David Lametti

[Immigration Centre, September 29th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, this year, the community of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun and the entire greater Montreal area are celebrating a major event, the 70th anniversary of the Centre social d'aide aux immigrants.

The centre is a non-profit community-based organization that welcomes government-assisted immigrants and refugees.

Its long history began after the Second World War, in 1947, with the arrival of Polish Jews to the country. Over the years, this centre has played a leading role in the great waves of Canadian and Quebec immigration.

The centre helps newcomers get settled and integrate into our society by organizing information and orientation sessions and by providing technical assistance with administrative forms, immigration, aid, and social support. The centre works hard every day to ensure that newcomers become active members of Quebec society.

As a son of immigrants, I share the deep values that are central to the mission of the centre, such as mutual aid and empathy. I wish them the best.

[Economic Development, September 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we follow these situations very carefully. As this process is being regulated by the law, we will not comment specifically. However, the law does search to balance the rights that workers have but also give the company an opportunity, in restructuring or when it is being sold, to make sure it protects the workers and their jobs. Once again, we are looking for balance. We do that through the application of the law and our procedures.

[Pensions, September 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, those cases are settled under bankruptcy legislation in Canada. We look for a balance between workers' rights, their pension plans, and ways for the company to maintain its activities and jobs. We monitor those situations carefully. We look for balance.

[Public Safety, September 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, as I already mentioned, because of the confidentiality provisions of the Investment Canada Act, I cannot comment in detail on specific cases. However, Canadians can rest assured that, under the act, foreign investments are subject to a rigorous national security due diligence process. The multi-step process for national security reviews is clearly set out in the law, and the government follows the law in all cases. This government welcomes foreign investment for the benefits it brings to the Canadian economy, including the opportunities it provides for Canadian businesses to compete in world markets.

[Public Safety, September 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his work with the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, where we work well together. I am pleased to respond to the member for Windsor West's remarks about how the Investment Canada Act and national security intersect.

I would like to begin by emphasizing that foreign direct investment plays a major positive role in the Canadian economy by contributing to research development, boosting productivity, and creating better-paying jobs for Canadians. Foreign direct investment and trade go hand in hand and link Canada into global value chains. Canada is and must continue to be open to foreign investment that helps create long-term jobs for Canadians.

However, we will not jeopardize national security for any investment. The Investment Canada Act plays an important role in protecting Canadians from threats to national security. The act allows the government to examine investments made in Canada by foreign investors to limit the potential harm to national security.

This government's practice is clear and coherent. Last year, we published guidelines to ensure transparency in how we enforce the act. All foreign investments, regardless of value and investor, are subject to review in order to identify any possible concerns related to national security. This rigorous review involves several steps and is conducted by, and in consultation with, the government's national security agencies, including Public Safety Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, as well as the Communications Security Establishment of Canada.

I can assure all Canadians that this government is taking its mandate very seriously, which is to protect national security. The hon. member for Windsor West raised the issue of a recent review of national security that received media coverage. The act limits the level of detail that can be disclosed on specific issues, and these limits are important to prevent causing commercial harm to Canadian companies and unduly compromising national security.

However, I can address this generally. Let's make something clear: this government has not cancelled a previous cabinet order. After more than a year of pending litigation challenging the legality of the previous order which, had it been overturned by the court, would have left no measures in place to protect national security, this government has consented to a court order allowing it to conduct another review in accordance with the act. The new review was conducted in collaboration with security agencies…

[Social Development, September 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, we are keeping our promises to help all Canadian families. In budget 2017, we announced a suite of measures to help the middle class and those working hard to join it.

For example, budget 2017 would make maternity and parental employment insurance benefits more flexible and family caregiver benefits more inclusive. We know that expanding employment insurance benefits alone is not enough to improve the lives of Canadians. That is why we are also investing in social infrastructure and putting more money into the pockets of Canadian families through the Canada child benefit.

We are improving the lives of all Canadian families.

[Social Development, September 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her question. My colleague claims that our government is not keeping its word and does not support Canadian families. With all due respect to my colleague, she is wrong. Since we came into power, we have taken steps to make all programs more flexible and inclusive, including the employment insurance regime. I would like to say a few words about the improvements we have made to employment insurance.

Budget 2017 proposed to amend the Employment Insurance Act to make EI parental benefits more flexible. Parents will now be able to choose between two options. They can either receive EI parental benefits over a period of up to 12 months at the existing benefit rate, which is equivalent to 55% of their average weekly earnings, or they can receive those benefits over an extended period of up to 18 months at a lower benefit rate, which would be 33% of their average weekly earnings.

However, parents are free to continue sharing these benefits. In addition, pregnant women can claim maternity benefits up to 12 weeks before their due date. This is expanded from the current standard of eight weeks.

Budget 2017 provides for more inclusive benefits for family caregivers. In fact, a new employment insurance benefit will be offered to eligible Canadians for a maximum of 15 weeks so that they can provide care and support to an adult family member who is seriously ill. This is an add-on to the existing compassionate care benefit that is offered to people who are caring for a family member who is critically ill and whose life is at risk.

The most important thing to mention in this debate is that Canadians themselves inspired these improvements. Last year, our government held consultations with Canadians and we organized roundtables with stakeholders. We found out their opinions on how to offer more flexible EI maternity and parental benefits under the Canada Labour Code, as well as how to make benefits and leave more inclusive for family caregivers. We listened to what Canadians had to say and we did what they asked us to. That is the way we do things. We made people our priority.

It is also important to point out that the Canada child benefit, which has been in place for the past year, is the most important program of its generation. Thanks to this measure, nine out of ten Canadian families are now receiving better financial assistance. There is no doubt that, in addition to supporting Canadian families, we are also building a stronger middle class.

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the reports we had about that advisory body were that it was quite uneven. Participation rates varied. Some members took it very seriously and some members did not take it very seriously.

There are two things to note. First of all, we have made the committee smaller, but we have focused on expertise with respect to that committee. As well, there are a number of other committees, as I mentioned during the course of my remarks. There are a number of other committees, and the chief statistician has access to many other consultative bodies across Canada in order to get the diversity of opinion necessary to have a good statistical background.

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, that provision of potentially sending people to go to jail for not filling out the form was a major bone of contention. I think we have moved to a new understanding of the importance of statistical information and the importance of the data that gets gathered in the census.

In the 2016 census we were not threatening any kind of jail time for not participating, and the participation rate was phenomenally high. I think society generally understands the importance of statistical data. We do not need that kind of provision in order to get the buy-in for people to participate in the census. We have moved to a different point.

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, indeed there were a variety of different opinions expressed, but particularly that opinion was expressed in committee hearings during the course of deliberations on the bill.

Ultimately the answer boils down to trying to balance a Westminster political system—which we have, and which is ultimately based on the principle of ministerial responsibility, with Statistics Canada falling under the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development—with the principle of trying to maintain the independence of the chief statistical officer and Statistics Canada.

We felt that a preamble might alter that balance. We will work it through. Generally, we have had in Canada a good experience, with a few major and relatively recent exceptions, of statistical independence in Canada. We want to get back to that, and enshrine it and protect it with the legislation we have.