Debates of June 14th, 2017

Concurrence in Vote 1—Privy Council Office

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that he cannot insinuate that someone stole something.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, it was the party that misdirected money from taxpayers, with $40 million still unaccounted for. That he would dare stand and ask about advertising, the party of Gomery, I find very ironic. It is a very cynical question from my colleague across the way.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to sit with my colleague from Edmonton West on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I had the privilege to be with him when we fought against estimates reform. One of the biggest reasons we did it was that oversight by opposition MPs and oversight by the overall Canadian society of the budgetary spending of the government is one of the core principles of our democracy and Parliament. I would like my colleague to explain what would happen if we lost two months of the possibility of oversight of the spending of the government.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Westminster system exists for oversight of spending. It goes back to the time of the Magna Carta. We exist to have oversight and approve spending. It is not for photo ops, not to stand here in the House and participate. It is for oversight of spending. If the government has its way and just walks in any time and changes the Standing Orders to take away the ability to oversee spending, it is an insult and an attack on parliamentary traditions and on taxpayers and our ability to hold the government to account. That is exactly what the government is trying to do by changing the Standing Orders without unanimous consent.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, we are here tonight debating the main estimates because, unfortunately, the Liberals have decided that working collaboratively with all parties is something they are no longer interested in doing. While studying estimates is normally done in committees, the Liberals seem intent on making it difficult for the opposition to properly scrutinize government spending in this forum.

I am a member on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and one of my ongoing frustrations is how little time has been set aside for the consideration of the estimates of the two departments and the many crown corporations that fall under the committee's purview. During our scheduled meeting for the main estimates and supplementary estimates (C) on March 23, 2017, the committee meeting was cut short because of a time allocation vote in the House. Consequently, 10 committee members did not even get 15 minutes to ask questions of representatives from the eight crown corporations that were present.

The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority was being allocated $584 million, PPP Canada was being allocated $279 million, Jacques-Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated was allocated $331 million, and VIA Rail Canada $221 million. None of these organizations were rescheduled to appear at a later date. When the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities were invited to appear on their departments' main estimates, they came together on May 9 for a maximum of one hour. I cannot think of another example where two ministers of different portfolios appeared together at a committee. The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities is not the Minister of Transport's associate. They should not appear at committee as such.

Because that meeting was also cut short, the official opposition got less than 10 minutes to inquire about issues such as the Navigation Protection Act, the sale of Canada's airports, the infrastructure bank, or the pipeline moratorium in B.C. What is worse, Liberal members had been assuring us that this meeting was going to be the opposition's opportunity to ask questions of the government.

On May 2, my colleague, the member for Alfred-Pellan, pointed out to us that, “I can tell you that [the minister] will be with us here on May 9. You can ask all the questions you desire. I'm sure it will be the minister's pleasure to respond.” Members of the official opposition received less than 10 minutes to ask two ministers, representing two different departments, questions on billions of dollars in spending.

Unfortunately, this is not a one-off. On November 17, 2016, when the committee considered supplementary estimates (B), the Minister of Transport was present for the first hour and his officials, along with representatives from crown corporations, were scheduled to be present for the second hour. The second hour of our meeting was cut short due to another vote, and the committee ended up voting on hundreds of millions of dollars of funding in supplementary estimates (B) after barely 25 minutes of scrutiny. The lost time was never made up.

I remember back when the transport, infrastructure and communities committee was first struck in this 42nd Parliament. The Minister of Transport and the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities each came for two hours to discuss their mandate letters. Fast forward, and it is clear the Prime Minister and his caucus see the opposition as an inconvenience rather than fulfilling an essential function in Parliament, with members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition barely being given any time to scrutinize billions of dollars in spending.

There was a time when transport and infrastructure were part of the same department, because infrastructure was seen as a facilitator for trade and transportation. Now that Infrastructure Canada has moved more in the direction of the social realm than the trade and transport realm, the transport, infrastructure and communities committee should no longer be hearing from the two ministers as though they manage the same file. The fact remains that the Liberal mismanagement of the House has trickled down to committees. I guess it speaks volumes to the character of the government, that it believes having to listen to the opposition is cumbersome. How this meshes with sunny ways is beyond me. The new operating procedure of the Liberal members in the transport, infrastructure and communities committee, when presented with reasonable motions, is to sit quietly, say nothing at all, and then vote them down.

Now, if they become irritated, one of their members will usually move to adjourn debate on the motion. This a convenient course of action for them, as these motions to adjourn debate on a motion are non-debatable, so the Liberals do not have to justify their actions. When we do try to resume debate on these motions, the Liberals do not provide consent, thereby essentially voting down the motion by putting it into permanent limbo.

Here are some of the motions the Liberals have voted down without providing Canadians any justification. A motion inviting the newly appointed director of the Hamilton Port Authority to appear at committee for one hour. If the committee never reviews the qualifications of government appointments, there is not much point they be referred to committees. We still do not know why they did not agree to that.

A motion by the NDP asking for documents relating to the sale of Canada's airports. The committee was asking for documents and the Liberal members refused to speak to it. If these documents were not available, it is for the government to say why, and not for these ministers on the committee to say no to a request of this nature. If the government and these members are truly proud of their record, they should do more than sit quietly, and wait out the clock whenever the opposition challenges their actions.

Returning to the government's complete mismanagement of Canada's public finances, it seems that the Liberals' overarching priority is to continue raising revenues to fund their misguided plans. There is no other reason why popular tax breaks for public transit, child care spaces, or gifts of medicine to charities were taken away. Municipalities and public transit agencies had even taken it upon themselves to advertise the public transit tax credit in order to incentivize more Canadians to use public transit. Unfortunately, making public transit more affordable for Canadians, who may not own a car or share one with their spouse, was considered less important than raising revenues to pay for Liberal pet projects. The government has fallen into a negative feedback loop, where the optics are more important than the policy. As policy becomes less important, more emphasis is placed on optics, and around and around we go.

For the first time in history, the Government of Canada is doing regular polling to gauge the popularity of the Prime Minister. Taxpayers are paying for the Prime Minister's Office to conduct this polling. For a government that claims to be interested in evidence-based public policy, it is hard not to think that the overwhelming consideration for anything they will do will be the result of current and future public polling. By design of the PMO, Canadians know more about the Prime Minister's interest in cupping than the $330 billion in overall expenditures he is making with their tax dollars, and the nearly $30 billion deficit.

In conclusion, everywhere I go, I hear about the incredible frustration with the Liberal government. After a year of being hit with an increase like the increase in mandatory CPP premiums, the federally mandated carbon tax, or cuts, like a 50% cut to the tax free savings account, and the end of tax breaks for children's soccer and piano lessons, Canadians were hoping that the Liberals would be done with raising taxes.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government continues to try to squeeze every single penny out of the pockets of Canadians, and is doing its very best to shield itself from parliamentary scrutiny by attempting to change the Standing Orders and avoiding debate in committee.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of serving on the transport committee with the hon. member, and by my recollection, if there was inadequate time to question officials, she might want to look back at the number of times the Conservatives filibustered while we had witnesses waiting to testify, and who were sent back without having a chance to do so.

If they have not had time to debate a number of other spending measures, they may want to look back to the whole week it took them to deal with the issues of two people who had trouble getting to the Hill on time because their bus was held up. There have been many other things. If we look at their opposition day motions, and some of the things they have put forward, perhaps they would like to have some of that time back to do some real substantive work in the House instead of pursuing jump-the-shark type projects.

I ask the member, if she could have some of that time back, what would she prioritize?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, believe it or not, I do enjoy working with my colleague on the transportation, infrastructure and communities committee. His interventions are often very interesting. There is one issue I would highlight when he asks me what time I would like to gain back. It is not possible under the guidance of the current government to gain back the time we have lost under its mismanagement.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

What I took from her speech is that she is concerned about the sound management of public funds. That is a concern that I share. Like her, I believe that if we really want to work for the people we represent, we need to respect the respective roles of members on both sides of the House.

I represent 25 municipalities that are very concerned about government infrastructure spending. The member spoke about the fact that the committee members did not have enough time to ask questions to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and others.

This evening, we do not have enough time to ask the government questions. If we did have the time we needed, what questions could we ask this government?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that since the Liberals took office, 94% of announced infrastructure projects have failed to start construction. In committee, we might ask, why is that the case? This means that jobs are not being created, and the economy is not being stimulated as the Liberals like to declare is happening. Instead of coming up with a new plan that would build infrastructure and create jobs, the budget they put forward this year doubled down on an existing infrastructure plan and contained no new infrastructure spending. These are the kinds of questions we would have liked to pose to the minister responsible for infrastructure.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I was particularly interested in my colleague's comments on how important committee work is, and how she feels her work in committee has been blocked. Right now there is a study before the immigration committee on something that is vitally important to Atlantic Canada, yet members of the Conservative Party and the NDP have been blocking the study that every member of the House voted in favour of. Could the member please talk to her colleagues, and make sure they stop filibustering that committee?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is not up to me to demand of anybody in the House that they spend their time in a particular way, whether on committee or in the House. At the beginning of this Parliament we came to this place ready to work with members of the governing party. The chair of our committee stated very clearly that she thought we could do some meaningful work. As it has been demonstrated, the Liberals have not been true to that suggestion.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to reflect on the Minister of Democratic Reform, who introduced the debate by spending a great deal of time talking about the election fairness and the Senate. I also want to take the opportunity to talk about a few other issues related to the budget that were raised this afternoon.

Let me start by recognizing National Public Service Week. Unlike the Conservatives across the way, and we saw it during question period today, we need to recognize the valuable contributions our public service makes every day. Our public service is held in such high esteem that experts and civil servants around the world often come to Canada to get a better understanding of how we have been so successful at attracting some of the brightest individuals, as well as that sense of commitment to serving the public, which our public servants do day in and day out.

The Prime Minister recognized earlier today how important it was for elected officials to listen to our public servants. I can assure that Public Service Week is not only to commend our public servants, but also to clearly let them know we listen to what they have to say. We appreciate their fine work.

I have heard a lot about the Senate. A number of my colleagues brought up the biographies of numerous senators. It was encouraging. It was not that long ago when we heard Stephen Harper, while he was prime minister and even before that, tell us what the Conservative Party wanted to do with the Senate.

Being from western Canada, the propaganda that stemmed from the Conservative Party was overwhelming at times. It talked about how it wanted to reform and make changes to the Senate. The only real thing it was able to accomplish was to put a dark cloud over the Senate, which motivated Canadians to say they wanted to see something happen on the Senate file.

I would love to compare the types of appointments made under the previous Harper government, which were based strictly on politics. The prime minister made the decision and chose the individuals he believed needed to be in the other chamber. We saw some of those appointments. Some of my colleagues have thrown names at me, and I am sure many Canadians are familiar with them. Probably one of the more popular appointments was Mr. Duffy. He, along with a few others, ultimately raised a great deal of concern about the Senate. It was a hotly debated issue, even prior to the current Prime Minister becoming the leader of the Liberal Party.

The Conservative prime minister was saying it was the best they could do. The NDP was saying to abolish the Senate. Both answers coming from the Conservatives and NDP were that to justify reform of the senate, the Constitution had to be changed.

When today's Prime Minister became leader of the Liberal Party, which was the third party, he made a very bold move. He said that to be part of that Liberal caucus, one needed to be an elected member of Parliament. He wanted to see the Senate operate in a more independent fashion.

With that statement, we saw more reform to the Senate chamber than Stephen Harper ever did in 10 years. That is when the Prime Minister was leader of the third party. There was a genuine attempt to make changes without having to change the Constitution. We know Canadians do not want us to focus our attention on that. It was important to move forward on making changes to the Senate, which could be done without having to change the Constitution.

I am really encouraged by the way senators have been appointed. We have some incredible senators. Individuals who have been listening to the debate will have heard some of the bios of those independent senators. We look forward to having a relationship where the Senate continues to do better. There are many sides to that.

I will not go into all the biographies of senators, but I will talk about one. As many do, I have a favourite senator, and that is Senator Sinclair, a former judge. He played a critical role as the chief commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Many Manitobans felt very proud that the Prime Minister kept his word in ensuring we depoliticized the Senate.

Members can sense the enthusiasm in my caucus on that issue. Let us imagine the enthusiasm of Canadians, recognizing that this is just one of many promises the Prime Minister has kept. We could say so much more about about the Senate.

However, we have had a busy Minister of Democratic Institutions who introduced the debate today. I want to highlight a couple of other things. Imagine, we now have a government that recognizes it is good to get more people to vote in elections.

Many Canadians will remember the unfair elections act brought in by Stephen Harper. We have a minister who has recognized the many faults in that legislation, and has brought in some really good stuff. Let me mention a few of those things.

What about the voter identification card, a card everyone was issued? When I asked the minister a question about it earlier today, she said there were about 200,000 individuals who might have not had the same opportunity to vote because of being unable to use their voter ID cards. There is good news. The voter identification card will count in the next federal election because of this government.

We want to see more young people engaged in the elections. What is a good way to get young people engaged? Through the legislation being proposed by the government, 14 to 17 years olds can register with Elections Canada. That will get more young people engaged at an earlier age, so they are on the voters' lists. That is a positive thing, having more young people engaged on this issue.

We all know Canadians are a trustworthy group of people. We know the Conservative Party said that it did not trust vouching at poll stations. When we were in opposition, we said that we trusted Canadians and that it was good enough to accept a Canadian vouching for another Canadian. This minister has brought in legislation that would allow Canadians to once again vouch for other Canadians, and that too would increase voter participation in the next election.

The good news does not stop there. As I said, we have a busy Minister of Democratic Institutions. We have reform in our election financing laws. After the legislation passes, not only will we have more robust legislation, but we will have some of the strongest, if not the strongest, legislation on election financing in North America. We all can all be proud that.

We are highlighting the fact that not only a prime minister or a minister, but also a leader of an officially recognized party has an obligation to report those individuals who contribute more than $200 to attend an event. What does that mean? More transparency and more accountability for our political leaders in Canada, and that is a good thing.

We have heard a great deal about the estimates and the reforms on estimates. The government House leader has gone out of her way to get opposition members onside. The President of the Treasury Board has tried to encourage members to understand that we need to move forward in making changes to the House of Commons. Let me share a couple of those ideas.

One idea makes a lot of sense. It is what we did in the Manitoba legislature. The Minister of Natural Resources and I served in the Manitoba legislature. After the budget was presented, we had the main estimates. What is wrong with that? The President of the Treasury Board has talked a lot about that and we should all get behind that because it makes sense.

A Conservative member, in addressing this issue, talked about the importance of ministers, their responsibilities, and the need to be transparent and accountable. Members will recall that not only did the Prime Minister appoint a gender-neutral cabinet, but as part of that every ministers was given a mandate letter that was made public. Unlike former Prime Minister Harper, we recognize that each minister has a responsibility and that responsibility is dictated in the mandate letter. Unlike the member who previously spoke, we see that as a good thing.

It is interesting how the member across the way said that the Conservatives were a little disappointed because the government interrupted a committee meeting in which a minister was before it and the minister did not come back. I have heard many ministers in the House talk about the importance of making changes to benefit all Canadians. One of those changes was to the way in which we had some of those votes. I say this because the previous speaker made reference to it. She talked about how unfortunate it was that we had the bells ringing during the committee meeting, which interrupted the meeting. Hundreds of individuals are brought to Ottawa under the pretence of making a presentation to a standing committee. Unfortunately, at times, there are votes. However, with the the number of dilatory motions brought in by the official opposition, interruptions occurred as direct result of those.

When we get members of the Conservative Party who are talking about changes and wanting to see changes that are going to have a positive impact on the flow of business inside the House, they need to reflect on some of the behaviours that they participated in that ultimately caused the disruptions they are opposing today. There are many different ideas.

Having said all of that, I want to get to the core of the main estimates. That is really what we are talking about. There is so much good news. I take budget one and budget two, and I say, this is all about Canada's middle class. For those Canadians who appreciate and want to see Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it really move forward, this is a budget and estimates that people need to get behind. Look at what we have been able to accomplish in such a short period of time. Let me name a few of those things.

The Prime Minister often talks about the extra tax on the 1% wealthiest. Remember, that is the tax the Conservatives voted against. Then what about the tax break for Canada's middle class? That was hundreds of millions of dollars put into the pockets of Canadians, which will be helping our small businesses, which I know makes the minister responsible for small business very happy. We put in tax breaks and gave the cash to Canadians in the very first budget. This is just a continuation. Again, the Conservatives, believe it or not, voted against tax breaks.

Let us talk about seniors. When we look at some of the actions for seniors, we had the wonderful reversal of the Stephen Harper approach on retirement. Remember, Stephen Harper increased the age of retirement from 65 to 67. I remember it well. I did petitions. We did emergency debates, just name it, to try to point out to Mr. Harper that it was a bad decision. We made a campaign promise to reverse that decision, and we did just that. Canadians will have the opportunity to retire at the age of 65.

Then we could talk about the guaranteed income supplement. There was a substantial increase, which lifted tens of thousands of seniors in every region of our country out of poverty because of a good idea, an idea that the Harper government never acted on, which is most unfortunate.

One of the best things that I believe this government has done is that it has recognized the importance of investing in Canada's infrastructure. Investing billions of dollars, record amounts of money, into Canada's infrastructure is good for our economy. It is good for Canadians. It is going to enrich all those who get behind this project because it will make a difference. This is the type of thing we are here for, to look for good, solid policy ideas that are going to have a positive impact on everyday Canadians.

Day after day, we are seeing decisions being made by this cabinet, by this government, and by the caucus, to ensure that Canadians will be better off as a direct result of this Prime Minister and the wonderful things that we are doing.

To quote the Prime Minister, we can always do better. That is something we take very seriously. We consult with our constituents, knowing full well that we have a government that wants us to come back with the ideas that are being generated from our constituencies to share with our caucus colleagues so that those ideas will be reflected in the government policies that are being developed over the coming years.

I think it is a good thing for Canadians for members to get behind this particular budget and vote for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.

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

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that maybe in the future the Liberal lobby implement a two-drink maximum when we are having these late-night debates.

There is a quote from Senator Joe Day, who was appointed by Jean Chrétien, who said that if we pass Bill C 44 in its current form, we are the ones who are knowingly removing parliamentary oversight. Parliamentarians certainly have the procedural and legal authority to abdicate even more of their oversight responsibilities if they want, but I am, for one, profoundly disappointed that the government has decided to ask—

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know my friend and colleague across the way is an honourable member and I know that he would never want to impugn the reputation of another member in this chamber. I know for a fact that my friend and colleague, the parliamentary secretary, is a non-drinker.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I would inform the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso that this is debate.

I am sorry, the time is up. I will allow two seconds for the parliamentary secretary to respond.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that. As the member said, I do not drink.

Having said that, one thing about the Liberals is that we are not afraid to work. We are here to work hard for Canadians, and that is what we plan on doing.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 10 o'clock, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Call in the members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #323

Main Estimates, 2017-18

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion defeated.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I wish to inform the House that Motions Nos. 2-104, 106-167, and 169-245 will not be put to the House as the notices of the opposition were withdrawn by the member for Portage—Lisgar, the hon. opposition House leader.

The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 1.

Concurrence in vote 1—Privy Council

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

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