House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2015, with 38% of the vote.
Statistics Act February 7th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could answer this question. Do you believe that Statistics Canada should be independent from any government meddling? How would the Conservatives work to ensure that independence, and would they be committed to that independence in the case of, perhaps, a distant Conservative government following through to maintain that independence?
Statistics Act February 7th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions, but I think the most pertinent to the member is in regard to the resignation of the former chief statistician of Statistics Canada, Mr. Wayne Smith. We know that he was a dedicated public servant who very clearly had every intention to make sure Statistics Canada was doing its job.
My question is on the reason for his resignation. What does my colleague believe in regard to this, and should the Liberal government be embarrassed by the fact that Mr. Smith felt so compelled to leave his post?
Democratic Reform February 6th, 2017
Yes, Mr. Speaker, democracy should be inclusive.
Let us look at the facts. Two-thirds of Canadians voted in the last election for parties promising electoral reform. During the committee hearings, almost 90% of expert testimony and 80% of public testimony called for the government to adopt a proportional voting system.
When they launched their own extremely biased and poorly designed online survey, Liberals never even asked Canadians what system they wanted. Today, reports have surfaced that the Liberals spent nearly $4.1 million consulting Canadians on electoral reform. I wonder if they had any intention of implementing it in the first place.
It amazes me that the promise to strengthen our democratic institutions has gone from a clear commitment to the trash bin in just over a year. Why is the Liberal government so afraid of democracy?
Democratic Reform February 6th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, last October I asked the Minister of Democratic Institutions about promises that she and her government made to Canadians. Now, we find ourselves in a new year and, sadly, with a whole new set of broken promises. I am extremely disappointed that the Liberals have chosen to ignore Canadians and back away from their commitment on democratic reform.
The promise to Canadians was very clear. Sixteen months ago on the election trail, our future Prime Minister stated that his party would make every vote count; and on numerous occasions, more than 1,800 in fact, claimed that a Liberal government would be committed to ensuring that the 2015 election would be the last federal election using first past the post. That was a clear promise, a clear commitment, one for which many Canadians voted. As recently as last October, the Prime Minister restated his support for electoral reform, describing it as “a commitment we made in our election that I continue to be deeply committed to”.
I am starting to wonder if members of the governing party actually understand what the word “commitment” means. It is truly disheartening for Canadians to have watched the Prime Minister and his Minister of Democratic Institutions slowly but surely redefine, weaken, water down, and then back away from their commitment to a fair election process.
Breaking this promise, this commitment, does more damage to our democratic system than the Prime Minister is willing to admit. It tarnishes the credibility of all MPs in this House. It tells Canadians that politicians are only interested in getting elected and will say anything to make that happen. It starts to pick away at the fabric of our democracy and we begin to see that fabric unravel as people lose trust in the political system. Making promises they never intended to keep further disenfranchises those who came out in droves to vote for change. People believed the Liberal Party actually wanted to create change. They were sold a bill of goods and now are left with the status quo and a lack of trust in the political system. This is a betrayal of every Canadian who voted to change the electoral system, as well as of every Canadian who voted to do politics differently. The unvarnished truth is that rather than fixing our broken electoral system so it benefits every Canadian, the Liberals are keeping the current system because it benefits them.
We are also left wondering what the next broken promise will be. Clearly, commitments and promises are meaningless to the Prime Minister. I wonder if the next broken promise will be in regard to pensions for our veterans. This was a key election promise just like democratic reform. It made it into the minister's mandate letter, just like democratic reform. Yet here we are in 2017 with no promised pension, and veterans back in court fighting the government on the sacred obligation our government owes to the men and women who serve this great country.
Therefore I want to ask the parliamentary secretary across the aisle from me today if the government intends to keep the promises and commitments it made to Canadians. Are there any other promises the Liberals intend to break? What are they? What else do the Liberals intend to simply walk away from after abandoning their commitment to electoral reform?
Business of Supply February 2nd, 2017
Mr. Speaker, I note that the government brings about whenever things get a little hot in this place and they are in trouble. I would suggest that the government got caught in its plan to pick the pockets of taxpayers with this proposed health benefit tax. If they truly wanted to do something to advance health care, to make sure that Canadians have the proper health care they so richly deserve, they would look at pharmacare. There are no plans to look at pharmacare. There is nothing but a lot of noise and wind.
When it comes to these town halls, last summer the government encouraged all of us to have town halls regarding electoral reform. I had such a town hall, and of the people who gave up their Sunday afternoon to come and talk to us, 85% of them very clearly said they wanted proportional representation. They wanted electoral reform. Now, it is all gone.
Twice, the taxpayers' pockets have been picked. Number one is with this proposed health tax. Number two is with these town halls, which cost a great deal of money for no purpose at all.
Questions Passed as Orders for Return January 30th, 2017
With regard to contract beds under the jurisdiction of Veterans Affairs Canada, and broken down by facility: (a) what are the number of contract beds available; (b) what is the percentage of contract beds currently in use; (c) what is the placement and admission process; (d) what are the number of applications for contract beds received; and (e) what are the number of successful applications?
Questions Passed as Orders for Return January 30th, 2017
With regard to the Minister of Veterans Affairs series of announcements on the opening of new Veteran Affairs offices: (a) what was the cost for each event, including (i) venue rentals, (ii) audio-visual, (iii) advertising, (iv) accommodations, (v) travel, (vi) per diems for the Minister and staff; (b) how many people attended each event, broken down by location; and (c) what was the announced date for the actual reopening of each Veteran Affairs office, broken down by location?
Questions on the Order Paper January 30th, 2017
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada what is: (a) the criteria for benefits for veterans with injuries or disease due to exposure to toxic chemicals, including, but not limited to, (i) asbestos, (ii) lead, (iii) lubricants, (iv)cleaners, (v) chemical spraying, (vi) spraying at CFB Gagetown, (vii) depleted uranium, (viii) radiation, (ix) other chemicals; (b) the number of claims that have been made for exposure to toxic chemicals, including, but not limited to, (i) asbestos, (ii) lead, (iii) lubricants, (iv) cleaners, (v) chemical spraying, (vi) spraying at CFB Gagetown, (vii) depleted uranium, (viii) radiation, (ix) other chemicals; and (c) the number of successful claims for toxic chemicals exposure, including, but not limited to, (i) asbestos, (ii) lead, (iii) lubricants, (iv) cleaners, (v) chemical spraying, (vi) spraying at CFB Gagetown, (vii) depleted uranium, (viii) radiation, (ix) other chemicals?
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement December 12th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my colleague for providing time for this question. Forty-two per cent of Canadian exports to the European Union are to the U.K. Canadian concessions were based on the premise that the UK would be part of CETA. Those concessions include things that we are very concerned about, such as the loss of income for dairy farmers. There was supposed to be compensation and now is now questionable whether it would be adequate. There is also the cost of pharmaceuticals. Will we be able to afford drugs in our country? The joint interpretive instrument, which is outside the treaty, is supposed to be the government's right to regulate and yet it has very little weight in regard to the CETA document.
Now that the U.K. is re-evaluating its position within the European Union after Brexit, the Liberals have failed to re-evaluate the net benefit of CETA. Could my colleague comment on this change? The world has changed but the Liberals have not accounted for that change.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Essex, for her impassioned speech. It reminds me of something that goes back to 1997. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you were a mere child then, but I do recall the election of 1997. The Liberals stood up on their hind legs and said that they would bring in pharmacare and they would have it in place by January of 1998. We know where we are now.
That brings me to my concerns about what is in this agreement with respect to the establishment of pharmacare. We know that to preserve our health care system and reduce those waiting lists, we have to find ways to reduce costs and reinvest in things that produce results. Pharmacare and bulk buying is one of those things. In fact, they reckon we can save $11 billion a year if we had pharmacare. This agreement puts pharmacare in danger. In the fact, the nurses association says that CETA could increase drug costs by more than $850 million.
How on Earth are we going to maintain a universal health care system with this kind of situation?