Debates of June 16th, 2017

Infrastructure

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, who we are as Canadians is people who have Canadian passports, yet the finance minister said that he might consider someone who has the expertise but does not have a Canadian passport. Those were his words yesterday in a Senate committee hearing.

Therefore, Canadian tax dollars will be put at risk in the aid of foreign investors who, if they lose money on an infrastructure megaproject, will get backup from the people in this country who pay taxes and have Canadian citizenship. Can that minister guarantee that no one will be on the board of the infrastructure bank other than a Canadian citizen?

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

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is failing to understand is that our own Canadian pension funds, such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the teachers' pension plan, OMERS, Caisse de dépôt, and Alberta Investment Management Corporation, invest in other countries' infrastructure. What is wrong with creating conditions to allow them to invest in our own country, to create jobs in our own country, and allow us to strengthen our middle class in our own country to create opportunities? That is exactly what we are focused on, and the board will reflect the diversity of Canadian communities.

Public Safety

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question yesterday, so let us try again.

The media are saying that the Liberals plan to give the police more power to access Canadians’ personal information on the internet without a warrant. The Supreme Court has already ruled that such a program would violate the Charter. It would be a serious violation of privacy rights and another broken Liberal promise.

Can the minister assure the House that there will be no such program?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, the details of the legislation that will ultimately be proposed cannot be discussed until that legislation is before the House of Commons. Those are the rules of this House. However, I can assure the hon. gentleman and all Canadians that the new proposals with respect to national security will fully respect the Canadian Constitution.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this is the kind of assurance that Canadians expect to hear. Let us look at the government's actual record. The Liberals voted for Bill C-51 under the previous government. They then claimed, right after they won the election, that they were preparing legislation to undo many of the bill's provisions, yet here we are, two years later, and Bill C-51 is completely untouched.

How can the Liberals be trusted with protecting the privacy and civil liberties of Canadians?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, when the legislation is presented in this House, the hon. member will have her full answer. The fact of the matter is that we have taken the last 18 months to consult carefully with Canadians, and over 75,000 submissions were received in response to our consultations.

Our objective is to make sure that we accomplish two things simultaneously: keeping Canadians safe and making sure we safeguard the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Infrastructure

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister warned the Senate yesterday against splitting the infrastructure bank out. I guess the Senate is independent only when it is convenient for the Liberals, but this was exactly what the NDP proposed to do. The Prime Minister is busy making infrastructure announcements that will be directly linked to the Liberals' infrastructure bank, but the Liberals never mentioned the privatization goal of this bank during the campaign, and now they are against taking the time to study it.

Do they not understand it looks as though they have something to hide?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have put forward a very ambitious plan to allow our municipalities to prosper, to allow them to build the infrastructure that they need to grow their economy, to reduce congestion in major urban centres and build more affordable housing and recreational and cultural infrastructure. We believe that by mobilizing institutional investors and pension funds, we can free up resources to build more affordable housing and more shelters for women fleeing domestic violence. That is our goal, and that is exactly what we are focused on.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that those same Canadians they want to work for are going to pay the tolls and user fees that come along with this privatization.

There are a lot of announcements, but there are still a lot of questions about the infrastructure bank.

Like the NDP, the Senate is asking for the omnibus bill to be split so we can at least try to get answers to these questions. Considering privatization, omnibus bills and the lack of respect for Parliament, we have to wonder who is in power. Is this real change or is Stephen Harper still on the other side?

Why will this government not allow a proper review of this privatization bank that will charge tolls and user fees?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is different is the commitment we have made to our Canadian communities to allow them to build the infrastructure they need. We are tripling our investment to $180 billion. That is a historic investment in infrastructure.

The hon. member fully understands that in the last election, his party had no plan to build the infrastructure. The party opposite, the Conservative Party, ignored the needs of Canadian communities for a decade. We are here to work with them, to allow them to build the infrastructure they deserve and their citizens need.

Foreign Investment

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Norsat scandal, the sale of a high-tech firm to Chinese interests without a national security review, has become a burden, a wrecking ball really, to Canada's international reputation. It is just wrong.

Our ambassadors are uncomfortable, our allies are wondering what happened, and international experts are worried. Canadians deserve better. The only way to reassure everyone, Canadians and our international allies, is to release all the documentation.

Why does the government refuse to do so?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, we take our national security very seriously.

All investments reviewed under the Investment Canada Act go through a rigorous, multi-step security review process conducted by Canada's national security agencies. That process was followed in this case, as it is in every other case. Our national security agencies conducted their review and confirmed that the security measures and guarantees put in place comply with our high standards. No transaction would take place if it did not meet our strict standards for national security.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's wilful blindness is unacceptable and it is harming Canada's international reputation. The government seems pretty confident about what it is doing. Fine, then, let it turn over all of the documents. If it really believes this is the right thing to do, it should have no problem tabling the documents. This is an international scandal that is damaging Canada's reputation, so transparency is vital.

Why is the government refusing to do the right thing for the whole country?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, on issues of national security, we look to our experts, our national security agencies. That is exactly what we did.

The agencies did the necessary consultations. They had the facts. Members across the aisle seem to think it was pure conjecture, but it was not. It was facts. The agencies based their assessment on the facts. This is a national security matter, and we will go along with what our experts say.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, China is not shy about its efforts to spy on Canada or our allies.

According to documents obtained from CSIS, China continuously targets our classified information and advanced technology. That did not seem to stop the Liberals from allowing China's Hytera Communications to buy Norsat, a Canadian company that creates advanced technology used by our military and our allies, which is exactly what China has been after.

When will the Liberals stop putting our national security at risk?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, we never have, and we never will, put our national security at risk. We followed a multi-stage process in this case and we based our decision on the considered opinion of our national security experts.

What does the other side of the House have against our national security experts? They are the ones who have the facts in front of them. We rely on their opinion in this process. It is a very good process and we will continue to follow it.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister would start walking the walk instead of just talking the talk, we might be able to believe him when he repeats his lines about being open and transparent.

We have asked for simple answers regarding his decision to sell defence secrets to the Chinese government. Our U.S. neighbours are raising alarms about that decision. Security experts are concerned. A former ambassador has spoken out again it.

Will the Prime Minister please explain to Canadians why he did not request a full, formal national security review of this transaction?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, there is a multi-stage national security review process in place, and that process was followed. Within the course of that process, our national security experts based themselves on the facts of the case. Our national security agencies are the only ones in this case that had the facts before them. Unlike the opposition, we are basing our decision on their recommendation to us.

Justice

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that trials needed to be conducted in a timely manner.

Our Conservative government appointed well over 500 highly competent and diverse individuals to the bench. There was never a shortage of exceptional candidates to choose from. When are the Liberals going to get their act together and fill all these judicial vacancies?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring our criminal justice system keeps communities safe, protects victims, and holds offenders to account. As the court in the Cody case reiterated today, every actor in the criminal justice system has a responsibility to ensure criminal proceedings are carried out efficiently and effectively.

Our minister met with her provincial and territorial counterparts in April to focus on the roles that each of our governments could play. They identified four priorities for legislative reform, including dealing with mandatory minimum penalties, bail in the administration of justice, preliminary inquiries, and reclassification of offences.

We are working together to address these delays.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not even appointing the necessary judicial advisory committees that give advice when making appointments. Incredibly, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Saskatchewan, and southwestern Ontario still do not even have a committee to advise the minister on judicial appointments.

Obviously, the government has a problem in this area. What is it going to take for it to cleanup this mess?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to advise the House that the Minister of Justice has made tremendous progress, not only in developing a system which will strengthen our judiciary to ensure we maintain judicial excellence while reflecting the great diversity of the country. To date, the Minister of Justice has appointed 77 judges and 22 deputy judges across the country.

We have a system in place, it is being implemented, and we are seeing significant progress.

Standing Orders of the House of Commons

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at first the Liberals said that they had no choice but to change the rules of Parliament. Now, after being roundly criticized, the Liberals are walking back everything, or almost everything. In their platform, the Liberals promised to end the practice of having parliamentary secretaries manage what happens in committees.

Why are the Liberals forcing through changes to the rules that would allow just that?

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

Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, we promised to bring real change to Parliament to make it more efficient, open, and transparent. We made a specific commitment on how to achieve this. Yesterday I testified at a committee and I answered members' questions.

We have a plan and I think that it will work very well.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are getting tired of the combination of high-handed actions and non-sequitur answers by the Liberals.

Just as they grew tired of omnibus bills under Stephen Harper's regime, the Liberals promised in the last campaign to end them. Omnibus bills allow for the government to push through hundreds of changes at once, without time for Parliament to scrutinize them or for civil society to scrutinize them. However, instead of getting rid of the practice of omnibus bills, the Liberals are proposing new rules that will legitimize the practice of omnibus bills.

We are just wondering this. What happened to the Liberals of the campaign?