all members that when I return to the riding, I continue working hard for my constituents. I cannot speak for the member opposite, but I am sure that most members would be doing the same thing, and I would encourage that to be the case.

We have released a discussion paper, a discussion, a conversation, to ask the committee to actually broaden the scope of the study to consider modernizing this place, as we committed to Canadians.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful to cast doubt upon my colleague's work.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has, on the sly, released a document containing proposals for modernizing the work of the House. Shortly thereafter, a notice of motion along the same lines was introduced at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Can the chair of the committee, the hon. member for Yukon, inform us when that study will take place? Can he assure us that the committee meetings will not be held in camera? Will he abide by the Prime Minister's notions of transparency and sunny ways?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the committee is the master of its own destiny. It has a subcommittee that decides the procedure and the timing. The member knows what is in the motion on the timing for improving the operation of the House, and it will be up to the committee to decide how it arranges the meetings to do that.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a long-standing practice that no major changes to the Standing Orders be adopted without the consent of all parties. To pick one example among many, the Chrétien government established a special committee on House of Commons procedures. That committee produced six unanimous reports over its two-year lifetime. Therefore, can the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tell the House, will his committee accept the principle of unanimity with respect to changes to the Standing Orders?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the committee, as I said before, is in charge of its own procedures, in charge of its own precedents, in charge of its own way of dealing with different motions. The committee will decide that and proceed in that manner.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, less than two hours after the proposals and Standing Orders were made public, a Liberal MP put forward a motion to, one, force the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to treat the proposals as a single omnibus measure, and two, impose draconian deadlines in reporting back to the House, in other words, to impose closure.

It appears the Liberals are trying to ram through this motion at a secret in camera meeting planned for 11 a.m. tomorrow. My question is for the chair of the committee. Will the closure motion be scheduled for discussion at tomorrow's meeting, and will that meeting be held in camera or in public?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. If members want to hear the answer, they ought to listen, or perhaps we will go on to the next question.

Let us hear the answer then. The hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member is very experienced in committee operations and he knows that the committee itself makes those decisions.

Indigenous Affairs

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls was launched last year. However, I believe that actions speak louder than words. To date, the commissioners have not even met with the families of the missing and murdered women. Today we learned that the commission has the names of only 90 participants. Why?

Why has the process not been announced yet? Why do the victims' families have to find the information themselves? The minister must ensure that all victims' families will be heard.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, our government is absolutely determined to address this national tragedy. We have provided the commission with many resources, including a database that contains hundreds of names.

We are also actively working with the commission to ensure that it has the necessary tools to contact these people and organizations.

Our government will continue to provide information and advice to the commission with respect to its current commitments—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

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

Mr. Speaker, the families of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls want justice, but they also want to be heard. Shockingly, the inquiry commission only lists 90 victims, and the government is refusing to provide additional names. The Native Women's Association of Canada has identified 4,000 victims, and we know that might be only the tip of the iceberg. With hearings scheduled in just eight weeks, is the government blocking information to the inquiry? Why is it not doing everything in its power so that all families can be heard?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, we are absolutely not blocking anything. We will be doing everything in our power to get it the information. The Native Women's Association, the AFN, ITK, and all of the organizations, are working in close collaboration with the commission, and the families will be heard.

Infrastructure

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the start of 2017 our government has announced many drinking water and wastewater treatment projects.

As a result of the bilateral agreement signed with Quebec last summer, I have announced 12 different projects in 10 municipalities in the Lower St. Lawrence worth more than $20 million.

Can the Minister of Infrastructure provide us with details of the program?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my hon. colleagues from the province of Quebec for their hard work in advocating for infrastructure projects for their communities. Over the last month, we have announced 89 clean water and waste water projects worth over $390 million in combined investment funding in four regions across Quebec. These projects will ensure that Quebec residents have access to a clean and reliable water source. We look forward to sharing similar good news with other regions of Quebec very soon.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

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

Mr. Speaker, we now know just how disastrous the Liberals' decision to cave to pressure from their corporate friends and lift the Mexican visa requirement actually was. Last month saw a 2500% increase in refugee claims from Mexico. The cost to taxpayers of false refugee claims from Mexico was why our Conservative government implemented the visa requirement in the first place. With so many people out of work, when will the Liberals reinstate the visa requirement?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it is very rich for that member, that government, and that previous party to bring up the Mexico visa lift. They considerably damaged our relationship with Mexico, which we are responsibly rebuilding and strengthening. The Mexican visa lift will lead to lasting economic benefits for Canada, with more tourists and more legitimate travellers. We have already seen that impact, with triple the number of legitimate travellers into Canada. This will continue to create economic benefits for our country. We will work closely with Mexican officials to address any risks to this issue, and we will ensure its success.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government responsibly prevented taxpayers from paying a quarter of a billion dollars in false refugee claims. Therefore, with taxpayers on the hook for this giant increase in refugee claims and a flood of illegal migrants at the American border, the public safety minister's response last week was, “maybe we should line up the RCMP at the border, they should all link arms and shoo people away, or maybe [use] fire hoses or whatever..”. I am serious. When are the Liberals going to stop treating this like a joke?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite and the party opposite are against a threefold increase in legitimate Mexican travellers to Canada, then they are welcome to express that sentiment.

We are working very hard to strengthen and continue to expand on the strong bilateral relationship with Mexico, which was damaged considerably by the party opposite when it was in government. We have mechanisms in place, and we are working very closely with Mexican officials to address any risks related to the visa lift. We have already witnessed lasting economic benefits from the visa lift.

Government Appointments

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are still waiting for answers on the logic and manner of Stéphane Dion's extraordinarily clumsy diplomatic appointments. Canada's professional diplomats, past and present, at headquarters and abroad, are dismayed and discouraged. Mr. Dion's status in Brussels will diminish the rank and the authority of the ambassador in place. Mr. Dion's status with Germany, as a still uninvited special advisor, is a diplomatic faux pas. For a ministerial housecleaning so long in the works, why this diplomatic train wreck?