House of Commons Hansard #174 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was labelling.

Topics

Foreign AffairsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Papineau Québec

Liberal

Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, this government cares deeply about the protection and promotion of human rights, which are core priorities that I bring up wherever I go and whenever we engage internationally. The question of how to effectively apply sanctions for human rights abuses and foreign corruption was among the issues examined by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. We welcome the release of the standing committee's report and are carefully considering its recommendations, as we know that Canadians expect their government to stand up for human rights and against corruption everywhere around the world.

InfrastructureOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the infrastructure deficit in this country is significant and that governments need to be innovative in how they address this challenge. The proposed Canada infrastructure bank would be an additional tool to build new infrastructure by attracting private sector and institutional investors to support the transformational infrastructure Canadian communities need.

Can the Prime Minister update the House on the status of the creation of the infrastructure bank?

InfrastructureOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Papineau Québec

Liberal

Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the member for Pickering—Uxbridge is herself a former municipal councillor, so she understands how important it is to make investments in infrastructure that are going to make a real difference in the lives of Canadians. I am pleased that our government recently announced the launch of an open, transparent, and merit-based selection process to identify the bank's senior leadership. This process is designed to attract highly qualified individuals while taking into consideration the desire to achieve gender parity and to reflect Canada's linguistic, cultural, and regional diversity. We encourage all Canadians to apply and look forward to receiving many qualified applications.

EthicsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, the moral of this question period is, “Don't worry, I'm happy.” That is the Prime Minister's new motto.

Is that the answer he gave the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner? No, the Prime Minister confirmed 17 times today that he did not speak to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to answer Canadians?

How many times did he meet with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner?

EthicsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Papineau Québec

Liberal

Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to answer any questions she may have.

It is important to emphasize the various ways we are meeting the needs and addressing the concerns of Canadians, whether by investing in infrastructure, which will change things in the everyday lives of Canadians, or in health care. We have signed agreements for the health care system. For the first time, we are making massive investments in mental health and home care. We know how badly Canadians want a government that is there for them.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, in the Liberal platform, it was promised that there would be action on the changes Stephen Harper made in the omnibus budget bills, particularly the elimination of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In fact, it said, “We will review these changes, restore lost protections, and incorporate more modern safeguards.”

Unfortunately, the transport committee came to egregiously weak conclusions, recommending, essentially, keeping in place the Harper regime. Can the Prime Minister commit to restoring protections to Canada's navigable waters?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Papineau Québec

Liberal

Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, as a government, and personally as a paddler, we are committed to promoting Canada's sustainable economic development while maintaining a safe transportation system and the protection of our lakes and rivers, so absolutely we will consider all input from the independent House of Commons committee on transport, from the public, from indigenous peoples, from provinces and territories, and from a broad range of stakeholders, including industry and marine-protection groups. This is something we feel passionately about and are glad to be moving forward on.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the finalists for the 2016 Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for Political Writing: Kamal Al-Solaylee, Christie Blatchford, Ian McKay and Jamie Swift, James McLeod, and Noah Richler.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to two petitions.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Nault Liberal Kenora, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “Order in Council Appointment of the Honourable Stéphane Dion to the Position of Special Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs”.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in relation to its study of the order in council appointment of the Hon. John McCallum to the position of special adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

For the record, the committee has examined the qualifications and competence of both appointees and finds them to be competent to perform the duties of their positions.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Main Estimates 2017-18: Vote 1 under Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, Vote 1 under Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Vote 1 under Office of the Senate Ethics Officer and Votes 1 and 5 under Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada”.

Natural ResourcesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in relation to the Main Estimates 2017-18.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

moved that the third report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities presented on Wednesday, June 15, 2016, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for seconding this important motion.

It is important that we have policies in government that are effective. Employment insurance is a very important part our support system within Canada. We need to have policies that work, that are effective, that are transparent, and that are accountable when people find themselves without employment.

It is wonderful that we live in a country where there is support, but things do not always work, and the previous government made sure that there were changes that would make the EI program more effective, more transparent, more accountable, more sustainable, and would truly take care of Canadians who needed that help and support. Those changes were made and were effective.

Unfortunately, the number one focus of the new Liberal government, though not so new or sunny anymore and a government that is not transparent, is to try to destroy everything from the past. Whether it was good or bad, the Liberals want to destroy it and to do so without being accountable.

In question period today we heard questions, but no answers. The Prime Minister stood in the House and refused time and time again to answer simple questions, such as how many times he met with the Ethics Commissioner. Those questions came from all opposition parties. Opposition parties are tasked with making sure the government is held to account, but the government does not want to be held to account and will not answer questions as simple as how many times the Prime Minister met with the Ethics Commissioner about his trip to billionaire island.

It is a question that Canadians want to know the answer to, but we see the same culture across the way, an entitlement culture, a culture of out-of-control spending and growing deficits that are going to be passed on to Canadians, particularly unemployed Canadians. Therefore, EI is very important.

That is the government that wants to tinker and make changes. It does a lot of consulting and discussing, and one of the most recent studies was on EI, not with the goal of making things better but with the goal of removing everything the previous government did that was effective. It is really the wrong motive, a motive of a government that is stubborn and unaccountable.

Then a report was done, and a lot of witnesses appeared at committee on that report. It was hoped that it would be a good report. Unfortunately, the motive and direction that came from the PMO was a dictatorial approach for a predetermined outcome. Maybe the question is how many times the PMO directed members of the committee on that report. I am sure we will not get an answer to that either, but opposition members on the committee, because of the report missing the mark and focusing on undoing accountability, were forced to do the right thing, which was to create a dissenting report.

I neglected to say that I will be sharing my time with the amazing member of Parliament for Perth—Wellington.

A dissenting report was presented, and I would like to share with the House the context of that report.

To summarize, the previous Parliament had created changes that brought in transparency, accountability, and an effective support system for those who need it through employment insurance. I will share some of the highlights of that dissenting report.

The dissenting report says that:

We participated in the study on the EI program with open minds. During the consideration of the report, we supported the recommendations that promoted the evaluation of EI program measures, that protected the most vulnerable, and that encouraged greater transparency and efficiency.

However, we rejected recommendations that did away with measures implemented by the previous government as part of its major EI reform in 2013. In our opinion, these measures should be kept, as they have had a positive impact on employment as well as on how citizens treat EI benefits. The primary objective of this reform was to make it easier for unemployed individuals to return to work by helping them find a job.

Is that not a wonderful idea? It is a concept that Canadians support: jobs, jobs, jobs, protecting the economy, the environment, providing a healthy future for Canadians, jobs, and helping them find jobs.

The report goes on to state:

The reform was designed to increase accountability for unemployed workers receiving benefits and we believe it was a step in the right direction. In fact, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation told the Committee that “We believe that a system that is too generous can create disincentives for people to seek or accept work when they otherwise might do so”, and we support their position.

Furthermore, we believe that the report adopted by the Committee was not objective in terms of the differing views about EI reform. Of the 80 quotes from witnesses included in the report, 42 were very critical of the measures implemented by the previous Conservative government, and only 15 were in favour of these measures. Of the 27 witnesses cited, a mere 7 witnesses made positive comments about the measures implemented by the former government. Some witnesses who expressed opinions that differed from the majority of the witnesses heard were not cited in the report at all, despite the relevance of their arguments. For example, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation appeared before the Committee in person, and yet it was not quoted in the report at all, while six briefs were cited whose authors did not appear before the Committee.

That is a prime example.

I serve on the HUMA committee, and I have seen a major change in this Parliament over previous Parliaments. The Prime Minister's Office gives direction and tinkers with committees, and committees are not able to do their work. Their work is being directed by the Prime Minister's Office. They end up with a report that is predetermined by what the Prime Minister wants that report to say. When the Canadian Taxpayers Federation provided good input, it was removed from this report. Why? It was because it did not create a report that the Prime Minister wanted.

When all of the different standing committees are being directed by the Prime Minister's Office, this is what we will have. In the same way, we see that the Prime Minister will not himself answer simple questions, such as how many times he has met with the Ethics Commissioner. We see the same example happening in committees. It is sad, and it requires dissenting reports to actually get to the truth.

The dissenting report went on to say:

One of the major failings of the report, in our opinion, is that it does not reflect the fact that “witnesses acknowledge that in practice, few individuals lost their EI benefits due to these new definitions.”

The following citations show that this statement is true:

According to Hans Marotte, representative of the Inter-Provincial EI Working Group, “it is true that I didn't handle a great many cases stemming from the Conservative reform.”

There are a number of quotes. The core point I want to make is that if we have a government that will not permit the truth, that tinkers and manipulates so that we do not have the truth, then how can Canadians trust it? I do not think Canadians do trust this government anymore.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL

Madam Speaker, the member started off by saying our government is removing things that were effective. I would like to comment on a couple of things we removed.

We removed the poor treatment of veterans. We removed the refusal of the government to meet with provincial and territorial leaders. We removed the total animosity of the previous government toward Atlantic Canadians. We removed the retirement age from 67 back to 65. We stopped giving child care benefit cheques to millionaires.

Would the member please comment on how these things are bad for the country and for communities?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Madam Speaker, sunny days are over. We have a member who is quite bitter, it appears to me, and is making comments that really are not based on fact.

The previous government was the government that took our Canadian veterans and our brave men and women from the decade of darkness into a decade of prosperity. It was an age of respect. We have ended up now with a government that has even taken away benefits from our veterans.

I am quite shocked at the comments from the member. I encourage him to look up the facts instead of alternate facts.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Madam Speaker, it is always fascinating to hear the Conservatives and the Liberals talk about employment insurance when we know that, since 1996, they have been taking turns slashing the program.

Let us not forget that since 1990, the federal government has not put a single penny into the employment insurance fund, has made cuts to the program, and used the fund's surplus. It is all well and good to adopt the old Dumas report, but if we are going to talk about EI, then I would say to my colleague that we should be talking about how to improve it so that more than 40% of the workers that pay into the system every week are eligible for benefits, benefits worth more than 55% of their salary. It is not true that people can live on 55% of their salary.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to work with the member at the HUMA committee. I thank her for her question and also for her commitment to help Canadians.

She well knows what I have said regarding the Liberal government, that it manipulates the truth and comes up with alternate facts. It is shameful. It is sad to see Canadians having to lose trust because it is a government that Canadians cannot trust.

She experiences at committee, as do I, the manipulation by the Prime Minister's Office in the committee and in the structure of the report.

With regard to EI benefits, we are studying poverty reduction. It is important to give Canadians an opportunity to get back to work, because without work, they stay impoverished. We are very proud of the reputation we have and our history of helping Canadians get back to work. We created an environment where we were living within our means. We were balancing our budget. We had a bright future for Canadians. Now out-of-control spending by the Liberal government is destroying the future for Canada. We need to get back to a Conservative government.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Madam Speaker, if I was naive, I might think we were witnessing a miracle. The Conservatives and Liberals are trading barbs on employment insurance when they are the ones who ran the program into the ground.

The concept of insurance is quite simple: I pay premiums so that I can receive benefits when I need them. As we speak, six out of 10 people are not eligible because the required number of insurable hours is too high.

When will we see a single 360-hour eligibility threshold for all workers?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member is not naive, and he would know it was the Conservative Party that amended the compassionate care program so that Canadians who truly needed help received it. It was a stubborn former Liberal government that refused to make those changes so that Canadians in need would receive compassionate care. I am very proud of that.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think you called the member for Perth—Wellington to speak, but I believe that the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock intended to be on that list.

Therefore, I move:

That the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock be now heard.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.