Debates of Nov. 27th, 2018

Report stage

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members often complain about two things: either we are consulting and are going too slow, or we have not consulted and are going too fast. I think we have hit the right balance here. We have put together comprehensive pay equity legislation after substantial consultation over the last three years with stakeholders, unions, private, public and governmental sources.

With regard to amendments, we have all been around committees in this place. We all see sort of a consensus emerge on how to fix a particular bill. The opposition presents one way to fix it, and the government produces a different way. The opposition's proposal might be defeated, but a very similar proposal will have the support of the government side. It is really a question of detail, sometimes, in those decisions.

As for pay equity, it is essential that we get it done in this term of Parliament. Women have waited too long. I was here in 2005 as a reporter when the NDP members rolled the dice and decided they could get a better deal under Stephen Harper than under Paul Martin. They not only collapsed the Kelowna accord, they not only collapsed an extra $2 billion for housing, they not only collapsed a national child care strategy, they collapsed comprehensive pay equity legislation as well.

Members will say that they did not roll the dice and that Canadians changed the government. Sure, Canadians changed the government, but at some point, the NDP is going to have to take responsibility for what it does, not what it aspires to do. In this case, it collapsed those pieces of legislation, and it can live with that. That is its party record.

I would also remind the party members opposite of the zero dollars they wanted to spend on housing this year or the $25 million they wanted to spend on indigenous infrastructure, a grand total of $375 million. If that is what they thought was the scope of the problem with indigenous communities across this country, they either did not care, did not know, or did not want to act.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about the Liberals, who are proposing a hefty 850-page bill. It is an omnibus bill. It is the largest bill ever introduced in the House of Commons. The omnibus bills that the Conservatives used to introduce were 75 pages long. Today we are seeing an 800% or even 900% increase with this 851-page bill. The Liberals were elected on a promise to be more transparent and more accountable.

Furthermore, we are debating this unusually large bill under a gag order. This morning, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour was boasting about how she has already given opposition members 15 hours of debate.

According to my calculations, 15 hours of debate divided by 851 pages equals one minute and five seconds per page. Is it responsible to allocate so little time to debate a bill? I use the phrase “debate a bill” loosely, because only eight NDP MPs and five Conservative MPs spoke to this bill before today, if memory serves.

The Liberals say that they are more democratic, more transparent and more accountable, but I have my doubts. I think that everyone has reason to doubt the goodwill and good faith of the Liberals.

As my colleague from Jonquière said, this bill amends seven acts. The Liberals have never been able to tell us how many clauses and subclauses are in this mammoth bill. They themselves do not even know. They do not even know all the things they put in this bill. It is ridiculous to have to debate it under time allocation.

I will focus on just a few points in my speech because, unfortunately, nobody in the House can cover all the measures introduced in the nearly 900-page bill in just 10 minutes.

Women have been waiting 42 years for the Liberals to keep their promises on pay equity. Unions have been fighting Canada Post in court over that for 30 years. The government is yet again telling women they will have to wait. Pay equity legislation will come into force not in a matter of weeks or months, but in four years.

Our party has been a tireless advocate for this important issue. We have even proposed changes in the past. As we heard from my colleague from Jonquière, the NDP proposed 36 amendments. The Conservatives proposed amendments. The other parties proposed amendments. How many amendments did the Liberals accept? Not one single amendment was accepted, despite the fact that they reflected the demands of unions and the demands of various women's groups. Not one amendment was accepted to improve the bill, to give women a stronger voice. The Liberals did not agree to any of our suggestions.

Canada is facing some major challenges that require a bolder approach than the one the Liberals are using. The first initiatives requiring employers to determine how many people must receive more pay are a step in the right direction. However, what could possibly justify how long it will take to implement this? Is it acceptable that women continue to be underpaid for another four years under this government?

In 2018, women earn on average $12,700 less than men. If we multiply that by four, that means nearly $51,000 less for women. The government says it is proud to have introduced pay equity legislation. However, women will still have $51,000 less in their pockets, which is a lot.

If I had to summarize the government's action, I would have to say that it is nothing but half measures. The time it will take to implement pay equity is the biggest problem lurking behind the government's facade of good intentions, but it is not the only one. There is also the fact that budget implementation act, 2018, No. 2 does not require employers to apply pay equity to workers who were already under contract if changes are subsequently made to the contract following a call for tenders. Why? We do not know.

The bill also does not include any of the pay transparency measures that advocates have called for. Salaries cannot be compared when pay equity issues are being addressed. What is wrong with that picture? Will the pay equity commissioner have the resources needed to do his or her work properly? We do not know that either.

Speaking of half measures, why did the government not adopt the recommendations set out in the Bilson report, including the creation of a pay equity hearings tribunal? Lastly, the Liberals are once again professing to support equality while telling a segment of the population that is being treated unfairly to grin and bear it. I would like to remind the government that women represent 51% of the population.

The government made its choice. It chose not to make the investments needed to ensure that women receive equal pay, and chose instead to give big business, the richest people in the world, $14 billion in tax cuts. This measure was introduced last week in the Minister of Finance's fall economic statement. Did the rich and these big corporations really need that $14 billion this fall? I do not think so. They are getting help, yet many of them evade taxes or openly use tax havens to avoid paying taxes.

The same is true for web giants like Netflix, Apple and Facebook, which pay virtually nothing in taxes and then get tax breaks. However, they use our services and are quite happy to hire highly skilled workers from Quebec and Canada. The Liberals claim that our SMEs are important and that they want to support buying local, but they support the web giants that do not need to worry about all of the taxes imposed on our SMEs under Canadian law.

How much of this money will go to rural areas? We have no idea. The government is allocating billions of dollars for businesses to buy new equipment and innovate, but how can we innovate when our rural areas do not even have access to high-speed Internet or a 3G or LTE cellular network?

The Auditor General criticized the government for its lack of judgment in managing public money allocated to the connect to innovate program. Some municipalities in my riding are turned down for this program or CRTC funds for ridiculous reasons, such as the fact that there is already a home with high-speed Internet within a 25-kilometre radius. This is happening in Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague, and all the areas served by Coop CSUR in the Soulanges area are under the same restriction. Do we really want a double standard for our rural and urban areas?

On another subject, how will the poverty reduction strategy be funded? Apparently, it will be made up of existing programs without any additional money. I think the Liberals are just thumbing their noses at us. They have targets, but no plan. That seems to be a theme with this government, because it does not have a plan for the environment either. The Liberals got themselves elected in 2015 by saying, “We have a plan, we have a plan, we have a plan”. Today, there is no plan, there is no plan, there is no plan. I think I will use that in an ad.

Are they going to help the most vulnerable citizens access health care services more easily? No. There is no plan for pharmacare either, even though we know that we could save $3 billion a year according to conservative estimates. We could make a lot of investments in health care with that money.

What other measures does the bill include to drastically reduce our CO₂ and methane emissions starting this year? None. Is the government planning to help rural areas go green, develop public transit, make their homes more energy efficient, or use solar and wind power? No.

Is the government going to implement restrictions to help big corporations reduce their greenhouse gas emissions? No, of course there is no plan to do that. Will the federal government finally have a costed plan for reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions? No, it has no plan for that either.

It has been pointed out that many citizen movements have been launched. In Quebec, artists, scientists, economists and citizens have signed A Pact for the Transition. Millennials have been criticized for not being more involved in all kinds of things, but yesterday, young people who realized that the government is not doing anything for the environment took action, and a youth environmental group called ENvironnement JEUnesse brought suit against the federal government for failing to take action on the environment.

I have to stop now because I am out of time, but that shows just how important the environment is to people 35 and under and how absurd it was for the government to spend $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money on a pipeline.

That move was not a plan or investment for keeping our planet healthy for current and future generations. It is shameful.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to ask my colleague opposite a question.

The purpose of my question is simple.

The member opposite complained that there was not enough investment to back up the strategy or move forward some of these critical social issues in order to achieve them. I will take housing as an example, because I have often heard the opposite side say that it all comes after the next election.

The member opposite knows, because she complained that in the first budget the money was too little to solve the problem. I agree, we needed the full $40 billion on top of the first investment. However, in our first budget, we tripled transfers to provinces and that money is building housing now, supporting housing now and renewing housing agreements now. We doubled the money that was going to homeless organizations that are fighting homelessness. We have now added an additional $40 billion on top of that, and reprofiled the money to be a little more flexible so that it can, in particular, support women and children across the country. In other words, the national housing strategy is not a 10-year, $40-billion program, but actually closer to $55 billion over 14 years, if we take into account the dollars announced before we reprofiled the money.

Would the member not agree that, from the minute we took office and the first budget we passed right through to now, we have invested well beyond $40 billion? Will the member also agree that those dollars are being spent as we speak?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleague from Hamilton Mountain shouting that it is 14 years. I am not the one saying so. Many social housing organizations across Canada are saying that 90% of the investments in social housing announced by the Liberals will not come until after the next election.

Way to go. The housing crisis is happening right now.

People are also talking about other crises. I do not know if the Liberals have their heads buried in the sand or what, but every week for the last four weeks, someone has had something to say about the environment. Global warming is the number one issue. Everyone says that urgent action is needed now.

What do the Liberals propose in these 851 pages? There is nothing for the environment, a big fat zero in terms of investment and a big fat zero in terms of plans. There is nothing for decarbonization, nothing for public transit, nothing for reviewing building codes to make them more energy efficient. There is also nothing to keep fossil fuels in the ground or to promote the development of green and renewable energy sources.

Where is the Liberals' vision for addressing climate change? I do not see it here. It is nowhere to be found.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I wholeheartedly agree with what she said about climate change.

What we need right now is not a plan to deal with a small issue because this is no longer about the environment. No, climate change has now become a critical and urgent issue. It is clearly no longer an environmental issue. It has become a threat to the security of our country and our planet.

I would like to ask the member if she has anything else to propose to effectively address this threat.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. She is obviously very involved in this file and her involvement in and commitment to society in general are a good example of some of the things that can be done.

Many scientists, industry representatives, workers in the environmental field, and people around the world are carrying out initiatives in this regard. Thousands of initiatives are being carried out around the world. I am talking about initiatives pertaining to permaculture, local currency, buy local networks, geothermal energy, wind energy, the creation of construction standards for more energy efficient buildings, and awareness campaigns regarding the fight against plastic.

We are calling on the government to establish a plan for every department. Right now, only 5 out of 19 departments have a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Environment Canada does not even have one. That makes no sense at all. I cannot believe it.

The government needs to have its own plan to adapt to climate change and apply it through public policies in every department and every sector, whether it be transport, food, housing construction and so on. There is an urgent need to act now.

Young people and the general public understand that. The only one who does not is the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the House to speak to our economic update.

I did not get a chance to ask my colleague who just spoke a question. I think she was a bit unfair to the connect to innovate program. We invested $500 million in Canada, and the CRTC will invest even more to create the backbone of the system.

True, there are some challenges with the maps, but the CRTC and the Minister of Innovation are always open to redrawing the maps to better connect Canadians.

We invested $100 million in Quebec, and I was there for a number of the announcements. I assure the member and the House that we are working on getting people connected, since this has become a necessity in our country.

I would like to take a moment with the time that I have to speak about some of the intellectual property provisions in the economic update, with the backdrop being that the government had to address yet another deficit from the previous government, which was the innovation deficit.

The previous government, under Harper, had not invested for 10 years in either basic research or in innovation. We had fallen behind our neighbours and competitors in a variety of different ways. We had previously been good at this.

We have now brought that back, with massive, historic investments, in both fundamental curiosity-based research, as well as investing in both people and technology in order to make Canada a world leader in a variety of different digital areas, the new economy, artificial intelligence and training people, from kids all the way to the elderly, upscaling and retraining, in order that we be positioned to take advantage of that.

All of this is framed by an IP strategy that we announced earlier in 2018. It really pushes Canadians and Canadian inventors to think about intellectual property as part of the way in which they monetize their investments. I know the minister is fond of saying, and he is right, that companies that think about intellectual property tend to be more profitable and do better. We certainly are trying to buttress that with an array of policies in the IP strategy, as well as in the fall economic statement.

First, I want to speak a little about notice and notice regime and the improvements we have made to that. It is an interesting Canadian invention, the notice and notice regime. One of my old colleagues, Daniel Gervais, who was at the University of Ottawa at the time and is now at the University of Amsterdam, came up with this. The idea is that Internet service providers should not be liable for copyright infringement going on the Internet when they are acting only as a conduit. This accords with our traditional underlying principle of net neutrality.

What we do is we allow copyright holders, right holders to point out to an Internet service provider that there has been an alleged infringement of copyright through its architecture. Then we ask the Internet service provider to act in a certain way in order to maintain an immunity from liability.

In the United States, the Americans reacted with something called notice and take down, in which a copyright holder would tell the Internet service provider that there had been an infringement. In order for the Internet service provider to maintain its immunity, it would simply take down the work.

This system was widely criticized in the United States because it was being abused. People were alleging copyright infringement in all sorts of cases, when perhaps there was not even copyright infringement at all. It led to a silencing or had a chilling effect on free speech, among other things.

Our Canadian response was quite a good one. When such an allegation would be made, we would ask the Internet service provider to first freeze the information, archive it, and then give notice to the person who had put up the content that some sort of infringement had happened. This then would allow for both the information to be preserved and for the copyright holder to pursue it in our court system, if he or she wanted to do that, a court system in which we have a great deal of confidence, and get to the right result without the abuse that happened in the notice and take down system.

What began to happen in Canada, and I saw this myself a number of times in my teachings, was that American rights holders, through American law firms, would often allege content infringement in Canada. They would then send a letter to those people telling them that they had infringed copyright and that they would be sued unless they paid x thousands of dollars by clicking on the link included. Sadly, a number of people did not realize this kind of claim was in contravention of Canadian law and they paid the money. This kind of trolling is what we are trying to prevent by standardizing the kinds of letters that are used in the notice and notice regime and by prohibiting any request for a monetary settlement in these letters.

We also heard from Internet service providers in Canada that it was difficult for them to maintain and archive all these various kinds of claims. Therefore, by standardizing the form, we also reduce the costs and increase the incentive for Canadian Internet service providers to comply with the system.

It is a good system. We are improving it by standardizing costs, making it more fair and preventing trolls from taking advantage of the system.

I am very proud of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and her team for having preserved the notice and notice regime in the renegotiation of the free trade agreement with Mexico and the United States. It is a strong Canadian addition to international copyright. I am pleased we have taken steps to improve it, based on the consultations we have had. These were widely shared among people and were widely agreed upon.

We are also making improvements to the patent regime, which again will help the innovative climate in Canada. We are allowing for experimentation on patents and not calling it patent infringement. It has been said that the patent system is a bargain whereby a person gets a monopoly for 20-odd years for an invention after having disclosed the secret of the invention publicly. Yes, it is true. We do not want people to infringe on the economic rights of the patent holder. However, it is not an infringement on the economic rights of the patent holder because it is not an absolute right for some other researcher to do experiments with the patent to develop another invention or improve an invention. We have recognized that in the statute.

Because licensing is such an important part of the patent regime, we have also protected licensees who licence a critical patent for their own processes and inventions, such that if the company falls into insolvency or bankruptcy or goes under creditor protection, the licensee will not lose the right to use that licence.

With respect to trademark, we are adding bad faith as a ground for opposition to trademarks. That too is something that accords overall with what we are trying to do.

I and other colleagues have spoken about a new college for patent and trademark agents to improve the quality of advice and service that is given. Again, this helps Canadian innovators.

Finally, we have brought in major improvements to the functioning of the Copyright Board, which plays such a critical role for both rights holders and users with respect to establishing rights and tariffs moving forward. If we can do that more quickly, more efficiently and in a substantively better way, it helps everyone.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has expounded on a number of programs that the Liberals think they are putting to good use in Canada. However, I have one problem. They are spending $49.5 million more every day than they are taking in. They are adding that much to the debt, over $2 million an hour.

Programs and projects could be put in place that would help them with the revenue side and sustain the jobs we already have rather than lose them, and one would be the building of pipelines in Canada. It would even reduce greenhouse gases around the world if we could get pipelines to both coasts. We would have a more efficient export program and help put people to work in other countries, as well as reduce greenhouse gases with oil they could use here rather than the products they presently use.

I wanted to point that out for my colleague across the way.

I heard the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour this morning refer to this as a fiscally sound management update for the fiscal accountability of the government. I would like to ask the member two things. When does he think the budget will ever be balanced? With $49.5 million more being spent every day than the government is taking in, how is this sound fiscal management?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a homeowner and I have a mortgage on my house. If the roof caves in or the plumbing breaks, I will have to spend money to fix it. My colleague next to me referred to that as an infrastructure deficit. There are simply times when in order to preserve the whole of the investment, we have to make other investments. That is precisely what we are doing.

We inherited a massive infrastructure deficit. In my home province, bridges are falling, infrastructure is deteriorating, water and environmental infrastructure. We had an innovation deficit. Now we are remedying that.

Yes, we have to spend money to do it, but, as has been pointed out a number of times, our debt-to-GDP ratio is going down and we have the best position in the G7 with respect to both overall debt and debt-to-GDP ratio. We are doing it prudently and saving the house.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard talk from the other side of the House about lifting people out of poverty. I hear that constantly. I am going to state some figures. My colleague on this side of the House was getting into some of them.

The first figure is $2,066,210, the second figure is $17,948 and the third figure is $49,589,041. I could do a quiz, but maybe the folks on the other side of the House realize that the first figure is the amount the debt is going up per hour. The second figure is the amount that every Canadian owes, $17,948. The third figure, $49,589,041, is the amount the debt grows every day.

When Liberals talk about lifting people out of poverty, what does my colleague tell Canadian youth who are faced with a debt of $663 billion right now? How is that lifting them out of poverty?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his proficiency in math. The answers are quite obvious.

First, the major part of Canada's overall debt was loaded by Conservative governments, first Mulroney and then Harper, in a massive way. It was only Liberal governments, such as Mr. Martin's government and this one, that managed to reduce the overall debt load.

Our overall debt load is going down as a function of our GDP. Precisely the answer for young people is that we are investing in the kind of economy that is going to give them great jobs when they finish school. It is going to subsidize the education they are getting to get those great jobs. As the economy grows, the overall percentage and importance of the debt actually goes down. I would put it to young people that they would like more challenging and better-paying jobs, knowing the debt has been managed moving forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I see the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. We are out of time for this particular five-minute period, but I can promise him that we will get him the next time around.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, this budget builds upon previous budgets by protecting the environment and strengthening the economy, and the results quite clearly speak for themselves. At 3%, Canada has the strongest economic growth of the G7 countries. In the last three years, Canadians have created 550,000 new jobs and have pushed unemployment to a record 40-year low. More Canadians are working, wages are growing and business confidence is strong. Budget 2018 is the next step in our plan to ensure that every Canadian has a real and fair chance at success.

In British Columbia, we understand the importance of measures that protect our oceans and ensure a strong and biodiverse ecosystem. Canada relies on safe and healthy coasts and waters for trade, economic growth and quality of life, and we recognize that the ocean holds a special place in the traditions and cultures of Canadians, and in particular, of indigenous peoples.

It gives me great pleasure to focus on the oceans protection plan legislative amendments that would enhance marine environmental protection and strengthen marine safety to support safe and environmentally responsible shipping.

Passage of these amendments would strengthen safeguards to better protect marine environments from the impacts of shipping, including protecting endangered whale populations. They would enable a more proactive, rapid and effective response to oil spills in Canada's waters. They would modernize Canada's ship-source oil pollution fund, including unlimited compensation for victims and responders in the event of an oil spill from a ship, and they would support research and innovation to enhance marine safety and environmental protection.

Our government is entirely committed to the sustainability of wild Pacific salmon and recognizes that this commitment requires ongoing action to succeed. Recognizing the importance of fisheries to Canada's economy as a whole, and commensurate with the Atlantic fisheries fund, this budget would create a British Columbia salmon restoration and innovation fund, which would include a contribution to the Pacific salmon endowment fund of $5 million in 2018-19. As well, our government is committed to the sustainability of wild stocks and would invest $107 million to support stock assessment and rebuilding efforts from coast to coast to coast.

Canadians are deeply concerned about threatened whale populations. We would commit $61 million to help whales recover, building on the approximately $800 million in investments to date under the oceans protection plan and the $167 million in budget 2018 dedicated to protecting endangered whales. The additional measures announced today would focus on increasing the food supply for whales, reducing the disturbance caused by vessel noise and addressing ocean contaminants to strengthen our overall effort. Our government is making a real long-term and sustained effort to help whales recover.

Plastics in the ocean are a threat to whales and to many other species. In my riding, the Pacific Science Enterprise Centre, on the West Vancouver waterfront, was the staging ground for Vortex, an art display by internationally renowned artist Douglas Coupland that was commissioned by the Vancouver Aquarium to draw attention to the magnitude of the ocean plastics global challenge. Coupland collected plastic waste from the shores of Haida Gwaii, which most people think of as pristine. Over the course of a few months, he assembled a display that is at the aquarium today.

The Pacific Science Enterprise Centre is partnered with the Coastal Ocean Research Institute at the aquarium, resulting in collaborative laboratory research on microplastic distribution and its effects on the marine environment. This is really important, because under the previous government, the long-term viability of this DFO lab on the West Vancouver waterfront was under severe threat. Today we are expanding science research and partnerships to address ocean health.

We know that pollution is not free. We pay for the cost of storms, floods, droughts, wildfires and extreme heat, which is why we are ensuring a price across Canada on what we do not want, which is pollution, so that we can get what we do want, which are lower emissions, cleaner air and new business opportunities.

British Columbia has been a leader in pricing pollution since 2008. We were successful in British Columbia, and we know why. That success is about to be Canada's success.

I would like to share the outcomes from a report I was involved with in 2015 about why B.C. was successful. First, we found that pricing pollution and a thriving economy can co-exist. Second is that strong political leadership is needed. Third is to keep it simple by creating broad coverage. Fourth is to start with a low price. Fifth is to commit from day one to a schedule of price increases and to stick with it. Sixth is that revenue neutrality will make pricing pollution durable. Seventh is that a price on pollution cannot be everything. It needs to be part of a suite of climate policies. Eighth is to prepare for a vocal and not fact-based opposition. Finally, expect a cleaner environment, an enhanced reputation and a thriving clean-tech sector. That is where the budget would bring this country.

We would also support the transition to a cleaner economy by providing an accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy equipment. To increase investment in the clean-tech sector, the government proposes that specified clean energy equipment be eligible for immediate expensing. With this change, the cost of clean energy equipment would be eligible for a full tax writeoff the year it was put into use in the business. This change would encourage investment to create jobs for the middle class and would help Canada achieve its climate goals.

The fall economic statement proposed two further important changes to Canada's tax system to enhance business confidence. First, allowing businesses to immediately write off the cost of the machinery and equipment used for manufacturing and the processing of goods would fuel new investments and support the adoption of advanced technologies and processes. Second, introducing the accelerated investment incentive and accelerated capital cost allowance for businesses of all sizes across all sectors of the economy that are making capital investments would help encourage investment in Canada, providing a timely boost to investor confidence.

Coupled with these new incentives is our government's strengthening of free trade agreements, which is something I have been very honoured to be part of. Canada has a unique place in the world. It is located next to the world's largest economy to the south and has close business, economic and historic ties to Europe to the east and deep connections to the fast-growing Asia-Pacific nations to the west.

With the successful conclusion of the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, the Canada-European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, Canada is the only G7 country to have free trade agreements with all other G7 nations. These countries represent two-thirds of the world's total GDP taken together. The government's ongoing commitment to free trade with economies around the world, including those in vibrant emerging markets, will help further strengthen and grow the middle class and deliver long-term economic growth to benefit all Canadians.

Equal pay for work of equal value is smart and just. We are very proud to be moving forward with proactive pay equity legislation. It is a key way our government would deliver on its commitment to gender equality. Work is under way, and consultations on key design elements of the proactive pay equity system with stakeholders, including employers and organized labour, as well as other experts, have concluded. Our government will introduce proactive pay equity legislation for workers in federally regulated sectors in 2018.

As we work hard to protect the environment and to build a robust, resilient economy, it is important to remember the difference we have made for families at home. In the 2017-18 fiscal year, 9,650 families in my riding received the Canada child benefit; 16,060 children benefited from just over $57 million of investments through the Canada child benefit payments. Since introducing this legislation in 2016, the policy has lifted more than half a million people, including 300,000 children, out of poverty. We believe in supporting Canada's middle class, and that is why we created the Canada child benefit. This summer, we increased the CCB to keep up with the cost of living two years in advance of our initial plan so that families can keep up.

This budget would put this government on the right path. We take into account the environment and the economy. We take into account the importance of a strong middle class and we take into account what is required for the 21st century for each and every Canadian.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite, a fellow British Columbian. It is always wonderful to hear B.C. voices here in this chamber.

The member talked about the need to support the clean-tech environment. General Motors announced in many different press releases that it wants to build more high-tech autonomous cars and that these cars of the future also need to be electric, yet the Oshawa plant is not part of this. The member is part of a government that says a lot of things about innovation and investment rules, but it appears that Oshawa, and perhaps other parts of Ontario's economy, are not going to be part of that future. How does she square the two?

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my empathy for the employees who are facing such a devastating decision.

Ours is a government that is standing up for a 21st century economy, where the fundamentals must include putting a price on pollution. The opposition party continues to live in the past and continues to advocate for a future that is very bleak for our children and grandchildren.

I am very proud of the fact that we are focused on growing the clean-tech sector and are admitting the challenges we face so that Canadians can thrive in the future.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that when in government, they have to make tough decisions and have to decide where technology is going and listen and whatnot. I think the government probably has the resources it needs. However, the member did not even try to address the question. She just pointed her finger at the Conservatives and said that somehow it is our fault that they are not succeeding in attracting investments in clean tech for the next generation of automobiles in places like Oshawa. Could she give some concrete examples as to why someone on the streets of Oshawa right now should believe the rhetoric of the government?

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones]

Mr. Speaker, I am choosing not to exercise selective thinking. I think we are all well aware of the GE plant that opened in Welland and created 250 jobs.

The point is what the future of Canada's economy looks like and the fundamentals of that future. I am quite surprised, because the member opposite is also from British Columbia and is well aware of the success of putting a price on pollution in British Columbia and how the economy of British Columbia has thrived, if not led the country, in the context of being properly rooted in what our future is telling us we simply must do.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite was looking for an example of a targeted investment supported by the federal government that is driving new work in Oshawa related to the auto industry. Is the parliamentary secretary aware that as part of our $5.6 billion investment in the auto sector, GM selected Oshawa for the site of its new electronic vehicle research centre? Close to 1,000 engineers have been hired in southern Ontario. The member for Milton says that engineers do not matter and are not part of the ecosystem of the auto sector. She dismissed them as good jobs and as a remedy for some of the unemployment challenges in the country. Is the parliamentary secretary aware that these investments are being made in Oshawa today and set the stage for retooling the plant that was closed yesterday?

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones]

Mr. Speaker, yes, of course we are. I would like to further stress the importance of the free trade agreements we have worked so hard on in the space of three years to improve upon what went before and to finalize agreements around the world to benefit Canadian workers and their families.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member saying I should know British Columbia's experience with the carbon tax. Actually, I do. I was on a task force with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce to evaluate it. There are two very different sides to this. If by innovation she means the results of the carbon tax, in the last year that was referenced, 2016-17, we actually saw an increase in overall carbon emissions. We have also seen a decrease in the amount the local cement industry has in its own marketplace.

Washington State has decided not to go ahead with a carbon tax. It has actually voted it down twice. If she is saying that the only innovation to come out of that is to have higher gas prices and at the same time higher subsidies, she is kidding herself. They may say it is a price on carbon, but they are also subsidizing a number of different industries. If they look at B.C., greenhouse growers and the cement industry have seen—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to focus on the fact that putting a price on pollution puts Canada in a global leadership position. It brings together business, academics and research, and most importantly, it offers hope for the future for our children and grandchildren.

Member of Parliament for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the question of privilege raised on Tuesday, November 26, by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. The member contended that the absence of the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel constituted a breach of privilege.

Page 145 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice reads as follows:

The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation.

Speaker Sauvé's ruling from May 26, 1981, states:

There has to be a balance in relation to a question of privilege. If an hon. member has a question of privilege, then it has to be dealt with very rapidly. If we defer questions of privilege for several days and they are serious, then I wonder what the meaning of...a question of privilege is. If it is urgent, it is urgent and therefore has to be heard immediately.

Clearly, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley did not raise the issue at the first opportunity. Media reports from November 20 quote from a November 8 letter from the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Timmins—James Bay to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, where they ask the commissioner to examine the facts surrounding the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

Media stories also state that the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has confirmed that his office has begun a preliminary inquiry into the conduct of the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.

Furthermore, the rights of the House to maintain the attendance and service of its members have also not been denied, as the Board of Internal Economy, which is the governing body of the House of Commons, has legal authority to act on all financial and administrative matters respecting the House of Commons, its premises, its services, its staff and members of the House of Commons.

The Parliament of Canada Act, which gives the Board of Internal Economy its powers and authority, outlines the process to be followed for non-attendance by members.

Furthermore, Section 59 allows the House of Commons to go even further, stating, “The Senate or the House of Commons may make regulations by rule or by order, rendering more stringent on its own members the provisions of this Act that relate to the attendance of members or to the deductions to be made from sessional allowances.”

For all of the reasons cited, I do not believe that this issue constitutes a breach of privilege of a member or of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for these additional comments on the matter. They will be taken under advisement and commented upon at a later time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.