Debates of April 29th, 2019

Question No. 2306

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

With regard to the official languages: (a) what official forums and conferences discussing linguistic duality or minorities were hosted by the federal government between January 2016 and February 2019; (b) what concrete actions taken by the federal government between January 2016 and February 2019 show that linguistic duality was a genuine priority; (c) what role did the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie play in the forums and conferences mentioned in (a); (d) what are the details of each of the forums and conferences in (a), including (i) their specific topics, (ii) their results; (e) have public debates, public consultations or public reports regarding linguistic duality in Canada and the situation of official-language minority communities been released or made accessible and, if so, to whom, when and where; (f) what processes will be used to make them public; and (g) who has access to the final reports of the studies conducted on the status of linguistic duality?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-97—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 10 by the hon. member for Vancouver East concerning the applicability of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

I would like to thank the member for Vancouver East for raising this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his comments.

The member for Vancouver East asked that the Chair use the authority granted under Standing Order 69.1 to divide the question on the motions for second and, if necessary, third reading of Bill C-97, as she argued the bill contained measures not announced in the budget of March 19, 2019.

She argued that the measures in subdivisions B, D, E, F, G, J, K and L of division 9 of part 4 amending a number of different acts did not appear to have been announced in the budget. The member also argued that divisions 15 and 16 of part 4, creating the college of immigration and citizenship consultants act and amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, should be separated out of Bill C-97, as these two measures would significantly transform the Canadian immigration system.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, in his intervention, sought to reassure the House that these measures were indeed arising out of the budget. He pointed out that many of the amendments arise out of a commitment made at page 326 of budget 2019 where it is written, and I quote:

The Government proposes to introduce legislation to begin its work on an annual modernization bill consisting of legislative amendments to various statutes to help eliminate outdated federal regulations and better keep existing regulations up to date.

He also mentioned that subdivision D in division 9 of part 4 was explicitly referenced at page 119, which states:

To facilitate internal trade, the Government intends to remove the federal requirement that alcohol moving from one province to another be sold or consigned to a provincial liquor authority. Provinces and territories would continue to be able to regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol within their boundaries.

Finally, the parliamentary secretary stated that divisions 15 and 16 of part 4, which relate to the creation of the college of immigration and citizenship consultants act and make changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, were dealt with at pages 184, 185 and 326 of the budget.

Standing Order 69.1 empowers the Speaker to divide the question on the motion for second and third reading of a bill in circumstances where the bill contains a number of unrelated provisions. It could certainly be argued that this is precisely the case with Bill C-97. However, the matter before us today concerns section (2) of that standing order, which makes an exception for budget implementation bills. That section reads as follows:

69.1(2) The present Standing Order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

The question for the Speaker then is whether the measures identified by the member for Vancouver East correspond to provisions announced in budget 2019.

Let me first deal with the measures in subdivisions B, E, F, G, K and L of division 9 of part 4 of Bill C-97. I am willing to accept the arguments from the parliamentary secretary that the amendments to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, the Precious Metals Marking Act, the Textile Labelling Act, the Weights and Measures Act, the Quarantine Act and the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act are all part of the effort to modernize existing regulatory powers and obligations. I believe it is appropriate that those measures be included in the general vote at second reading and, if necessary, at third reading.

The measures in subdivision J of division 9 of part 4, contained in clauses 217 to 219 of Bill C-97, concern amendments to the Pest Control Products Act. They deal with changes to the special review process that a minister may initiate relating to the registration of pest control products. I understand from the parliamentary secretary's comments that these modifications also fall under the heading “Bringing Innovation to Regulations” at page 326. Pages 116 to 120 of the budget provide more detail on this initiative. While less explicitly linked to specific regulations, in my view, the amendments to the Pest Control Products Act in Bill C-97 are aimed at reducing the regulatory burden associated with re-evaluation and special review of a product. The act empowers the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the registration process, as well as a number of subjects related to the registration process, including the evaluation of the health or environmental risks or the value of pest control products. As such, I am prepared to accept this argument and will allow it to be included in the general vote.

The measures in subdivision D of division 9 of part 4, contained in clauses 185 to 189 of Bill C-97, concern the amendments to the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act. As indicated in the summary of the bill, these amendments are to limit the application of the act to intoxicating liquors imported into Canada. It is mentioned at page 119 of the budget that the government intends to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of alcohol.

When reading clauses 185 to 189 of Bill C-97, I understand that the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act must be amended for it to apply only to the importation of alcohol into Canada and not to interprovincial trade. I therefore believe it is also appropriate that those measures be included in the general vote at second reading and, if necessary, at third reading.

Divisions 15 and 16 of part 4 deal with the creation of the college of immigration and citizenship consultants act and make changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These measures are contained in clauses 291 to 310 of the bill. Each of these initiatives are explained at pages 184, 185 and 326 of the budget, under the headings of “Enhancing the Integrity of Canada’s Borders and Asylum System” and “Protecting People from Unscrupulous Immigration Consultants”. The provisions identified by the member for Vancouver East concerning these topics were therefore clearly announced in the budget.

The member for Vancouver East argued that the creation of the college of immigration and citizenship consultants act and the changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act should have been introduced as separate pieces of legislation. I do not believe that the Standing Orders allow the Chair, in the context of a budget implementation bill, to determine whether the significance of the proposed measures necessitates separate bills. If the measures are contained in the budget documents, the exemption of Standing Order 69.1(2) applies. As I mentioned in my ruling of November 1, 2018, which can be found at page 23380 of the Debates:

…I believe the purpose of the Standing Order is to allow such a division in relation to those matters which are unrelated to the budget, accepting that the purpose of the remainder of the bill is to implement the budget.

As all of the measures contained in the bill appear to arise out of commitments made in budget 2019, I believe the criteria referenced in Standing Order 69.1(2) have been met and the question will not be divided. Accordingly, there will only be one vote at second reading for this bill.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statements, government orders will be extended by 22 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Government Policies

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Spadina—Fort York.

I would like to address the House on the important aspect of this debate, one that our government takes very seriously: the independence of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and the integrity of Canada's rule of law.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada, or PPSC, is a federal government organization that was created on December 12, 2006. The Director of Public Prosecutions Act sets out the roles and responsibilities of the director of public prosecutions and the prosecutors that are authorized to act on the director's behalf. The PPSC fulfills the responsibilities of the Attorney General of Canada in the discharge of his criminal law mandate by prosecuting criminal offences under federal jurisdiction and by contributing to strengthening the criminal justice system.

The creation of the PPSC reflected the decision to make transparent the principle of prosecutorial independence, free from any improper influence. Under the Department of Justice Act, the Attorney General is responsible for the regulation and conduct of all litigation for or against the Crown or any department.

With respect to the conduct of civil matters, the Attorney General does not have exclusive decision-making authority over litigation positions. When it comes to civil litigation, there is often a high degree of policy involved in determining what position, among the available and viable legal arguments, should be taken in a particular case. Civil litigation differs sharply, in this respect, from criminal prosecutions.

The Attorney General's role in prosecutions must be independent, and he or she must receive orders from nobody, as an attorney general of England said in 1925. Specifically, he or she must act independently. The Supreme Court has found this to be a foundational constitutional principle of our democratic form of government.

The determination of who should be prosecuted for which crimes, which prosecutions should continue and which should not and what sentences or penalties ought to be sought must all be made solely on the basis of evidence and with regard to the fair and effective administration of criminal law and the criminal justice system. It remains, nevertheless, advisable for the Attorney General to inform him or herself of the relevant context, including the potential consequences of any given prosecution. The PPSC reports to Parliament through the Attorney General of Canada. The Director of Public Prosecutions Act states that the director of public prosecutions acts “under and on behalf of the Attorney General”.

The relationship between the Attorney General and the director is premised on the principles of respect for the independence of the prosecution function and the need to consult on important matters of general interest.

In 2006, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act created the independent Public Prosecution Service of Canada. The act formalized the Attorney General's role in federal prosecutions by giving authority for the initiation and conduct of prosecutions to the director of public prosecutions, the DPP. The director acts as the deputy attorney general of Canada in initiating and conducting federal prosecutions on behalf of the Attorney General.

In most cases, the Attorney General him or herself will not be involved in prosecutorial decision-making, although the director of public prosecutions requires the director to inform the Attorney General of any prosecution that raises important questions of general interest. That is found at section 13 of the relevant legislation. Thus, the statutory framework ensures that the Attorney General will be advised of important criminal cases.

As we know, the Attorney General may issue directives to the director of public prosecutions, which may be general or about specific prosecutions. This is set out in section 10 of the act. When a directive is issued, it is issued through a fully transparent process. It is published in the Canada Gazette, where every Canadian can review it.

As well, a general directive must be preceded by consultation with the director of public prosecutions. The Attorney General may also, after consulting the director of public prosecutions, assume the conduct of a prosecution. This too is done through a transparent process where the Attorney General must publish notice of the intent to assume conduct of a prosecution in the Canada Gazette.

The notion of the director of public prosecutions' independence relates to the prosecutorial decision-making process and all step incidental to it. The director of criminal prosecutions is regarded as an independent officer, exercising quasi-judicial responsibilities.

Safeguarding the director's independence is the requirement that all instructions from the attorney general must be in writing and be published in the Canada Gazette, as I have mentioned. Additionally, the PPSC must provide the attorney general with an annual report for tabling in Parliament.

Prosecutorial independence is a cornerstone of our democracy, reflected in the relationship between the Attorney General of Canada and the director of public prosecutions. It reinforces confidence in the judicial system by ensuring that prosecutions are not seen to be improperly influenced by politics. Instead, prosecutions of federal offences are carried out by experienced and skilled prosecutors right across this country, many of whom I know as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and also in my former capacity as a former Crown counsel to the Attorney General of Ontario, where I had the opportunity to work with many distinguished legal minds and lawyers who prosecuted cases on behalf of the Department of Justice federally.

As confirmed in a statement published on February 12 of this year, the director of public prosecutions, Ms. Kathleen Roussel, stated that “I am confident that our prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

Canada is a nation governed by the rule of law. This basic premise is not only written into our Constitution, but is also found in the actions of our political actors and in the structure of our executive, legislative and judicial institutions, as well as how they relate to one another. Upholding the Constitution requires not only respect for the supreme law of the land, as set out in the provisions of our Constitution, but also the rules and practices that reflect and support constitutional values.

In our parliamentary system, we strive to adhere to and respect well-established constitutional principles and conventions. Foremost among them is the principle of the separation of powers, which our Supreme Court has emphasized is a principle that is fundamental to the working of our Parliament and our courts.

Justice McLachlin, while a judge before the court in 1993, in a case called “New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia”, said that:

It is fundamental to the working of government as a whole that all these parts play their proper role. It is equally fundamental that no one of them overstep its bounds, that each show proper deference for the legitimate sphere of activity of the other.

Our government is unwavering in its commitment to maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice, as well as the independence of the judiciary. Our government will always stand up for the rule of law, and the evidence before the judiciary committee earlier this year confirmed that the rule of law is indeed intact.

Let me refer to some of that evidence. The evidence from the former attorney general, the member for Vancouver Granville, before the justice committee was that:

I do not want members of this committee or Canadians to think that the integrity of our institutions has somehow evaporated. The integrity of our justice system, the integrity of the director of public prosecutions and prosecutors, is intact.

The evidence continued from a different witness, who said:

I think Canadians should feel assured that they work in a democracy under the rule of law....

The witness continued:

I think Canadians need to be assured that their police and investigators, with the powers of the state, operate independently, and that the prosecution service, the state charging people with offences, is completely independent. There is a legislative and statutory shield around that, which demonstrably is working

That is the evidence of the former clerk of the Privy Council. It is important that there was complete alignment in the testimony from those two key witnesses before the justice committee on the important point raised today in this motion.

As a government, we will always strive to provide Canadians with the transparency they deserve in a way that preserves, rather than undermines, solicitor-client privilege, the right to a fair hearing in cases that are currently active, the integrity of the position of the director of public prosecutions and the rule of law in our country. It is fundamental to our democracy and fundamental to our legal system, and it is something that all parliamentarians would strive to uphold.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always find it so fascinating to hear the Liberals talk about the importance of protecting the independence of the judiciary. It is actually a fundamental principle of a democratic system and it is what cost the current government the former attorney general, the former president of the Treasury Board, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister and the former clerk of the Privy Council when the government attempted to interfere in the independence of the judiciary. However, I am not going to go there today, because I know my friend is still trying to build the walls to protect the damage that was done to the Prime Minister.

Among all the damage control the Liberals did, we found out that in an attempt to go after the former attorney general, someone leaked information about the nomination of Justice Joyal to the Supreme Court. That is a serious breach. In any other government, that would have been considered a very serious breach.

I would like to ask the member about the habit the Liberals have of using their Liberal fund to vet judges with respect to how much they donate to the Liberal Party. Does he understand that is a complete breach of the obligation to separate the pecuniary interests of the Liberal Party from the independence of the judiciary?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for his contribution today and on other days. I appreciate that he finds it fascinating that I or anyone would stand up to defend the independence of the judiciary. As someone with 15 years' experience at the bar, I will always stand up for the independence of the judiciary and defend it. That is not what has been impugned in this case.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Are you standing up to defend the interference?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, now he is heckling me from across the way because he does not appreciate what I am saying, nor does he have the respect to listen to what I am saying.

The second response is that he again infers that some sort of interference occurred. Clearly, he did not listen to the evidence I just put into the record. The two key witnesses before the committee both reiterated, at length and with impassioned pleas, that the rule of law has not been jeopardized in this case. Nothing unlawful occurred. Nothing criminal occurred. It is a complete distortion on the part of the member opposite. It would become him to do much better in this House, since he is a man of some experience in the chamber.

With respect to the application process for Supreme Court judges, we will always defend an application process that ensures functional bilingualism and emphasizes the diversity of the bench. What we have done with the appointments process is like night and day compared to what was done by the previous government in terms of ensuring that we have qualified jurors who represent the faces of the Canadians before them.

The process we have put in place is a good one and a strong one. Are leaks a concern? Absolutely, leaks are a concern. They do not come from the Minister of Justice. He has said this in this House. They do not come from the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister has reiterated that as well.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out an ironic thing, which is that the system held because of the member for Vancouver Granville. I was there at committee and I listened to her testimony. Yes, she said that nothing illegal happened. However, the system held because of her efforts. Let us make that very clear. She was sent off to another cabinet post because of her efforts, and then she had to resign. The member for Markham—Stouffville also resigned. Two principled women resigned because they could not sit in cabinet and defend the current government's actions.

The text of the motion before us today is about improper lobbying and the amount of power that corporate executives have over the current government. We know that all the meetings SNC-Lavalin had with the Prime Minister's Office are on the record and resulted not only in a change to the law but also in evidence of improper pressure having been put on the former attorney general in a coordinated and orchestrated campaign to get her to overrule the director of public prosecutions. How can the member stand in this place and say that the rule of law held, when his government did everything it could to overturn it?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I find fascinating is the continuing ability of the members opposite to distort actual evidence on the record. What was indicated in the testimony provided by the former attorney general was this. When she asked the Prime Minister a specific question, he indicated to her it was her decision and her decision alone. In fact, it remains a decision of the government and of the former attorney general alone. That has been reiterated over and over again. That is called the statutory framework and the rule of law doing exactly what they should.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Clearly, the opposition members do not like the answers again. They are hollering at me across the aisle. If they had the ability to listen to the answers, maybe they would internalize some of the evidence before them.

The most important point in all of this is that they continue to mislead Canadians about the fact that paragraph 715.31(f) of the remediation agreement under the Criminal Code specifically states that what the Prime Minister's Office did was stand up for the employees, pensioners, suppliers and clients of a corporation. That is a perfectly valid purpose under the legislation, which I would urge them to read in the Criminal Code. That is what the Prime Minister did and what any government should do: stand up for jobs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to resuming debate, I just want to remind members that when a member has the floor, other members should be listening. If they have anything further to add, they can certainly get up and provide questions and comments during the time for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to take part in this debate and read into the record the extraordinary accomplishments of this government on everything from the national housing strategy to fighting poverty and lifting seniors out of poverty to making sure that we strengthen the social safety net of this country that so many Canadians rely on. Investments that have transformed communities, but more importantly transformed lives, are at the heart of the work we do on a day-by-day basis.

While we cannot prevent the cynicism of some or the pessimism of others in criticizing our record—and certainly we criticize ourselves as we try to do better and deliver more to Canadians—the reality is that the accomplishments of this government in the last four years are extraordinary. I am immensely proud of them, particularly those around the issue of housing.

We were elected on a promise—and the phrase has been used countless times in this House—to not only fortify and solidify people's presence in the middle class and their state in the middle class, but also to make sure that we can provide pathways, supports and opportunities to work hard and join that middle class. It has been the laser focus of this government in every single thing it does to make sure that those opportunities are presented to people.

Sometimes that involves protecting vulnerable parts of the economy. For example, when we saw Bombardier in trouble, there were moves to make sure that the organization stayed put and continued to produce. Other times we have struggled to convince corporations to stay in this country, GM being one of those corporations, but we have fought all the way along to make sure that auto jobs, the auto industry, and even today an expansion of the auto sector were front and centre as this Prime Minister, our party and this government continued to make sure that those jobs remained in Canada. Good, quality, high-paying jobs are the cornerstone of entering the middle class.

When we talk to corporations about protecting those jobs, we talk to sectors of this economy that some may refer to as corporate. We think that there is a responsible reason for doing that, which is that if those sectors are not sustaining their employment base and sustaining the quality of life that is delivered through those good jobs, Canadians would suffer and be in a great deal of trouble.

At the same time, we also know that small and medium-sized enterprises and social innovation are emerging all over this country in new sectors, and we have a responsibility there as well to make sure that the investments we make support and deliver prosperity to Canadians as they cement their position inside the middle class.

On the issue of housing, I think it is quite clear that we have a real contrast.

A previous government did virtually nothing on housing, and when it did touch on housing, it caused real hardship for Canadians.

The previous government had a policy under the homeless partnership strategy that would not allow rent to be supported for a youth coming out of care or out of a shelter unless they had lived on the street for six months, and the Conservatives continue to advocate that position. They think it is a good policy.

At the time, they said they did not want to create an incentive for kids to run away. The reality was that the homeless partnership strategy refused to help kids living in foster care as they exited care, aged out of care, and hit city streets. They had to be homeless for six months before they could get support from the previous program. That is unconscionable. In fact, studies have now shown that it created a superhighway to homelessness.

Additionally, women with kids, particularly indigenous and racialized women with kids, would have to live in a shelter for six months before they would get support for rent. That was again part of the HBS program that we inherited.

On this particular point—

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, although I find interesting what the parliamentary secretary is bringing forward, I am wondering about the relevance of his speech in the debate today.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member who is bringing the point of order forward knows that there is some flexibility during speeches. However, I do want to remind the member that his speech has to be relevant to the motion before the House. I am sure the member will ensure that this is done.

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

Madam Speaker, to help the member opposite, the preamble to this motion refers to an assumption that our government would rather help corporations than Canadians who are struggling to get ahead. I was just defining one of the most critical components of that population of people struggling to get ahead, indigenous women with children, who find themselves in housing need.

The previous government refused to support those women unless they were in a shelter for six months. Going into a shelter is one of the quickest ways to have their children apprehended and taken away from them, and that puts them in a cycle where the rent would never match their needs. They would never get their children back into a domestic situation if they did not have the appropriate rent paid and the appropriate number of units in an apartment. It solidified the separation of children from their mothers systematically, and yet the previous government refused to change that policy.

As part of that, though, we also doubled the investments in homelessness. If we want to contrast that to the previous government, the previous government did not touch that program; it left the funding flat for the entire time it was government. The party opposite, in its previous election campaign, promised $10 million extra to fight homelessness in Canada. This government has invested well over $100 million more every year since we took office, and has now locked it in for the next five years with substantial agreements with municipalities and front-line workers right across the country.

On top of that, there has been a $55-billion investment in the housing sector to create new affordable housing. Last week, I was in Campbell River, Vancouver, Surrey, Orillia, Tillsonburg, Welland and Toronto, We announced $1.3 billion in Toronto alone, but hundreds of millions of dollars right across this country, to deliver new affordable housing that is more energy efficient and accessible than any program this country has ever seen. These investments are the way in which we are using a partnership with municipalities, provincial and territorial governments, indigenous governments, the private sector, the volunteer sector, and most importantly with the homeless and those with core housing needs, at the front and centre of our policies to deliver the most important social program that this country has seen in my lifetime: the national housing strategy. It is stronger and getting stronger. We are spending real dollars right now to help real people. If that is the kind of support with the private sector that the party opposite is worried about, it can worry all day long. I will continue to advocate for a strong housing sector that meets the needs of all Canadians, and I will continue to work with whomever I can find as a partner to deliver that affordability from coast to coast to coast.

There are additional programs like the Canada worker benefit, now helping more than two million low-income Canadians pay less in taxes and retain more of their earnings. There are additional investments like the $7.5 billion for child care and early learning across the country. These dollars are preventing Doug Ford from cancelling many day care programs right across the province, as I speak. There are additional dollars for programs like the Canada child benefit. The Canada child benefit has been the cornerstone of our government's success in lifting 900,000 Canadians out of poverty. In fact, in my city, in the census track of Toronto, half the single mom-led families in Toronto have been lifted above the poverty line in the last four years as a direct result of the investments we are making as a government. If that involves us also talking to corporations about employment, training and getting jobs, that is a good and solid partnership that is delivering real opportunities, but more importantly, real results in the lives of Canadians who, when we came to office, were languishing in poverty because of inaction by the previous government.

New Democrats will say that they do not like to work with the private sector to deliver some of these things. They will say that everything should be 100% delivered by the government. The reality is that it cannot be done in this day and age. Transit systems are not built by public entities; they are built by private corporations working with public entities. Therefore, when we invest in infrastructure and build or repair transit lines, there is a partnership. When it is described as a partnership, quite often New Democrats and other levels of government embrace the concept, but when we talk about partnerships here, we are accused of profiting private corporations through P3s. The reality is that public housing and public transit for generations in this country have been built with partnerships between the public and private sectors. We are proud to be investing tens of millions of dollars, $4.9 billion in the city that I represent, to deliver public transit to every corner of the city. We have to work with the private sector to get that done, but we also have to trust and work with municipalities.

At the end of the day, the focus of those transit investments is on people: getting people to school or work and getting families back home after work to make sure their quality of life is improved. These investments may be dismissed by the party opposite as some sort of terrible deal with the private sector, but in reality, it is the kind of strong investment that delivers real change for families right across the country, and in particular the city that I represent.

Let us also talk about the differences we have made in creating jobs in this country. Close to 900,000 new jobs have been created in Canada since we took office. Again, this is the direct result of our lowering taxes on small businesses, increasing taxes on the 1%, and more importantly, investing in a few key areas that stimulate, support and protect the economy.

With respect to university research, the government has provided the highest investment in the history of this country to post-secondary institutions for applied research and scientific research. Additionally, we have made investments in culture, one of the biggest employers in the city that I represent. We have invested significantly not only in the CBC and in the Canada Council for the Arts, but also on the ground by working with emerging arts organizations right across the country. This includes working with indigenous and racialized communities to make sure indigenous culture and economic opportunities are made stronger.

In every single department, transformational change is being delivered by a government that is unafraid to talk to the private sector if that is one of the ways to accomplish goals. We are absolutely committed to making sure that poverty and inequality in this country are addressed on a case-by-case, person-by-person, neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood, riding-by-riding basis.

We are proud of our record. I think we have the right split and the right approach to this, both of which require a balancing of public and private interests with the economic opportunities and social outcomes of policy.

Whether with respect to children, housing, cities, infrastructure or climate change, our government has delivered, because it has the imagination and the capacity to work with anyone in this country to make life better for Canadians.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the purpose of today's motion is to zero in on some specific examples, so let us go through the legislative history of the 42nd Parliament.

This is a government that has serviced Air Canada by bringing in Bill C-10, which basically allowed Air Canada the freedom to ship maintenance jobs overseas. The government amended the Air Canada Public Participation Act to allow Air Canada that freedom. Part of Air Canada's privatization deal was that they would keep jobs in Canada.

The government has not done anything legislatively for pensioners. My colleague from Hamilton Mountain has brought in legislation that would amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Again, there was nothing on this from the government.

With respect to the national pharmacare plan, the lobbying that the pharmaceutical industry associations have done with the government has gone up to almost double the average. They are telling Canadians that if the government proceeds with a publicly funded national pharmacare plan, certain prescriptions will not be covered and costs will go up. This is total misinformation when compared to the evidence.

Given these specific examples, does my colleague not think that corporations and industry insiders have in fact had improper influence on the government's policies?

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree. The lobbyists can say what they want to say. Where the rubber hits the road and where the progress is being charted is based on what the government does, not on what the lobbyists say on the public record.

The member opposite talked about what we have done for seniors. We have strengthened the CPP for a generation, which is something all parties except the Liberal Party said could not be done. Members should take note of what the Canadian Labour Congress has said about that achievement.

We have also increased the guaranteed income supplement by 10%, strengthening support for a particular subpopulation of seniors. It is largely women who are in this situation.

Additionally, legislation is pending on pension reform. It is in the budget implementation bill. It will ensure that when companies are insolvent, we have a way forward so that pensions are protected.

Case by case and issue by issue, even on pharmacare, we are getting things right. We are also listening to and talking with stakeholders. At the end of the day, there is only one measure we are focused on: Are Canadians doing better? It is absolutely unassailable that Canadians are doing better under this government than they were under the previous one. They are doing better now than in any other time in my lifetime. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the country, and that is good news for Canadians.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member knows that on Friday, the leader of the Conservative Party went on social media to refuse to apologize for participating in a daylong election strategy session with wealthy oil executives at a luxury resort in Alberta. This was absolutely incredible to read about. He met and worked with four leaders of oil companies and with the oil patch lobby group, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, in order to impact the outcome of the next federal election.

This session was behind closed doors and was not reported to Canadian citizens. We only found out about it inadvertently.

Is this the type of politics we want from the Conservative Party and its leader?

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

Madam Speaker, it does not surprise me that the Leader of the Opposition would need that explanation of how the private sector works. He has only been a private sector employee for I think about 12 days to 14 days in his entire life. The reality is that we have to work with all sectors when building a strong economy.

I have no trouble with him meeting with the oil company executives. I just think he should be talking about the economy and the sector rather than electoral politics. If that is where he gets his electoral politics instructions from, if that is the consultation he is doing with Canadians, all I can wish him is good luck.

However, when we talk to Canadians, what we get is a demand for an approach that balances economic, environmental and social benefits together as part of the equation. We do not meet with the oil industry to talk about electoral politics. We talk about how we get the resources to the appropriate markets to get the best return, as we also move forward to make sure we get the right jobs in places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and other provinces that are tied to the oil industry.

At the end of the day, as I said, I am not surprised that the official Leader of the Opposition is meeting with private sector folks to understand the Canadian economy. He has virtually never worked in the private sector. His entire life has been spent in politics. As a result, maybe it is time that he started to study how the economy works, because clearly his policies do not reflect an understanding of it.