House of Commons Hansard #364 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jobs.

Topics

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member named a member of the House, which is in violation of the Standing Orders.

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I thank the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. However, the hon. member for Pontiac corrected his mistake right after he made it.

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss the open letter addressed to the Leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately, because of the opposition, we are not having a serious debate on climate change and pollution pricing. This is still a hyper-politicized issue, which is such a shame.

I would like the opposition leader to tell me the Conservative Party's position on the federal jurisdiction over pollution pricing.

Canadians deserve to know that the Government of Saskatchewan has brought a reference case to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, and while British Columbia is intervening in this matter, while Ontario is intervening in this matter, while a number of non-governmental organizations are intervening in this matter, and while even the Alberta Conservatives are intervening in this matter, the federal Conservatives appear to have no position on this litigation and appear to have no concrete idea of what is federal jurisdiction over pollution pricing.

I would dearly love to hear it. I invite my colleagues across the way to tell us all about it.

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Alice Wong Conservative Richmond Centre, BC

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing for sure. Seniors are suffering greatly. Seniors are lining up at food banks more than ever. Seniors have been telling me that there is no way they can afford their heat and everything else. They do not drive. They take the bus.

There is nothing in the economic update for seniors. The government is re-announcing things for other places and says it is all for seniors.

Why is the government targeting seniors with its terrible carbon tax? In B.C., it is no longer revenue neutral. The B.C. government has taken it. This is a tax grab after all, right?

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC

Mr. Speaker, speaking of seniors, my riding of Pontiac, demographically, has many seniors. It is a riding where, if the member of Parliament does not pay attention to seniors every single day, there is going to be a real challenge.

I will tell the member what seniors in Pontiac have told me. They thank the federal government for increasing the guaranteed income supplement by 10% for single, low-income seniors. That is real support after a decade of no increases such as that.

Public transit for seniors is absolutely an important issue. I thank the member for raising it. The $180 billion being spent over 10 years on infrastructure is going to be directed massively toward public transit, and that is definitely in the interest of our seniors.

Overall, seniors are looking at the Government of Canada today and saying that this is a government that is acting.

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in the House since about 10 o'clock this morning listening to speech after speech, and almost none of the Liberal members have been able to speak to the motion itself.

They talk about putting a price on pollution. A week or two after the government came to power in 2015, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change gave permission to Montreal to dump eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. In February of this year, the government gave permission to the City of Quebec to spill 46 million litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River.

My question is very simple. We talk about a price on pollution. How much did Montreal pay to pollute the St. Lawrence River? How much did the City of Quebec pay to pollute the St. Lawrence River?

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC

Mr. Speaker, the issue of such spills into rivers has absolutely to do with a decade of failing to invest adequately in municipal infrastructure. That is exactly what $180 billion being spent over 10 years is all about.

It has happened here in the national capital region, in the city I represent in Gatineau. The City of Gatineau knows that it needs to invest in water and waste water, and it is. Guess what? That is thanks to the investments of this federal government, which is taking municipal infrastructure seriously.

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend and I were friends before politics in the environmental movement.

We have warnings from the IPCC that we must reduce greenhouse gases globally, 45% below 2010 levels, by 2030. This is not a number that can be negotiated. This is an absolute if we want to ensure the survival of civilization.

Is it better when the Liberals, who understand climate change, do not have a plan? Is that better than the Conservatives, who clearly do not care and do not have a plan?

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the dedication of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to this issue and the work we have done, both past and present.

Obviously, I reject the premise of the question. Our plan is solid. Our plan is working. Our plan is focused on investing in infrastructure, pricing pollution and making sure that we shut down coal-fired power plants. We are getting the job done. At the end of the day, this issue is too important to Canadians to devolve into partisan bickering.

We need the Conservatives to step up and answer to the public on questions of jurisdiction. We need the Green Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québecois to step up with concrete proposals of their own that take into account the realities across the country, because the realities in Alberta are not the exact same as they are in Quebec.

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Andrew Leslie Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some concerns raised by my colleagues across the way about the ongoing softwood lumber issue. This is an important sector of the Canadian economy, as we know, that supports thousands of jobs in communities across our land, creating many positive spinoffs in related industries and services. Of course, we are focused on modernizing and on making sure that we have efficient, environmentally sustainable lumber companies. We have the potential to serve the entirety of the market here in Canada, in the United States and around the world.

In the U.S., where there is a demand for lumber that exceeds supply, housing and other industries rely on Canada for stable, predictable access to quality products. When not available, house prices in the United States have increased by a significant amount due to the increase in softwood lumber prices, which is a direct result of the imposition of U.S. tariffs on Canada's softwood lumber. This dispute has become one of the most enduring trade disputes between our nations, with a history of well over 25 years. Indeed, it goes back close to 80 years.

Over the past 25 years, the United States' lumber industry has frequently sought U.S. government restrictions on reliable, high-quality Canadian softwood lumber imports through the application of import duties. The countervailing and anti-dumping duties imposed by the U.S. Department of Commerce on Canadian softwood lumber are entirely unjustified. Canada believes that these determinations are inconsistent with U.S. trade law and with the international trade obligations of the United States under the World Trade Organization. In the past, U.S. claims have always been found to be without basis. Canada believes this, once again, to be the case.

Our government remains committed to vigorously defending the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry. Starting in late 2017, the Government of Canada initiated dispute settlement proceedings under the NAFTA chapter 19 dispute resolution mechanism. Canada is pursuing three challenges before NAFTA chapter 19 panels: against the countervailing duty determination, against the anti-dumping duty determination, and against the U.S. International Trade Commission's finding of material injury.

We worked very hard to maintain the independent and impartial chapter 19 binational panel review mechanism for anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations in the new NAFTA, which is one of the immediate by-products of the good work that went into that. The modernized NAFTA preserves this binational panel in chapter 19. It enhances the existing exclusion of NAFTA partners from global safeguard action. It adds new elements that strengthen cooperation on duty evasion, and it enhances transparency in trade remedy investigations. These are good things.

Given the integrated nature of the North American economy, it is important to minimize these disruptions that can, as we have seen, result from the imposition of unfair and unjust trade remedies and trade tariffs, such as those on steel and aluminum. This outcome ensures that trade remedies are applied in a fair, transparent and responsible way while maintaining recourse, when necessary, to an impartial binational panel.

Canada is also challenging the U.S. final determinations on softwood lumber through the World trade Organization. The WTO Director-General has appointed panellists to rule on Canada's challenge of the U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duty determinations. We have submitted briefs in both cases. A second anti-dumping hearing took place very recently, on December 4, and the first hearing on the countervailing duty case will take place from February 26 to February 28, 2019.

On June 1, 2017, the Government of Canada announced a softwood lumber action plan in the amount of $867 million over three years. This was aimed at supporting the needs of affected workers and communities. This plan strengthens the forest industry and diversifies markets for Canadian wood and wood products. It also includes a basket of resources, over three years, of $105 million from the Business Development Bank and up to $500 million from Export Development Canada to viable firms. That is the Canadian government in action. On top of that, it includes an additional $90 million to help reduce layoffs, by extending the duration of work-sharing arrangements, and to help affected workers upgrade their skills.

Our government is committed to opening new markets for our softwood lumber. The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs all have been actively pursuing such objectives.

The softwood lumber dispute is historically an extremely challenging issue. Our government has allocated a tremendous amount of resources, totalling almost $1 billion, to alleviate the suffering that has been imposed by these unfair and unjust duties by the Americans on their Canadian compatriots.

With regard to the way forward on NAFTA, Canada will only accept an agreement that reflects the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber sector. In the interim, we will continue to stand up for forestry workers and communities that depend on this critical sector of Canadian economy.

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed working with the hon. member on the Canada-U.S. file. We worked relatively well together when we were in the U.S. explaining the importance of trade. All members in the House worked pretty well together. It was up the Prime Minister to convince his friend, who he called Donald last weekend, that trade was important, and he failed drastically. Who paid for that failure? It was forestry workers, aluminum and steel workers, manufacturers and oil and gas workers. They all have one thing in common: the Prime Minister has failed them.

In the last election, the member told his constituents, based on the words of the Prime Minister, that he would balance the deficit, that there would be a small deficit for a short period of time, but it would be balanced by 2019. Could the member tell me what he will now tell his constituents when he knows for a fact that the budget will not be balanced and he has no clue when it will be? What will he tell them now?

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Leslie Liberal Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, in both instances, the actions and reactions have been precipitated by the government in the United States. On softwood lumber, the unjust countervailing anti-dumping duties placed on softwood lumber resulted in the Government of Canada negotiating hard to ensure chapter 19 survived in its entirety in the new NAFTA. As well, we have allocated $1 billion to help affected workers and companies.

Now let me quickly transition to another set of unjust and unlawful tariffs on Canadian resources, those imposed on steel and aluminum. As members know, we have allocated $2 billion and an enormous amount of effort to work with our American colleagues to eliminate these unfair and unjust duties.

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

Mr. Speaker, when one listens to members on the other side of the House, everything is rosy, happy and everybody they talk to is pleased and cannot wait for the next week's or month's budget. Was the member opposite aware of the 2,000 people in Calgary protesting the Prime Minister? These are out-of-work oil and gas sector employees who now cannot afford to put food on their tables, or have Christmas dinner with their families or even celebrate Christmas, for that matter.

Is the member aware that these people are not happy? He is saying that everything is great in the country. Is he aware that there are 2,000 people on the streets of Calgary, protesting what the government is doing in every sector across the country?

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Leslie Liberal Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, in both instances, which have acted as disruptive shocks to portions of our economy, our hearts go out to those affected, of course. We have worked very hard to allocate sufficient resources to see them through times of trouble.

I would point out for the hon. member that the Prime Minister, the ministers responsible for this file and, indeed, members of Parliament from all sides have worked diligently with their constituents to identify the shocks to the system that can be remedied or rectified by the application of resources from the Government of Canada. I am glad to see the teamwork we all have focused on those workers and those affected.

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I guess his answer to my previous question is that he will not answer the question about his constituents, because he will not answer it in the House. However, I will ask another question.

My colleague from Edmonton Riverbend talked about the 2,000 workers who protested the Prime Minister in Calgary, trying to get across to him how dire the oil and gas sector was out west. Will he at least do something to help them? Will he stop Bill C-68 and Bill C-69 and recognize the dire consequences of that legislation? The people who invest in pipelines tell us point blank that if those bills go through, they will never invest in a pipeline in Canada again.

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Leslie Liberal Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, we believe in a strong Canadian economy and we are doing all we can to support Canadian workers in their endeavours, not only to pursue activities in markets with the United States but to diversify. The Prime Minister has toured the land on numerous occasions, listening to the concerns of those affected. We are allocating resources to help them to the extent that is absolutely possible, and we are going to do more than that.

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

December 4th, 2018 / 1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Durham. I am delighted to be rising in the House to discuss the motion introduced by our party today with Canadians and my colleagues in the House. Our motion highlights the Liberal government's constant failures with measures it has been responsible for implementing in the more than three years it has been in office. Fortunately for those tuning in, we are more than halfway through the Liberals' term, and the next election is just around the corner. Everyone will have a chance to do themselves a good turn and try to get this country straightened out.

The motion is an opportunity for the government to fix its mistakes from the past three years and more. The economic update tabled by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, who presumably have the occasional chat before tabling such documents, does everything it can to convince Canadians that the economy is doing well under their policies. Unfortunately, that is not true.

We need only look to what is happening in Oshawa, Quebec, in the VIA Rail file, or in Alberta, western Canada, and in the natural resources and oil sector, which is floundering because this government lacks the will to support workers across the country.

I am also going to take this opportunity to talk about deficits and conflicts between different provinces and the federal government. God knows that we, in this place, have a responsibility to work with other levels of government. However, that is not happening.

Then, I will speak about the carbon tax, which negatively affects Canadians and increases their cost of living. We see what is happening in France, where workers are tired of handing over the money they work so hard to earn every day. These men and women see the government taking money out of their pockets and then have fun sending out tweets, like the Prime Minister did, on the weekend, when he told his friends that he had $50 million to donate because he wants to run with rock stars.

I am going to talk about the carbon tax, the deficit, Trans Mountain, marijuana legalization and, if I have time, illegal immigration, which is costing a fortune. I hope to have time at the end of my speech to talk about the government's ethics problems and a number of Liberal MPs who are tarnishing our international image and hurting our economy.

I will start with the economic agreement that was just signed with the Americans. On the weekend, the government went and signed a document that is going to be of no help whatsoever to our economy. That is clear from what happened in Oshawa, regardless of what the government would have us believe. The agreement sends a message to our farmers and our steel and aluminum workers that they do not matter. It gives the Americans a say over our economic sovereignty. If we want to negotiate economic agreements with certain countries, we have to get the Americans' permission first. What is more, our Prime Minister signed the agreement without making sure the American President would lift the steel and aluminum tariffs.

Moreover, we still do not know what the government will do to help our dairy farmers. One thing we do know is that prescriptions will cost Canadians more. Our government is not helping small and medium-sized businesses be competitive, but the U.S. government is supporting American businesses by lowering their taxes so they can create jobs and invest.

Foreign investment in Canada has declined by 50% since the Liberals took office. The impact is clear from the indicator of foreign investment in Canada.

It is also clear that our entrepreneurs, our men and women who invest their money to create jobs, are headed for difficult times very soon. There has been a direct impact in Oshawa. GM decided to close its plant and let 2,500 workers go. These are the jobs that will be directly impacted, but if we add on all the collateral sectors, the closure will affect almost 10,000 jobs. When it signed the economic agreement, however, the government told us outright that it wanted to support Ontario's auto industry. That is another Liberal government failure.

On top of that, there are all the disputes the government is having with different provinces. We expect a prime minister to work with the provinces. Since our Prime Minister was elected, he has clashed with Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick over the carbon tax. I want to repeat that this tax hurts Canadians and families who still need gas every day to get around. This tax is going to increase the cost of food, goods, and things we need every day to live.

There is also a dispute with British Columbia and Alberta over the Trans Mountain pipeline. The government took $4.5 billion of our money, Canadians' money, and gave it to a U.S. company to build a pipeline in another country. The government was unable to create the right conditions for private business to support our natural resources sector.

On the issue of the legalization of cannabis, the government is at odds with Quebec and Manitoba. The Prime Minister is at odds with 79% of the population if we add up all these provinces and their populations. That is not the kind of leadership we expect from a prime minister.

I spoke about the carbon tax earlier. My colleague's motion makes clear mention of it. This tax simply allows the government to take even more money out of taxpayers' pockets. There is absolutely no evidence to show that a carbon tax will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are calling on the government to show us the numbers, if they exist. The reality is that there are no numbers. The proof is that, since the Liberal government has been in office, it has not managed to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, unlike the Conservatives, who, despite everything the Liberals have been saying, succeeded in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2.2%, I believe, while growing the economy.

There are a lot of problems. I spoke about the Trans Mountain pipeline earlier. I do not have much time left, but I really want to mention the deficit. For three years, the government has been tabling budgets that our children and grandchildren will have to pay for. The government promised to run small deficits in the first two years with a gradual return to a balanced budget by 2019, before the next election. The former Conservative government was able to balance the budget when it was in office three years ago.

The government is adding $20 billion per year to the national debt. That is enough to build about 50 NHL arenas. Just to be clear, if we were to add up all of the deficits the Liberals are racking up, 250 communities across Canada could have an NHL arena. The way things are going, it will take over 30 years to balance the budget, unless we stop them, as we plan to do next year.

The government has made many mistakes, and those mistakes will have consequences. I therefore encourage my colleagues to vote in favour of the motion moved by the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. I will read it.

That the House: (a) recognize the severity of the looming job crisis in Canada caused by the failed economic policies of the Liberal government, especially for (i) workers in the energy sector impacted by the Liberal carbon tax, the no-more-pipelines Bill C-69, and the ban on offshore oil tankers, (ii) workers in the auto and manufacturing sector impacted by the Liberal carbon tax and failed policies that put Canada in a competitive disadvantage, (iii) workers in the steel and aluminum sectors impacted by the Liberals’ failure to have tariffs removed from their products during NAFTA negotiations, (iv) workers in the forestry sector impacted by the Liberals’ failure to resolve the softwood lumber dispute during NAFTA negotiations, (v) farmers impacted by increased input costs due to the Liberal carbon tax, (vi) workers in sectors that rely on those above, whose jobs and incomes depend on the vitality of the Canadian economy, (vii) workers in all sectors impacted by the toxic [and I think this is a great adjective to describe it] medley of carbon taxes...

I did not finish reading out the motion, but I urge everyone to read the whole motion, which I am very proud of, and to vote for it.

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Sean Fraser Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech.

The motion suggests that a tax on higher salaries would have an adverse effect on jobs in Canada.

Does the hon. member believe that the Canada pension plan is a payroll tax? If so, will his party repeal the measures our government has put in place to improve the program and provide a recognized pension plan to Canadian seniors?

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, when we form the government we are going to undo all the Liberal government's bad policies. We will support our workers and small businesses by reducing their tax burden.

The fact is that businesses have had to contend with catastrophic tax reform. The last study that came out shows that 81% of Canadian families are paying more taxes.

The government is even to blame for removing public transit tax credits and children's fitness and arts tax credits. It is unbelievable. We will bring the house back in order a year from now and Canadians will be proud of what they see in the next election campaign.

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, a riding not too far from Sherbrooke, for his contribution to the debate, even though we do not agree on much.

When I spoke to this motion, I spoke about the threat of a carbon tax bogeyman that the Conservatives keep tossing around. They brought it up almost every day between 2011 and 2015. My colleagues who were around at the time may remember the Conservatives bringing up this bogeyman every day, although they were, naturally, unsuccessful. Earlier, I was chided for too closely analyzing their political strategies, but it is clear that they were not successful in the 2015 election.

However, my colleague was known to be a rather progressive and pro-environment mayor. It is surprising to see him today, completely blinded by the Conservative anti-tax ideology, supporting a motion that is against climate action.

Can my colleague confirm that he previously favoured some form of carbon tax and that a carbon tax is a good way to combat climate change?

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member, who represents a riding that is not too far from mine. However, right away I need to correct some misinformation in what he said.

First of all, I am green. Like my colleagues, I want to protect our environment. I never said I was in favour of a carbon tax. I insist that I never said that.

A carbon tax is just one more way to take money out of taxpayers' pockets. It is not true that this measure will help improve the environment.

I invite my colleague to table a document that proves that a carbon tax has any impact on greenhouse gas reductions. The kind of tax the government is imposing is even less likely to have an impact. Actually, the government is taking money away with one hand and trying to give gifts with the other.

If the government maintains its position on the carbon tax, I can assure everyone that, as the future government, we would cancel that tax immediately upon taking office.

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska. He extolled none of the virtues of the current government, and yet he could have talked about the Canada child benefit, for example, or the incredible gains made through our multilateral international agreements and the international markets that have opened up thanks to new export initiatives.

The member talked about the plant in Oshawa. That struck a chord for me because, at the height of its production, in 1953, it employed 40,000 people. The number of employees dropped to 23,000. After 10 years under the Harper government, no deal was signed and now it employs only 2,500.

Does the member really believe that the agreement signed with Mexico and the U.S. is the reason why the Oshawa plant is shutting down?

Opposition Motion—The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to see that the government is simply incapable of taking responsibility. When things are going well, the Liberal government takes credit, but when things are going poorly it always blames someone else.

The government has been in power for three years. It has had the opportunity to make decisions to support our economy and our workers. Two weeks ago, there were 2,500 jobs in Oshawa and now there are none.

Who is in power? The Liberals are. We are eager for the Liberals to start standing up and defending the natural resource workers in western Canada, the auto sector workers in Ontario, the agricultural workers across Canada, and the steel and aluminum workers. These workers are paying the price for the government's mismanagement. This government has crashed and it is time for the Liberals to realize that.

Honestly, I have a hard time understanding why we have to keep repeating these things. Canadians are starting to realize what is going on. We saw that yesterday during the byelection, another election where the Conservatives performed better than they did during the 2015 election and where the Liberals did not do as well. It has been like that in every byelection and will only keep getting better until October 2019, so watch out. Canadians have to remain hopeful. In a year, we will put the house back in order.

CrimeStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, in 1970, the Trudeau government had 500 people arrested because it was afraid they were criminals. How things have changed. Now we have a government led by the son of that same prime minister, and criminals are openly parading around downtown Montreal.

All of the parties voted against our bill to create a list of criminal organizations. They voted against police officers arresting people who make no attempt to hide their gang membership. Even the Conservatives, who talk so tough, did not stand up when it was time to take action. Ottawa is too cowardly and is forcing municipalities such as Saint-Tite to pass bylaws to stop gangsters from intimidating the locals.

It is pretty hard to be a proud member of Parliament when the people here cannot even agree on such basic values as fighting organized crime and hardly seem to care that our young girls are being forced into the sex trade, that drugs are being sold in our schools, and that gangs are being let off scot free. It is very hard.

Unity in the CommunityStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the work of a Brampton organization, Unity in the Community. Focused on bridging the gap between Canadians of all backgrounds by celebrating our diversity, Unity in the Community has been playing a very important role in my riding of Brampton North. It has demonstrated its generosity time and again by organizing food, clothing and donation drives, planning educational seminars and hosting celebrations that bring together Bramptonians from all walks of life.

We thank members of Unity in the Community for their hard work on behalf of the people of Brampton and the Region of Peel. Their efforts have reminded us all that diversity is indeed our strength.