Deepak Obhrai

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 6th, 2019]

With regard to government communication with the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Working Group on Bribery and the statement by the spokesperson for the Minister of Foreign Affairs that “We will continue to work with and update the Working Group on the robust and independent domestic processes currently underway in Canada”: (a) what are the dates and details of all updates which have been provided to the OECD; (b) did the government inform the OECD that partisan Liberal Members control a majority of the votes on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights; and (c) what are the “robust and independent” processes currently underway to investigate the allegations of corruption and inappropriate pressure applied by individuals in the government?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 5th, 2019]

With regard to the processing times for refugees applications from outside of Canada: (a) broken down by country, what is the current processing time for applicants under the program for (i) government-assisted refugees, (ii) privately sponsored refugees; (b) what are the historical processing times for the applicants in (a), broken down by month since January 1, 2016; (c) what is the current number of privately sponsored refugee applications which are awaiting processing; and (d) how many of the applications in (c) are for Yazidi applicants?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to expenditures related to the Fall Economic Statement in November 2018: (a) what is the total of all expenditures related to the statement; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) detailed description of goods or services, (v) location of vendor, (vi) file number?

[Questions Passed as Order for Returns, December 10th, 2018]

With regard to government expenditures on sporting event tickets since December 1, 2017: what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) ticket cost, (iv) title of persons using the tickets, (v) name or title of event for tickets purchased by, or billed to, any department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity?

[Privilege, December 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar is rising, so I will give the floor to her.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague, who happens to also be an Alberta member of Parliament. That is a great question. It is simple and straightforward.

EI is a temporary solution. EI is not and has never been a permanent solution. We want permanent solutions. The permanent solution is straight and simple: jobs, jobs, jobs.

The government is talking about the economy doing well. The Liberals had a surplus, and what they did is they spent everything. The government has now created a situation where we are losing jobs across the country. Today we lost jobs in Ontario. Yesterday we lost jobs in Alberta. The Minister of Innovation got up during question period and tried to say how many jobs were created. That is a normal situation in a country. Nitpicking areas is not.

It is what has happened in Oshawa and what is happening in Alberta that is concerning. It is sending a message that the economic management by the government is a disaster for the country.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the member talk. He should look in the mirror and think about what he is talking about. I do not know what planet he is living on. Is he living in Alberta? He says he represents Winnipeg. Does he know that all three prairie governments do not share his vision? There is no prairie Liberal government. None of them agree with the nonsense he is talking about. He should go and talk to the provincial governments to find out what is happening in the provinces before he stands up talks about the Harper government.

We are talking about the fall economic statement by his government, and what he is saying it is going to do. He should not forget—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my discussion on the fall economic update, I would like to acknowledge that today is the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attack on Mumbai, where two Canadians lost their lives.

During a state visit with the former governor general, the Right Hon. David Johnston, whom I accompanied to India, we visited the Taj hotel, which was one of the places that came under severe attack. We paid our respects at the memorial that was set up in the hotel. We talked to the survivors of that terrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with those who were killed and to the people of India. Just a note to my colleagues, the masterminds of that terrorist attack are still free.

On another note, as everyone knows, I am from Calgary. Yesterday evening, I was sitting in a pub with fans in Ottawa for the Grey Cup. I had a great evening when Calgary beat Ottawa. The pub was pretty quiet, but they could not keep me quiet. I was out there rooting for Calgary. I am very grateful that we won the Grey Cup. Go, Stamps, go.

Now I am going to talk about the fall economic update and the management by the Liberal government of the economy. The government gave a fall economic update, and today we heard an announcement that over 2,000 Canadians are going to lose their jobs because of GM's closure of their plant in Oshawa. This has sent shock waves across the country. It will have a serious impact on Ontario's economy, and by extension, the Canadian economy. We will see not only jobs being lost but a subsequent chain of events associated with the plant and the production of vehicles in the auto sector. The impact is going to be huge. Therefore, the fall economic update, as far as I am concerned, is not very valid.

Tonight an emergency debate has been agreed to, which was put forward by the Conservative members. Members of the House will discuss this issue that impacts everyone. Hopefully, everyone will agree unanimously that we should all work together to ensure that Canadians will not be heavily impacted by this loss.

I also want to say that last Thursday, the Prime Minister visited Calgary to talk about the other sector that is crucially important to the economy, and that is the oil energy sector. He had come there to give assurances. He spoke to the Chamber of Commerce, and he met with business leaders. Close to 2,000 people were in the streets asking for action by the Liberal government with regard to the energy sector. Ultimately, his visit provided absolutely nothing of the kind to the oil sector and the workers in Calgary who are suffering. It will subsequently lead to more job losses. The oil sector impacts everyone in this country, yet the government was unable to give assurances to Calgary and Alberta about what it plans to do.

The government's inaction has become so bad, despite having the NDP as its closest ally in Alberta, that the finance minister in Alberta, the Hon. Joe Ceci, who I worked with for many years, because he was a councillor in the same riding I represent today, commented in frustration that if it was something like Bombardier, we would have seen massive action by the Liberal government. However, because it is Alberta, it kind of got the brush-off. This is what the NDP finance minister in Alberta is saying.

This is a warning sign to the federal government that if it does not pick up the ball in the energy sector, it will once more inflame the western alienation that occurred under the Pierre Trudeau Liberal government. It is a good point for the Liberals to know. It is not the Conservatives speaking about it. It is the NDP finance minister in Alberta talking about this issue.

The point of the fall economic statement is how the Liberals have managed our economy, and it is looking really bad. Canadians are concerned. The deficit is going on and on. It is now three times higher than what the Liberals promised during the election campaign. They like to say that what they promised they are delivering, but unfortunately, they are absolutely not.

The government has raised taxes on the middle class. It has raised taxes. The deficit is going up. What does the future of Canada look like under the current government? It does not look very good. Today's announcement is just one of the symptoms of not looking forward. The government should have known this might happen, and if it did, what actions it would take. It was totally caught off guard. We will hear in tonight's debate what it intends to do, as it is in power.

The main issue in the economic update is simple and straightforward. What assurances do Canadians have that there will be sound management? They are worried about jobs, their children and their families, and now there will be a carbon tax.

This weekend, Rex Murphy, a great commentator, said very simply that we cannot have extra burdens when the economy is under stress and that the government should revisit the carbon tax. We are calling on the government to revisit the carbon tax. It should not sit with its head in the sand and say no. There are other options to address climate change as we move forward, but the carbon tax is not the way to go. Liberals say the carbon tax is revenue neutral and they will return the money to Canadians, but what incentive do they have to do this except to create a bureaucracy for the carbon tax.

The main issue is that we need to create an economic environment that will create economic development. The Prime Minister's actions at the first TPP meeting in Vietnam were disastrous. He did not bother giving any attention to the trade file, which is crucial for Canada.

The finance minister was on TV over the weekend saying that the media was not giving him fair coverage. My colleagues and everyone else are wondering if that is why he gave the media $560 million, to make sure that the Liberals get favourable coverage from the media. There is a question being raised about that money, and a lot of the media are attacking that. I know it is about job security for them as well, but it brings into question why the government is favouring one sector. The minister says we need a free press. Indeed, we need a free press. Canadians want a free press, but they can make up their own minds as to what kind of free press they want. They do not need what the government is doing, forcing on them what they do not want. Liberals are not listening to what the media is talking about.

Nevertheless, over the course of the month, we will talk about how the Liberal government failed. In 2019, we hope Canadians will send them packing.

[Canadian Multiculturalism Act, November 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this bill aims to withdraw Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

To be absolutely clear, I have nothing in agreement with the Bloc Québécois. I do not agree with its philosophy. I do not agree with whatever it says because that party wants to take Quebec out of Canada. To put it simply and being straightforward, Quebec is part of Canada.

As I said in the House in May 2014, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

Whatever I heard the member say, Quebec society is very large. It is represented by other parties as well. They do not agree with the vision of the Bloc Québécois about Quebec being excluded. Rather, those members are looking at the past when they say that Quebec is changing.

Quebec is part of Canada and Canadian laws do apply. However, Quebec has also been given a lot of leeway. It is recognized that it has a lot of decentralization issues.

We respect the Quebec jurisdiction. However, when it comes to major issues like multiculturalism, which applies all across the country, I had the honour and privilege to go to Quebec during the leadership race. I spoke in French because I recognized that French was very important. I thoroughly enjoyed visiting Quebec. I love Quebec culture. I love the French culture there. I really enjoyed it and felt very proud that this culture was part of our larger mosaic, the Canadian culture, and part of our society.

Therefore, Quebec's culture and its French culture is a very important part of Canadian multicultural society. For my hon. colleague, indigenous Canadians are part of the multicultural society. They live in Quebec as well as a lot of other communities.

Indeed, I find it a little strange when it is said that because we have immigration coming here, we have a changing face of Canada. It is not only immigration that represents the changing face of Canada. Quebec is also changing as young Quebeckers leave and become more learned and multicultural within other countries. Quebec itself is probably like the rest of Canada.

To be very honest with members, Acadians in New Brunswick have their own thriving culture. There are francophones in Calgary, Alberta and they are thriving. Because we have this policy of multiculturalism, they can practice their own culture in Calgary and share it with us.

Therefore, I thoroughly oppose this bill because it makes it look like Quebec is not a part of Canada. I have always said, since coming to the House, that Quebec is part of Canada.

As a parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, I have been all around the world. I have seen the great respect granted to Canada, and that includes Quebec. Also, Quebec ministers were part of the many journeys which I went on. There is immense respect given to Canada because of our ability to be together.

This bill is a dangerous precedent that says, “I will dictate”. No, it will not dictate; the law will dictate. The law says that every Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian and is equal.

Henceforth, taking that into account, I want to say to my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois that I do understand that they are now having a complete review of their party because they seem to have lost touch with Quebec society.

Nevertheless, I strongly encourage them to look at it. I also view them as Canadians. I respect their culture. I respect their language, but it is part of the multicultural mosaic that has been built in this country, which is a strength.

I find it very strange to hear the member say that multiculturalism is a weakness. That is wrong. Multiculturalism is our strength wherever we go. My former colleague the member for Beauce said extreme multiculturalism. There is no such thing as extreme multiculturalism in this country. Our laws give respect to every Canadian irrespective of what his or her religion is.

During the leadership race, one of the candidates raised the question of Canadian values, which we then questioned. What are Canadian values? They are evolving values. As Canada grows, we evolve, so Canadian values evolve, but they are still very strong. It is respect for everyone.

I must say to my colleague who has brought the bill before the House that honestly, they are moving backwards. They want to go back to the old days. Everybody would like to go back to the old days, but the old days are gone. They are gone the way of the dodo bird.

We all maintain our culture. We all maintain what we share with everyone else. Canada has room for everyone.

I say very strongly that I and my colleagues will oppose this legislation.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a good point. We were there only a week ago. The oil industry and even the NDP Government of Alberta have said that Bill C-69 is a disaster for the country. We are talking about the NDP government, so does that not tell the current government that its Bill C-69 is an absolute disaster for this country? Those regulations would stifle the energy sector in this country.