Debates of June 19th, 2017

Infrastructure

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that we need investments in public transit. We need investments in social infrastructure. We need investments in green infrastructure to grow our communities, to grow our economy, and to create good jobs for the middle class today and for our children and grandchildren tomorrow. That is the vision of our government. This is what we put forward in the election campaign, and this is what we continue to work on.

We know that global investment can lead to better outcomes for Canadians. That is what we are focusing on drawing in.

Finance

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's refusal to answer that question shows why this infrastructure bank is a complete disaster.

Over the weekend, when asked a direct question, the Prime Minister refused to say when, if ever, he plans on balancing the budget. Given that our children and our grandchildren will be the ones stuck paying off his excessive spending habits and his multi-billion-dollar tab, they deserve an honest answer to a simple question.

In what year does the Prime Minister plan on balancing the budget? Will it be the year that pigs fly or the year that hell freezes over?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard all these arguments before. They were the core of the member opposite's re-election campaign. It was the core of the Conservative platform in the 2015 election, a platform soundly rejected by Canadians, because it focused on balancing the budget at all costs through cuts to services and investments for Canadians. We made a commitment to invest in a brighter future through investing in infrastructure for Canadians and by putting more money in the pockets of the middle class by raising taxes on the wealthiest one per cent, all things those members stood against.

International Trade

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec will be in Washington today to talk about the NAFTA negotiations, and many Quebec mayors have already done likewise. Elected officials in Quebec no longer have any confidence in the federal government to conduct these negotiations.

I do not blame them after the government's failure to properly address the softwood lumber and diafiltered milk issues. Unlike those of the federal government, Quebec's priorities are clear: protect good jobs, protect supply management, and resolve the softwood lumber issue.

When will the government tell us what its priorities are for the renegotiation of NAFTA?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend Philippe Couillard, the Premier of Quebec, who, like all of the other provincial premiers, has committed to working with the American government.

We emphasized how important it is for all levels of government to work together to make the United States understand that Canadians stand united, that we are concerned about its approach, and that we are prepared to strongly defend Canada's interests. That is what we are all going to do, and I commend Premier Couillard for his initiative today in Washington.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister needs to stop repeating his talking points and reassure Canadians once and for all.

The Liberals cannot continue to hold Canadians in the dark when it comes to the renegotiation of NAFTA. Workers throughout the country are quickly losing confidence in the Liberal government and its ability to negotiate a good trade deal in their interest. In less than a month, the U.S. will reveal its final priorities, and still, deafening silence from the government side.

Canadians deserve a government that will stand up and fight for their jobs, so when will the government release its plans on the renegotiation of NAFTA?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we very much look forward to sitting down with the American side after August 18, when the Americans have permission to sit down and start negotiating. Until then, we have made it very clear that our priorities are defending Canada's interests. Whether it be in softwood, whether it be in auto, or whether it be in dairy and supply management, we will always stand up and defend Canada's interests. We will not, however, talk in great detail about our negotiation strategy. Canadians know we will defend their interests. We will continue to fight hard for Canadian jobs and for growth for the middle class, because that is what Canadians expect of us.

Infrastructure

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is fighting with his new independent Senate over splitting the infrastructure bank from the omnibus budget bill, but if the Liberals had kept their promises and worked with parliamentarians and not used budget omnibus bills, they would not be in this awkward, difficult situation.

The finance minister revealed his hand last week at committee, when he said it would be “absurd” to tell a private company to move a project from Montreal to Winnipeg. Why are the Liberals putting corporate profit ahead of the interests of Canadians, and why will they not allow us to properly study this bill?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment to Canadians to improve the way this place works, and that is exactly what we are doing. The budget legislation we put forward contains only elements that were actually in the budget, unlike the previous government's attempts at getting around the parliamentary process.

As for the work done by the Senate, we respect tremendously the hard work senators are doing to examine and make recommendations on bills, but we certainly expect budget bills passed in this House of Commons to be passed by the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue here is about respect for Parliament and passing a fundamental change to how we fund infrastructure projects. Without proper study is not the way to do it.

Clearly, there were not enough consultations, and the most blatant example relates to Quebec, since the infrastructure bank is going to ignore Quebec laws. A more thorough study of the bill would have allowed us to examine these kinds of issues related to the infrastructure bank. There is no time for that under the leadership of this Prime Minister.

Why is the government so determined to move ahead with this plan for the infrastructure bank? Why is it so determined to keep us from giving it the consideration it deserves?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment over a year and a half ago to create the infrastructure bank. It was a clear campaign promise. We will continue to invest in the infrastructure that Canadians need.

I understand that the members opposite want to spend all their time negotiating and examining everything that happens in the House, but sooner or later, we have to deliver on the commitments made to Canadians. We need to keep our promises regarding the public transit Canadians need, as well as social infrastructure. That is exactly what our government is doing for Quebec, for Quebeckers, and for all Canadians.

Foreign Investment

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister thinks highly of the Chinese dictatorship. We also know that the Prime Minister invested hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars in an Asian bank. We also know that the Prime Minister met with Chinese billionaires who made very generous contributions to his father's foundation. None of that, however, gives the Prime Minister permission to put Canada's national security at risk.

Why did the Prime Minister waive the requisite security review of the Norsat deal?

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

Mr. Speaker, national security is a top priority for our government.

All transactions reviewed under the act are subject to a multi-stage security review process. We can assure the House that the process was followed to the letter and that no risk to national security was identified. Throughout the process, our security agencies had access to all the information they needed.

We have never compromised on national security, and we never will.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect and admiration for the parliamentary secretary. The problem is that my question was for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the one who needs to answer to Canadians on issues of national security.

If the government insists everything was done by the book, then there is just one more thing for the Prime Minister to do to reassure Canadians and our NATO, American, and European allies who are questioning Canada's national security.

Why is the government refusing to table all of the documents relating to the Norsat scandal?

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

Mr. Speaker, we listened to our national security experts. We listened to their advice. They reviewed the transaction and the facts. We authorized this transaction based on their advice and recommendations.

I want to reassure the House and all Canadians that we will never compromise on national security and we will always work to advance our national interests.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the Norsat scandal, the Liberals just cannot keep their story straight.

First, the Prime Minister claimed the U.S. was on board, but it was not. Then he said the deal was subject to a strict, national security review, but it was not. In fact, the Prime Minister's own cabinet decided to skip that review.

This deal puts Canada and the U.S. at risk. Without rigid security checks, the Liberals still gave it the green light.

Will the Liberals listen to the concerns of the U.S., our closet friend and ally, and put Canadian safety first?

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

Mr. Speaker, national security is our priority, and we take it very seriously.

All investments reviewed under the Canada Investment Act are subject to a multi-stage national security review process conducted by our security agencies. That process was followed. The national security community conducted a review, consulted, had the facts in front of it. It gave us the recommendation that this transaction did not put into jeopardy national security. No transaction would take place if it did not uphold and satisfy this criterion.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are hiding how dangerous this deal is for both Canada and the U.S. Nobody buys that.

Michael Wessel from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said, “the sale of Norsat to a Chinese entity raises significant national-security concerns for the United States as the company is a supplier to our military.”

The Liberals claim they have consulted the U.S., but will not say who, why, how, or when. Nothing adds up.

Will the minister finally tell Canadians which U.S. officials they consulted and if they agreed to this deal?

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

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I am surprised the party opposite does not trust our national security agencies and does not trust the opinions they give.

We have a process in place under the Investment Canada Act. We followed that process. Our security agencies are required to consult, investigate, and to have all the facts in front of them. They did that. They gave us their opinion; we followed that opinion. Our national security has never been put at risk.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada and our allies depend on satellite communications to safely perform peace and security operations around the world. The news that the Liberal government has fast-tracked the sale of Norsat is causing the U.S. government to review its use of Norsat components. Why? Because the U.S. feels it could put its operations and its people at risk.

My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Why is the Liberal government putting the security of Canada and allies at risk all to appease the Chinese government?

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

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. We are not compromising our national security. We are not compromising our national interests. We are in fact trying to balance our national interests.

We relied on a process that put our national security first and foremost. That process was followed. Our national security agencies did their due diligence. They investigated the transaction. They had all the facts in front of them. They gave us their opinion. We are following that opinion. We trust our national security agencies. We will never put our security at risk.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has attended cash-for-access fundraisers with Chinese billionaires. He has publicly expressed his admiration for the basic dictatorship in China. Chinese interests are funding a statue of his father. Now the Prime Minister is fast-tracking the sale of Canadian businesses to China without full security reviews.

Our former ambassador to China has called the Prime Minister's approach “naive and worrying.” I agree.

Has the government House leader asked the Ethics Commissioner about possible conflicts of interest with respect to the Prime Minister and transactions involving China?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a very clear process envisioned under the Investment Canada Act. It is a multi-step process that requires our national security agencies to look at the facts, get the facts in front of them, and make a national security recommendation. We followed that process to the letter. We followed their advice.

We trust our national security agencies, which have done their due diligence. We have undertaken this multi-step process, as it should have been undertaken.

Canada Revenue Agency

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

Mr. Speaker, at the OECD's instigation, Canada signed dozens of information sharing agreements with tax havens. Those agreements were supposed to increase transparency, but all they did was facilitate tax evasion. What began as a solution to a problem became a massive gift to big corporations.

Over the past five years, at least $55 billion in profit has not been taxed by the Canada Revenue Agency. We have no way of knowing if the Liberals have even used the agreements because they are refusing to tell us and will not answer journalists' questions.

What do they have to hide?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, our government pledged to fight tax evasion and tax havens to ensure that our tax system is fair for all Canadians. I am proud of the leadership we have shown internationally by enhancing our collaboration with international partners. We are working hard to make sure our tax system is fair.

Our government will continue to inform Canadians about our efforts to fight tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.