Greg Fergus

[Business of Supply, October 23rd, 2017]

From your lips to God's ears, Mr. Speaker. I agree with you. As you said, I started my speech by saying that the Minister of Finance was an honourable man who has taken steps to remedy the situation, as he has always done since becoming the finance minister. I spoke about the economy because I believe that it is the reason why the opposition moved this motion. The Canadian economy is doing so well that the opposition wants to draw Canadians' attention away from that by talking about trivial things.

It is unfortunate that I have only a few minutes remaining because I have a lot more to say on this issue and the reasons why we are having this debate today.

I would like to thank my colleague opposite because he gave me one last chance to talk about something important. We have an extraordinary economic record thanks to the hard work of Canadians across the country who had the courage to be optimistic following the 2015 election and reinvest in the economy.

Tomorrow, a great announcement will be made. The Minister of Finance will tell us about the progress he has made by presenting the fall economic statement to the House of Commons. I do not have the inside track, but I trust the finance minister when he tells me that there will be good news. That good news will simply add to his long list of accomplishments both in the private sector and as finance minister. I am sure that we will have good news tomorrow, and that all Canadians will appreciate the results of his efforts.

[Business of Supply, October 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate.

I was not in the House last week or the two weeks before that because I was participating, along with parliamentary colleagues of all political stripes, in the prebudget consultations of the Standing Committee on Finance. We had the pleasure of criss-crossing this great country to meet with people and talk about their hopes, wishes, and aspirations for the 2018 budget.

During these consultations, I read in the newspapers that there had been quite a kerfuffle here in Ottawa, but it was good to be on the ground talking with people about their concerns. These concerns, I might add, did not always match up with what we hear in the House, which is unfortunate. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge, for his comments. I appreciated his summary. As for me, I would like to briefly recap the issue before us.

Since his appointment, the Minister of Finance has been working closely with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to ensure that all the rules are followed, both for him and for all parliamentarians.

The finance minister announced that he would not just follow the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's recommendations but that he would go the extra mile in order to maintain the public's confidence as we continue our work to grow Canada's middle class.

The finance minister also announced that he would take additional steps. First, he is going to set up a blind trust for his assets and those of his family. Then, he will continue to work with the Ethics Commissioner and an administrator to turn over his family's assets related to Morneau Shepell in an orderly and appropriate manner. As an additional precaution, and this is a message to all parliamentarians, he will continue to use a conflict of interest screen to prevent conflicts of interest, unless the Ethics Commissioner tells him otherwise. There. I addressed the issue before us.

I do wonder, however, why we are even talking about such ridiculous issues. We all know that the Minister of Finance is an honourable man who followed both the letter and the spirit of the Ethics Commissioner's recommendations. The fact that we are debating issues such as this one just shows that things are going well. The economy is growing. Things are going so well that the opposition parties were taken by surprise and they essentially had to make up some ethical issues. That is the real reason.

There has been a lot of good news regarding the economy, and I know it is hurting the opposition. Since December 2015, Canada's unemployment rate has been the lowest it has been in nearly a decade. That is impressive and incredible. However, that is not all. Over 400,000 jobs, most of them full-time, have been created since we took office. That is outstanding.

That is a great record for any government. We are proud to have made those accomplishments since this Liberal government took office in 2015. That is progress.

That is not all we have done. We have also helped the Canadian economy, something I could talk about at length. As my colleague from Winnipeg North and Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons often says, good news bears repeating. The Canadian economy is growing faster than it has in over 10 years. That is incredible, and it is in fact because of the measures introduced by the Minister of Finance and adopted by Parliament. We adopted those measures, but there is a certain political party that never supported them. Unfortunately, that is its official position. That party was there when we decided to lower taxes for the middle class and raise them for the wealthiest 1%. Unfortunately, that party voted against those measures. I do not take any pleasure in saying this. That party voted against the Canada child benefit that we created and that lifted over 300,000 young people out of poverty. Lifting children out of poverty is a great thing. This is good news.

Our plan to grow the economy in a way that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it has been successful. That is why we are where we are today.

It is too bad that the opposition decided to debate this motion because we could have talked about other issues that are extremely important, not just for the Canadian economy but—

[Cable Public Affairs Channel, September 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to CPAC, the Canadian Cable Public Affairs Channel, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary.

I think we can all agree on how important CPAC is to Canadian democracy. Every day, this channel provides Canadians with direct access to democratic institutions, parliamentary debates and discussions, and the work of MPs.

CPAC goes beyond the headlines and always puts events in context in order to help Canadians better understand their democracy.

CPAC is providing Canadians with complete coverage of events as they happen, featuring the work of parliamentarians across party lines and allowing Canadians to participate in the process on the platform of their choice.

This year, CPAC is launching a digital democratic literacy project called Route 338, an innovative website that will make the institutions and the work of all MPs accessible to a younger, digital-native generation all across the country.

On behalf of all MPs, I wish CPAC a very happy anniversary.

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of the new legislation is the defined term of office for the chief statistician.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary be kind enough to inform the House as to what the changes were, and the process? I know he explained a little about the process of how the appointment of the chief statistician will be subject to the Governor in Council process, which allows it to be open and transparent, but could he talk about the terms of the new five- to seven-year terms that the chief statistician will be allowed to have?

[Canada Business Corporations Act, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for giving such an interesting speech

I think that our government’s leitmotif is evidence-based decision-making.

My colleague raised the matter of diversity. I had the privilege of reading the study by a professor with the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. He fully demonstrated how important diversity is to the resilience and profitability of Canadian businesses. The more diversity there is, in terms of either a gender balance or having individuals from cultural communities, the more these businesses are profitable and resilient in the face of change.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could expand on this.

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act, June 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit I am taken by the breathtaking scope of the speech by the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. The cogency of the speech is only exceeded by its generosity.

I would like to ask the member a very simple question in regard to the environment. She indicated that the environmental policies of the government are based on junk science. When 98% to 99% of the world's environmental scientists feel that climate change has its causes in human activity, does the member believe that, or does she believe that is also junk science?

[Canada Revenue Agency, June 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, we learned that search warrants had been executed in the Toronto area and in the United Kingdom in connection with a criminal investigation into a transatlantic GST/HST fraud scheme. Reports indicate that this “carousel scheme” netted $52 million in fraudulent tax refunds and credits.

Would the Minister of National Revenue tell the House what she is doing to combat fraud?

[Holidays Act, June 15th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. First, I want to acknowledge the incredible work that my colleague from West Nova did on drafting this private member's bill concerning Remembrance Day. I am encouraged to hear my colleagues across the way take part in this debate and those who say that they support the bill.

This bill is important because it gives Remembrance Day a federally legislated legal status that it did not have before. It will be given the same legal status as Canada Day and Victoria Day. We will be able to say that it is now a statutory holiday to commemorate the armistice that ended the Great War of 1914-18. There will be no exception under the legislation.

When I first looked at this file I thought perhaps that the fact that Remembrance Day had not been given the same legal status as other statutory holidays in Canada was just a fluke. Unfortunately, this exception lingered for quite some time. My colleague from West Nova, Nova Scotia, is to be commended for introducing a bill to right this wrong in Canadian law.

It is very important to understand what this private member's bill would contribute, in no longer allowing for this exception that we have of having two classes of holidays in Canada. We have one class, the legal holiday that is recognized within the Canadian legal parliamentary context, like Canada Day and Victoria Day. However, for some reason, we have taken one of our most sacred commemorations and put it at a lower level than the other two.

For me, that is not acceptable. I applaud my colleague, the member for West Nova, for taking the initiative to make sure we can do this. I would like to thank also other members from across the way for lending their support to this initiative. This is very important for us to do.

Let me also talk about what this private member's bill would not do. There is a sense sometimes; people feel that this would be creating another statutory holiday, a day when people all across Canada would have the day off. That actually is not the case. What we discovered, which is very interesting, is that holidays in this country, in terms of whether people have a paid day off, are determined by the provinces. When we have Canada Day or Victoria Day, or in my province la Fête de Dollard, it is determined by the provincial body whether people will have a paid holiday.

At the federal level, we determine whether this is being considered for bodies that are regulated by the federal government; for example, the federal public service. This would be considered a legal holiday when the federal government would not be at work. For all of us here in Parliament, it is a similar kind of thing. That is where we have that aspect of where it applies.

For other industries and employment situations that are regulated by the provinces, it is up to the provinces to determine whether they can take part in this holiday. That is what they do for Canada Day. I think it would be politically unwise and impossible to do, but a province theoretically could determine that Canada Day would not be considered a statutory holiday, a paid holiday, for the purposes of employment. People in that province would have to show up to work. That is beyond what would be reasonably acceptable, and we would not expect that to happen.

I think Bill C-311 has been warmly received by Canadians across the country. I find more and more in my riding of Hull—Aylmer that people recognize the importance of Remembrance Day, even though we move further away in time from World War I. There are no living survivors of World War I. As we move away from the wars in which Canadian troops have participated, I find it a funny thing that the younger generations in schools in our communities are participating more in Remembrance Day activities. Either people will cross the river to come to the national cenotaph here, or they will go to the cenotaph in the Aylmer sector of my riding.

Last year, we had close to a thousand people who celebrated on November 11. We had women and men taking part, of course, who were serving in our forces. We had veterans come out in uniform to participate. What was really encouraging was seeing regular folks from Hull—Aylmer take part in this, people who came out to recognize the importance and the service that the women and men in uniform have made over time and the sacrifices that they and their families have made. It was really touching to see.

I think we owe it to them, and to all Canadians, to make sure that Remembrance Day shares the same legal definition that other federally regulated holidays have, such as Canada Day and Victoria Day. That is why I feel it is important for us to recognize the sacrifice that our brave women and men have made, to bring it up to the same level, and to allow Remembrance Day to finally have the same legal status in the Holidays Act.

I also want to touch on some of the provisions in this bill. One of them addresses the fact that if November 11 falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the following Monday will be considered a statutory holiday and celebrated as Remembrance Day.

That is important. Through this bill we are making sure that Remembrance Day is treated the same as all the other statutory holidays under the Holidays Act.

Most importantly, not only does the main clause of the bill raise the legal status of this holiday, but the bill also provides that the Canadian flag on Parliament Hill will fly at half-mast on Remembrance Day in recognition of the sacrifice made by our troops and our veterans.

[Main Estimates, 2017-18, June 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to thank the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert for her great intervention. I am glad that she brought up senators and the whole nomination process because the members opposite do not want to talk about the nomination process for the Senate. I am certain my hon. colleague can discuss why, and then the talk about the quality senators that we have appointed. I am glad my hon. colleague brought up the issue of Senator André Pratte, who came up with a very reasonable change to our budget bill in last year's budget, which was accepted by the government upon reflection. The Senate fulfilled its role of sober second thought and provided us with an option.

I am wondering if the hon. member could enlighten me as to what type of sober second thought the previous government had in terms of Senator Mike Duffy, or I could continue on with other senators. What types of reflection and contributions did they make to the legislative process in the other place?

[Business of Supply, June 12th, 2017]

A formidable MP.