Alex Nuttall

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the difference between the legislation proposed by the Liberal Party and the legislation that was proposed by the Conservative Party is about 10 days, because we did it in 20 days and you are doing it in 30 days. If that makes you feel a whole lot better, I hope you take that to the bank. I am not sure that the unions really care.

I would like to quote the member for Winnipeg North. He said, “The crisis we are in today is a crisis that has been created by the government of the day. I believe that to be the case.” I could not believe that you were prophetic in nature. Finally, “We in the Liberal Party do not support the legislation that is being proposed by the government” until they are in government, and they will do it then.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say this jokingly through yourself to the member. I certainly was a little confused which side of the House to sit on today because I thought that we had written that legislation. It turns out it actually is very similar to the legislation that the Liberal Party at that point voted against, then committed to not present when running in the last election, and then when they got into government they brought it forward.

I guess that is the luxury of being a Liberal. You can jump on each side of the issue at least once. In terms of individuals working in this service, you are right. These are individuals who work incredibly hard. There are times when a person may only have one individual a week coming to their home and it could be that postal worker. That is the reality that we are living in.

I hear you. I understand. I certainly am empathetic with your position. I am also empathetic with the position that we need to ensure that these goods are actually moved and getting to the people who need them. That is why I am going to be voting the way I will on this subject.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, to clear things up on what I am against, I am against a hypocritical attitude during an election and a completely opposite attitude when they are in government. I am against trying to prey on the issues during an election, and at the very least, telling white lies, and then when getting into government, doing the complete opposite. That is what I am against. If the Liberal Party had told the truth about their perspective in terms of labour relations from the beginning, we would not have people so irate and upset and saying that the Liberal Party was again flip-flopping on something it committed to. That is what I am against.

What I am for is getting services back to people who need access to this very important service. That is the way I will be voting on this subject. When the Liberals talk about everything they have done, that does not make anyone in the union feel any better or anyone who is not getting what they need at home any better. Saying they tried and it did not work is not good enough. It is all about results and delivery, and that is where the government should be focusing from now on.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to stand in the House today to discuss the very important subject of Canada Post and the effect the Canada Post strike is having on our country and the effect the back-to-work legislation will have on our country as well.

I cannot help but pause to think back to the last election, but before I talk about the last election and perhaps the philosophy that was communicated to Canadians and to unions by the Liberal Party, I would just like to say that this is a déjà vu Prime Minister Trudeau putting back-to-work legislation in place on Canada Post. I am not talking about the current Mr. Trudeau. I am referring to the previous prime minister Trudeau, who also had back-to-work legislation in place on Canada Post in the late seventies or early eighties.

Let us go back to the last election. It was incredible to witness the amount of union support out door knocking for the Liberals locally, in my riding, specifically related to, and I heard it all the time, back-to-work legislation and the relationship between legislation that had been put forward in the House by the previous Conservative government and what was being promised by the Liberals. The Liberals promised not to use back-to-work legislation. They said that they would respect the collective bargaining process, that they would respect unions and that they would not interfere with that process going forward.

I do not think it is any surprise that the Liberals would perhaps say one thing in an election and do something completely different once in government. Let us look at yesterday's economic update. I think everyone in the House thought that the Liberal government would bring forth a fall economic update that outlined a $10-billion deficit, not a $19-billion-plus deficit, because that is what they promised during the election. Unfortunately, what we heard was crass campaigning. They had no intention of following through and no intention of telling the truth to Canadians about the deficit. The Liberals also had no intention of telling the truth to Canadians about what their working philosophy in government would be when it came to working with unions.

The reality is that there are cases when the government needs to intercede. Unfortunately, the union workers who pounded on doors for the Liberal Party in the last election believed the mistruths communicated to them by the leadership of the Liberal Party at that point. The result was that they left it all on the line. In fact, the result was that a certain union was brought before the House and before Elections Canada for improperly making contributions during the election. It was paying people to campaign for the Liberal Party.

Now fast-forward to today, when we are going to end up closing debate. A vote will likely come in the next 48 hours to force Canada Post employees back to work. It really makes one wonder why the Liberal Party of Canada would communicate to unions across this country that it would not use this kind of legislation in the future and that it would respect the process. We heard day in and day out that the Liberals would respect the collective bargaining process and would not interfere. I am using their language, because I did not hold the same thought as they did during the 2015 election.

It has to be frustrating for Canadians who believed the words of the Prime Minister, back then the leader of the Liberal Party, and took what he and his party were saying at face value, and to have faith, not only in the person but in the entire political system, when someone makes a promise, looks one in the eye and says that this is what we will do, this will be the approach, then goes the opposite way. One can understand why there is a cynical attitude towards politics as a whole.

I will hopefully leave the cynicism about the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party behind as I move on to what I believe is the meat of this debate, certainly from where I stand.

There was legislation brought forward that we debated yesterday and will be debating today with regard to persons with disabilities. The legislation was supposed to be groundbreaking. It was supposed to be the start of a new era, where regulations would come into place to eliminate barriers across the country for persons with disabilities. The legislation was supposed to be brought forward roughly three years ago. It was not. The Liberals promised that within six months of the election date, it would be provided to the House to debate and vote on. It was not. They went around the country and consulted, or so they say over and over again. Two and a half years later, they brought forward that legislation.

One may wonder what this has to do with the Canada Post legislation. When Canada Post goes on strike, some of the people who are hit the hardest are those with disabilities. There are parcels they need to receive. Sometimes it is products. Sometimes it is medicine. Sometimes it is as simple as a braille book or a talking book. There are literally thousands upon thousands of products we rely on our postal system to deliver to people with disabilities across the country.

When a strike occurs, we know that those who are disadvantaged certainly feel the effects more than just about anyone else. Whereas businesses have the money to turn to private services, there might not be the money there in many situations for people with disabilities. Quite frankly, it becomes a very sad state of affairs. The cost to the government goes up. The cost to those individuals goes up. We are left with a scenario where we are once again leaving those who are most vulnerable in our society behind.

With Christmas and Hanukkah and so many different holidays coming up at this time of year, we all want to make sure that our brothers and sisters receive their presents and their cards. My mom wants to get her Christmas letter out that tells all about her family. However, none of that matters in the least compared to people living with disabilities not being able to access the products they need in their day-to-day lives. That to me is incredibly important.

I do not want to be too partisan and too over the top on this, but if we look at the spending on persons with disabilities in our country, it is roughly $2.2 billion. That is when we remove the CPP disability, which is not government spending but is peoples' money being used outside of government coffers. When we look at that $2.2 billion and the constraints in the country in actually delivering services that are so badly needed, and we look at the cost of increasing the movement of goods for people who cannot leave their homes due to major accessibility issues, the effects are very large. It is not just about the time of year. It is not just about the individuals who are on strike. It is not just about the collective bargaining agreement. It is about the people who without this service are put in a very difficult position.

I know we all have postal workers living in our ridings. We all know individuals who work for Canada Post. We all want a fair wage and a fair process.

I know that we all want to ensure that persons with disabilities have everything they need. I know that we all want to make sure that the $2.2 billion the government sets aside for persons with disabilities each and every year is going to the max in the most effective and efficient manner possible. When the cost of moving goods around goes up significantly because of things like this, that has a huge effect on the cost to the CNIB to move products to people who subscribe to their services. It has an effect on the cost of being able to access medicine and drugs and on the cost of different things that have such a profound effect on the lives of people living with disabilities.

I know this debate is not an easy one. I know there are ideological and philosophical differences. I know that the parties hold deeply held convictions on this issue. However, I would ask, as we move forward, that we think of those who do not have access to other services to replace Canada Post, that we understand the effect the Canada Post strike is having on their lives, and that we do everything we can to ensure that those people are not left behind any further.

[Accessible Canada Act, November 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to rise today on a subject that is incredibly important to Canadians and that is certainly important to me as a member of Parliament and as the son of someone who was disabled in a car accident in 1996.

As we look across our country, we know that there is a broad set of regulations that govern accessibility, that govern improving the lives of persons who are living with disabilities. When Canadians heard that the Liberal government was going to introduce a bill within six months of taking power in 2015, they were excited, because this was not just any bill; this bill was the accessibility bill.

Here we are, three years later, and we are debating the bill. It was actually introduced about two and a half years after the government took office. Liberals say that they consulted and are not going to apologize for that consultation. I agree, in some sense, that it is actually better to do things right and do them slowly rather than rush and do them wrong.

However, the reality is that it has been two and a half to three years at this point. They consulted, we were told, across the country with stakeholders. After that entire process, when the bill was finally brought forward, there were still 260 amendments moved at committee. Those amendments were not just concocted in some partisan backroom office where they come up with amendments to slow things down. They were actually brought forward by stakeholders who had apparently been consulted the entire time.

When those amendments were actually brought forward, it was not the New Democratic amendments that were adopted by the committee. It was not the Green Party amendments that were adopted by the committee, when the member who does not sit on the committee showed up and was able to actually contribute, which I thought was very meaningful to the process. It was not the amendments brought forward by the Conservative Party that were adopted, even though many of these were the same amendments.

The amendments that were adopted, almost 100% of them, were brought forward by the Liberal members. When I heard the minister talk about co-operation, I remembered that there was a similar pitch in the speech when debate on the subject was launched. That co-operation never came. In fact, we had the opportunity to speak over the phone. I think we had a couple of quick chats in the hallways of Parliament, but we were not actually given the opportunity to contribute. When it came down to it, it was about partisanship. It was not about helping Canadians when it came to the committee.

These amendments were not partisan amendments. They were things like putting a timeline on when to report back or putting a timeline on when we were going to achieve measurables so that Canadians could understand how this accessibility bill would actually help them. Some of the amendments put specific regulations or specific timelines for reporting back on specific regulations. These regulations were designed to help Canadians, perhaps with hearing impairments, visual impairments, other physical impairments or perhaps cognitive impairments of some kind.

There was no co-operation from the Liberal government on this bill. As a result, this bill is not perfect. I would venture to say that it is not great. It is a first step towards recognizing that we need to do better for persons with disabilities.

I have to say that the one piece of co-operation this minister actually managed to achieve was co-operation among the Green Party, the New Democratic Party, and the Conservative Party of Canada, and that should be recognized, because that is a job well done.

We know that when this receives royal assent, nothing will change from day one, except that there will be a huge price tag and 250 new employees for the Government of Canada. We know that new office space will be found. We know that the office space, hopefully, will be either 100% accessible or as accessible as possible. We also know that within two years, there will be a single regulation adopted by Canadians. All of this will be for a price tag in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

When I talk to stakeholders across the country, they tell me that if we are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on them, and they want us to do that because they need it, they want to see something for that money. They would like to see a more accessible environment in the sectors that matter, whether in airlines, government services offices, Service Canada or even these Parliament buildings. They want to see the effect of those dollar spent. It is incredible that the accountability of this bill became the thing that actually stopped co-operation.

When we asked the minister or the minister's designated staff members whether it was at an information panel in the Wellington building or at committee, we were stonewalled. We asked questions like whether they recommended that the minister put timetables on this legislation. They responded that this was confidential between the minister and his staff. I do not understand what is being we hidden, because I think we all have the same goals at hand. Those goals are to help Canadians living with disabilities.

We do a lot for people around the world who are going through very difficult times. What I want to see, and what Canadians would like to see, is for the Government of Canada to take care of those who are most vulnerable in our society, those people living with disabilities. Unfortunately, the minister and the Liberal Party did not listen. They did not even listen to their own legislation. They did not listen to their own throne speech, in which they said that each member of the House would be respected and that partisanship games would not be played in committee. However, we have seen that happen time and again.

When groups and stakeholders from across the country came forward and asked us to do something about the exemptions, not to leave these massive holes in the legislation, the real result was no change. The result was “No, we're not going to listen”. The result was “We'll come up with regulations later on”. The result is that nothing is going to change upon royal assent.

As we move forward on this subject, consultation certainly needs to continue. The minister is actually correct about that. Consultation cannot stop. The barriers that we see in places throughout our society will continue to be there. They will be forever changing, but that does not mean that we do not create a starting point, a line from which we can measure going forward. Unfortunately, this accessibility bill as it stands is literally just the paper. It does not make any of those changes or create those lines or measurements so we can measure against them going forward.

We tried at committee to amend the bill. When I say “we”, I think I speak for the entire opposition. This was such important legislation, affecting so many people, that we needed to ensure we got it right. When we asked for a timeline to come back so we could really monitor and measure what was happening, the answer was no. The result of that is that not even future governments will be held to account on the legislation. There is, unfortunately, a hole the government could drive a bus through that would leave it by the wayside.

[Accessible Canada Act, November 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her speech and her contributions to this bill, and certainly for bringing it forth to the House after it was finally tabled, about three years too late, at the end of the spring session.

As we look down the road, after the bill receives royal assent, we know that nothing will change on day one. We now know that within two years, the Liberals would commit to a single regulation. It could be with respect to the ATMs the minister has been talking about. Maybe ATMs would have different regulations for accessibility by then. At that point, there would be a five-year trigger on a review, meaning that it could be seven years before a regulation actually hit the books in a specific market sector that had been outlined.

Can the minister please outline this for Canadians? If she says that it has been too long, how is it acceptable that they would have to wait another seven years?

[Remembrance Day, November 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, today I stand to remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice, who offered their lives so that we might know peace, we might know hope, so that we might be free. I say “might” because at some points in World War I and World War II, there were no guarantees of victory for our Canadian and Allied forces.

Stagnant lines in World War I, defeat at Dieppe in World War II, were overcome with valour, courage, persistence and above all else, self-sacrifice. This character forged a nation at Vimy Ridge and it was solidified at Juno Beach.

lt was through this sacrifice by generations of young Canadians that we stand here, in this place today, speaking freely, practising democracy, pursuing equality and preserving the destiny that our forefathers laid before us, to be the true north, the strong and the free.

We will remember.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, further to the member's speech, specifically regarding poverty and some of the barriers that exist, I think it is important to remember that poverty knows no skin colour. It reaches into all aspects of our society and is something that we all probably face in every single one of our ridings across the country.

Having said that, some demographics are more stricken by poverty than others. When we are talking about poverty, we are also talking about the cost of living. We are talking about which costs are increasing for those who have the least in society and how that affects them the most. In his speech, the member pushed for a carbon tax, which has also been called a price on carbon or a mechanism, or any of seven different terms, while at the same time speaking about poverty.

This tax is having the greatest effect on those with the least means to be able to live, so my question for the member is this. How can the government be proposing this tax at the same time it is trying to defeat poverty? This tax is going to further increase poverty in this country.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 5th, 2018]

With regard to contracts and expenditures with Green Leaf Distribution, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: what are the details of each contracts and expenditures, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services provided, (iv) file numbers, (v) original contract value, (vi) final contract value, if different than the original value?

[Carbon Pricing, October 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's new carbon tax that the Liberals are calling a plan is nothing more than a complicated shell game. However, their games are not just affecting employers like Moore Packaging in Barrie. They are affecting the 300 employees and their families that will be hit with this tax.

The Liberals are telling these people when they take their money, somehow they will get more back. We know this is nothing more than a new way to pay for reckless spending. When will the Liberals admit that this tax is a tax?