Debates of May 11th, 2018

Ethics

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the good work that our hard-working members from Newfoundland and Labrador do every single day, and in particular the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, who has been in constant contact with the minister.

I have also been pleased to meet with the entire Newfoundland and Labrador caucus, individually and as a group, on many occasions, to work on many innovative solutions to challenges in the province. There is no doubt that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have some of the strongest federal representatives in the country.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it also has the highest unemployment rate.

The minister was aware of the glaring weaknesses in the Five Nations proposal, yet he ordered DFO to give them the licence anyway. Despite the departmental analysis pointing out the flaws, he gave it to Liberal family and friends at the expense of the community of Grand Bank.

How can his Liberal colleagues on the Rock face their constituents, knowing full well that the minister failed to apply the bid criteria fairly and in an open and transparent manner?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, our decision to introduce indigenous participation is consistent with our government's commitment to developing a renewed relationship with Canada and indigenous peoples. The minister made his decision to allow for increased indigenous participation in this fishery, and we reject any claim to the contrary in the strongest of terms.

Our government is proud of this decision, and we will continue to focus on how it will directly benefit first nations communities across Atlantic Canada and in Quebec.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we go on to the next question, I just want to remind the hon. members how it works: one person asks a question, and the other one gives a reply. What happens is we try to listen to each other respectfully. I just want to point that out for the rest of the session.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the face of it, the situation is very disturbing. The Minister of Fisheries decided to take away 25% of a fishing quota and give it to a company with close ties to the Liberal Party, a company owned by the brother of an MP, a former Liberal MP, and one of the current minister's in-laws. Clearly, that is a conflict of interest.

Just to be clear, is the minister prepared to restart the process to make sure Canadians get their money's worth?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, like the previous government, our government decided it was important to bring a new participant into the surf clam fishery. However, unlike the Conservatives, we remembered to include indigenous communities. We are proud of our decision, which will benefit the greatest possible number of Atlantic Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the lion's share of the contract is not going to first nations. It seems kind of strange to give such a large contract worth millions of dollars to a company that does not even have a boat. This is about fishing, after all.

Clearly, that makes no sense. Clearly, the whole process needs to be restarted so it can be done properly. Otherwise, it will be like the Liberal sponsorship scandal all over again.

Why is the government being nepotistic on this file?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, again, with regard to process, the Conservatives should not be surprised, as they went through the exact same process three years ago. The only thing was that they forgot to include indigenous communities.

We had a robust process. We are proud of that process, and we are proud of the decision that assured that the value from this public resource is going to benefit the most number of Atlantic Canadians, including indigenous nations in Atlantic Canada as well as Quebec.

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, first nations are warning Kinder Morgan stakeholders that the pipeline project carries a significant risk if it goes forward without adequate consultation and the free, prior, and informed consent of first nations. In fact, B.C. chief, Judy Wilson, speaking at their AGM in Texas, told Kinder Morgan shareholders that they do not truly understand the full risks the company faces.

Will the government heed the call of first nations leaders and fully disclose all the legal risks associated with this project?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, our government knows that protecting the environment and growing the economy are not mutually exclusive, as the two parties opposite would have Canadians believe. We can do both together.

The true failure of leadership here is the inability of the leader of the third party to unite his party around a project in the national interest. We will stand up for the environment, for Canadian workers, and we will get this project built.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government's understanding of the national interest is to ignore its constitutional obligations towards indigenous peoples, then it should just say it. The reality is that the project is facing increasing opposition from first nations and environmental groups, and the government must respect section 35 of the Constitution and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Will the government finally admit that the approval process for Kinder Morgan was deeply flawed all along?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member opposite that there are 43 indigenous communities that indeed have signed impact benefit agreements, 33 of which are in the province of British Columbia.

The TMX project is of vital strategic interest to Canada, and it will be built. Our government has initiated formal financial discussions with Kinder Morgan, the result of which will be to remove uncertainty overhanging the project. We are actively pursuing legislative options that will assert and reinforce the federal jurisdiction in this matter, which we know we clearly have. Protecting our environment and growing our economy are not opposing values.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, two first nations chiefs from British Columbia travelled to Texas for Kinder Morgan's annual meeting. With a single presentation, they succeeded in convincing Kinder Morgan's shareholders about this project's risks for their communities, leading the shareholders to demand more information on the environmental risks and standards of the project. The federal government has been somewhat less receptive.

Why are indigenous communities getting more attention and action from Kinder Morgan's shareholders than from this government?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's recommendation was based on the participation of 400 intervenors, 1,250 commentators, and extensive scientific and technical evidence, so we went further. We extended consultations and struck a ministerial panel. The panel heard from an additional 650 Canadians at 44 public meetings. It received over 20,000 online submissions and had more than 30,000 responses to their online questionnaire. This project was the subject of the most exhaustive review of any pipeline in Canadian history.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite what the parliamentary secretary is telling us today, this project has been strongly opposed by indigenous communities from the outset. The only answer the federal government will give them is that it did historic consultations. Those consultations were purely symbolic and were rigged in advance.

What is the use of saying that its most important relationship is its relationship with indigenous communities if the government does not respect their fundamental rights under section 35 of our Constitution?

Democratic Reform

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say they would ban government advertising 90 days before an election, yet they want to apply spending limits on opposition parties almost a month before that time. For the Liberals, it is, “Do what I say and not what I do.”

Once again, I ask, will they impose the exact same restrictions on ministerial travel and government advertising that they are on parties in this newly established pre-election period?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, leading up to the last federal election, in fact, in the years of the Harper government, it spent almost a billion dollars on quasi-partisan government advertising. We changed the advertising policy for the Government of Canada to eliminate that kind of blatant partisan advertising. We also imposed on the Government of Canada the same restrictions that apply, and have applied for a long time during the writ period, to the Government of Canada for 90 days before. We have already taken action to address the issue that the Harper government did not.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before going to the next question, I want to remind members that certain individuals have very nice voices that carry very well. I would ask them, when they are not up speaking, if maybe they could tone them down a bit so that when they are talking to the person next to them, which I am sure they are doing, it will not be loud enough to interfere with the person answering the question, or asking the question, for that matter.

The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can keep repeating his talking points and his attempts at spin. The fact of the matter is, the rules he referenced would only be in place after July 23 for his Liberal government. The limits for opposition parties would apply almost a month before that. This is the Liberals blatantly trying to tip the electoral scales in their favour.

Will they commit to amending their bill so that these same rules apply to Liberal government advertising and ministerial travel, as they do to opposition parties?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is conflating two different things. One is a limit on all political parties in terms of their advertising spending, and we are putting in place a pre-writ period that would apply to all political parties. The other is on government advertising, and we have already eliminated partisan government advertising. We did that about two years ago, in response to the egregious abuse of government advertising by the Harper Conservatives. We have already fixed this issue, and we are doing the right thing to be an open and transparent government.

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

Mr. Speaker, our ad never cost $300,000 for a single-page image. That is ridiculous.

Every time the Prime Minister sees his chances of winning the 2019 election crumbling, he introduces some kind of legislation seeking to make it impossible for the Canadian public or the opposition to hold him accountable or responsible for his actions. In his new bill, the Prime Minister wants to limit what political parties can do with the money that Canadians have freely given said parties.

I have a very simple question. Is he going to impose the same restrictions on his own government and his ministers regarding travel and other election activities in the lead-up to the next election campaign?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we are committed to increasing Canadians' trust and participation in our democratic processes. This bill will make our elections more accessible, make the electoral process more secure and transparent, and ensure that political parties protect the privacy of Canadians. We look forward to working with all members for a more open and transparent system.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal election changes are purposely vague and leave Canadians wondering what their true motive is. The Liberals are telling young Canadians between 14 and 17 that they do not have to tell their parents they have given all their personal information away to a government agency. In fact, parental consent is explicitly stated as not required in the legislation.

Parents have the right to know what their kids have signed up for, the purpose of it, and how that information is being shared. Why are the Liberals purposely keeping parents in the dark about their children giving their personal information away?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, in response to questions about the future electors registry, in fact, the information of young people who actually become part of that registry would not be shared with political parties. I was clear on that earlier this week.

I am surprised that the Conservatives would be opposed to the future electors registry, because at committee, they actually voted to support it.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Toronto has asked for federal support, with the major increase in refugees coming to Toronto. The number of refugee claimants in the Toronto shelter system has increased to almost 40% of the total system and continues to rise. There is a strain on food banks, and the city's programs are reaching their limits. Does the Prime Minister think it is fair that Toronto has to pay for his failure?