Mark Warawa

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 29th, 2017]

With regard to the statement by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in the House of Commons on April 10, 2017, that “Every dollar that comes from putting a price on carbon pollution to the federal government goes directly back to the provinces”: (a) does the government consider this statement to be accurate; (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, then how is the government disposing of the extra Goods and Services Tax collected as a result of collecting GST on the price of carbon; (c) when did the program to send the extra revenue collected from the GST back to the provinces begin; and (d) how much has been paid out to the provinces, broken down by province, as a result of such a program?

[Skin Cancer Screening, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Kathy Barnard is one of the longest-living survivors of melanoma in North America. Her journey with the disease began in 2003, when she was first diagnosed with stage four melanoma. Cancer could not keep Kathy down. In 2006, while still battling melanoma, Kathy and her family started the Save Your Skin Foundation, a national not-for-profit advocacy group that is dedicated to leading the fight against skin cancer. They provide national education, advocacy, and awareness to elevate the patient's voice within Canada. They provide compassionate care and support to those affected by the disease by directing patients to reliable sources of information and helping them access the medical and financial support they need to navigate the journey.

I thank Kathy Bernard, her husband Scotty, and family for their tireless work in raising awareness of melanoma and other forms of skin cancer. Through their efforts, we are closer to realizing a Canada where skin cancer is prevented, survived, and cured.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Relevance is a very important part of the House. During question period, the government can refuse, successfully, not to answer a question. However, this is not question period; this is debate. The member needs to answer the question. Will the government provide the funding for autism, yes or no? He is not answering the question.

[Seniors, May 17th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to speak to Motion No. 106, and I want to thank the member for Nickel Belt for introducing it. I am also going to be introducing a motion one minute before I am done, so I would appreciate you letting me know, Mr. Speaker, when I have reached that one-minute mark.

I met my wife at university. We used to go to different seniors complexes, and I would play guitar and we would sing together and provide a bit of entertainment. It was not great music, but it was the love of our life to honour senior members of our community to thank them, encourage them, interact with them, and dialogue with them.

Through the years, as we started having children, we would visit the local rest home on Sunday after church. We asked the staff if there was someone who was lonely who was not getting visitors. We raised our children by example, saying that it was important to visit, honour, respect, and give dignity to the senior members of our community.

We did that, and we have continued to do that. While I have been busy here in Ottawa, my wife adopted another lady, over the last 10 years, Freda, who just passed away. Now we are looking for a new grandma we can adopt and visit. It is an important part of Canadian culture to honour its senior members, and it is a good indication of the heart and the quality of the country we live in.

I wish I could support Motion No. 106 and recommend that others do, but unfortunately, it has some mischievous political parts in it.

The previous government appointed a minister for seniors. One of the major flaws in this motion is that it is missing a call for the government to appoint a minister for seniors. It was a year and a half ago that this Parliament began. Two years ago, the election process began, and the political parties met with Canadians. The Conservative Party showed by example from the previous Parliament the importance of taking care of seniors and preparing for an aging population.

Right now, one in six Canadians is a senior. In five and a half years, it will be one in five. In 12 years, it will be one in four. This is a major shift in Canada, with an aging population we have to prepare for. That is what the previous government was doing. Unfortunately, the current government does not have a minister for seniors. Senior stakeholders across this country have asked the government to please appoint a minister for seniors and also to begin a national seniors strategy.

I was honoured to be asked by our interim leader to be the critic for seniors. I was honoured to do that, because I love seniors. The fact is, I am a senior, and I realize some of the challenges as our bodies age. We need to provide for our seniors, work with our seniors, and provide the care and dignity they need.

I was shocked that the government refused for the last year and a half to appoint a minister for seniors and did not begin a study on a national seniors strategy. That is what we have asked in question period. We have partnered with the NDP critic, who is asking the same thing. We have a national seniors caucus meeting, and we bring in different guest speakers. What do we hear time and time again? Please appoint a minister for seniors and start work on a national seniors strategy. Time is ticking, Canadian seniors are aging, and the Liberal government is asleep.

Motion No. 106 asks for a study on a national seniors strategy. Fortunately, I am also on the human resources committee, where this would be studied. I have asked the committee for the last year to start on a national seniors strategy. The Liberal government has waited for a year and a half. That is a year and a half lost in preparing for this aging population.

In February, when we saw Motion No. 106, I said that we should begin the study on a national seniors strategy now so we are ready and can get to work on it. The Liberals said they did not want to begin but wanted to wait for Motion No. 106.

It is politically motivated. How is it politically motivated? The first paragraph of Motion No. 106 acknowledges that we have an aging population. We can support that. Senior stakeholders support that. That is what the government has been told. For the last year and a half, that is what Canadians have known. Statistics Canada has told us for the last decade that we need to get ready for the aging population. It highlights and acknowledges that. We can support that.

Paragraph (b) says that the government is working hard to help improve the lives of Canadian seniors by restoring OAS and GIS. It highlights that this as a political document and that there was interference by the Prime Minister's Office saying that it wanted that in the bill. The motion I will be introducing in a moment suggests that we take that out and keep it non-partisan and non-political and focus on taking care of our Canadian seniors. I hope the sponsor of the bill will accept that.

The PMO is also saying that the human resources committee should get to work on a national seniors strategy. However, there are no timelines, and we need to have clear timelines so that we are ready for this aging population instead of having a study that sits on a shelf collecting dust.

Paragraph (d) refers to broadening the mandate of the National Seniors Council to allow it to undertake reviews and analysis on its own initiative. The National Seniors Council was created in 2007 by the previous Conservative government to represent the needs of Canadian seniors. The minister and the Prime Minister's Office were to identify the focus to get ready for the aging population.

The Liberals have instructed the sponsor of Motion No. 106 that this body can create its own mandate, do its own analysis, and do it its own thing, which will cause it to become meaningless. That on its own is the reason Motion No. 106 cannot be supported. Hopefully, the sponsor will agree to an amendment to remove that.

The vast majority of Canadian seniors I have talked to about this agree that we need to appoint a minister for seniors and that we need to start on a national seniors strategy, and hopefully the government will accept that.

We heard from the previous speaker about all the things she wished the government would do. However, she really did not acknowledge and address the issues with respect to Motion No. 106. Motion No. 106 has some flaws that need to be repaired. We would support a study on a national seniors strategy, but let us remove those political, mischievous parts of the motion.

Last Friday, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health was asked how the government would take care of seniors, I was concerned when he replied that they now have assisted suicide to help take care of this massive growing senior population. We were shocked to hear that. That should not be part of the plan. The plan is to protect seniors, give them dignity, and provide the services they need.

I have highlighted the political parts of Motion No. 106. I hope its sponsor will accept this constructive suggestion. I have talked to him ahead of time, so I hope he will accept this amendment, as it is made in good faith.

Therefore, I move that the Motion No. 106 be amended by replacing all the words in paragraph (b) with “appoint a minister for seniors”, and by deleting paragraph (d).

[Seniors, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, a new CIBC study clearly indicates that hard-working Canadians are forced to take time off and are stuck paying $33 billion a year in out-of-pocket expenses to take care of aging loved ones. The Prime Minister does not care. He has refused to appoint a minister for seniors and he has failed to deliver a comprehensive national strategy for senior care in Canada.

Canadian seniors are suffering as a result of the Prime Minister's blatant inaction. When will the Prime Minister finally stop ignoring the needs of Canadian seniors?

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member is not naive, and he would know it was the Conservative Party that amended the compassionate care program so that Canadians who truly needed help received it. It was a stubborn former Liberal government that refused to make those changes so that Canadians in need would receive compassionate care. I am very proud of that.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to work with the member at the HUMA committee. I thank her for her question and also for her commitment to help Canadians.

She well knows what I have said regarding the Liberal government, that it manipulates the truth and comes up with alternate facts. It is shameful. It is sad to see Canadians having to lose trust because it is a government that Canadians cannot trust.

She experiences at committee, as do I, the manipulation by the Prime Minister's Office in the committee and in the structure of the report.

With regard to EI benefits, we are studying poverty reduction. It is important to give Canadians an opportunity to get back to work, because without work, they stay impoverished. We are very proud of the reputation we have and our history of helping Canadians get back to work. We created an environment where we were living within our means. We were balancing our budget. We had a bright future for Canadians. Now out-of-control spending by the Liberal government is destroying the future for Canada. We need to get back to a Conservative government.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, sunny days are over. We have a member who is quite bitter, it appears to me, and is making comments that really are not based on fact.

The previous government was the government that took our Canadian veterans and our brave men and women from the decade of darkness into a decade of prosperity. It was an age of respect. We have ended up now with a government that has even taken away benefits from our veterans.

I am quite shocked at the comments from the member. I encourage him to look up the facts instead of alternate facts.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2017]

moved that the third report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities presented on Wednesday, June 15, 2016, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for seconding this important motion.

It is important that we have policies in government that are effective. Employment insurance is a very important part our support system within Canada. We need to have policies that work, that are effective, that are transparent, and that are accountable when people find themselves without employment.

It is wonderful that we live in a country where there is support, but things do not always work, and the previous government made sure that there were changes that would make the EI program more effective, more transparent, more accountable, more sustainable, and would truly take care of Canadians who needed that help and support. Those changes were made and were effective.

Unfortunately, the number one focus of the new Liberal government, though not so new or sunny anymore and a government that is not transparent, is to try to destroy everything from the past. Whether it was good or bad, the Liberals want to destroy it and to do so without being accountable.

In question period today we heard questions, but no answers. The Prime Minister stood in the House and refused time and time again to answer simple questions, such as how many times he met with the Ethics Commissioner. Those questions came from all opposition parties. Opposition parties are tasked with making sure the government is held to account, but the government does not want to be held to account and will not answer questions as simple as how many times the Prime Minister met with the Ethics Commissioner about his trip to billionaire island.

It is a question that Canadians want to know the answer to, but we see the same culture across the way, an entitlement culture, a culture of out-of-control spending and growing deficits that are going to be passed on to Canadians, particularly unemployed Canadians. Therefore, EI is very important.

That is the government that wants to tinker and make changes. It does a lot of consulting and discussing, and one of the most recent studies was on EI, not with the goal of making things better but with the goal of removing everything the previous government did that was effective. It is really the wrong motive, a motive of a government that is stubborn and unaccountable.

Then a report was done, and a lot of witnesses appeared at committee on that report. It was hoped that it would be a good report. Unfortunately, the motive and direction that came from the PMO was a dictatorial approach for a predetermined outcome. Maybe the question is how many times the PMO directed members of the committee on that report. I am sure we will not get an answer to that either, but opposition members on the committee, because of the report missing the mark and focusing on undoing accountability, were forced to do the right thing, which was to create a dissenting report.

I neglected to say that I will be sharing my time with the amazing member of Parliament for Perth—Wellington.

A dissenting report was presented, and I would like to share with the House the context of that report.

To summarize, the previous Parliament had created changes that brought in transparency, accountability, and an effective support system for those who need it through employment insurance. I will share some of the highlights of that dissenting report.

The dissenting report says that:

We participated in the study on the EI program with open minds. During the consideration of the report, we supported the recommendations that promoted the evaluation of EI program measures, that protected the most vulnerable, and that encouraged greater transparency and efficiency.

However, we rejected recommendations that did away with measures implemented by the previous government as part of its major EI reform in 2013. In our opinion, these measures should be kept, as they have had a positive impact on employment as well as on how citizens treat EI benefits. The primary objective of this reform was to make it easier for unemployed individuals to return to work by helping them find a job.

Is that not a wonderful idea? It is a concept that Canadians support: jobs, jobs, jobs, protecting the economy, the environment, providing a healthy future for Canadians, jobs, and helping them find jobs.

The report goes on to state:

The reform was designed to increase accountability for unemployed workers receiving benefits and we believe it was a step in the right direction. In fact, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation told the Committee that “We believe that a system that is too generous can create disincentives for people to seek or accept work when they otherwise might do so”, and we support their position.

Furthermore, we believe that the report adopted by the Committee was not objective in terms of the differing views about EI reform. Of the 80 quotes from witnesses included in the report, 42 were very critical of the measures implemented by the previous Conservative government, and only 15 were in favour of these measures. Of the 27 witnesses cited, a mere 7 witnesses made positive comments about the measures implemented by the former government. Some witnesses who expressed opinions that differed from the majority of the witnesses heard were not cited in the report at all, despite the relevance of their arguments. For example, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation appeared before the Committee in person, and yet it was not quoted in the report at all, while six briefs were cited whose authors did not appear before the Committee.

That is a prime example.

I serve on the HUMA committee, and I have seen a major change in this Parliament over previous Parliaments. The Prime Minister's Office gives direction and tinkers with committees, and committees are not able to do their work. Their work is being directed by the Prime Minister's Office. They end up with a report that is predetermined by what the Prime Minister wants that report to say. When the Canadian Taxpayers Federation provided good input, it was removed from this report. Why? It was because it did not create a report that the Prime Minister wanted.

When all of the different standing committees are being directed by the Prime Minister's Office, this is what we will have. In the same way, we see that the Prime Minister will not himself answer simple questions, such as how many times he has met with the Ethics Commissioner. We see the same example happening in committees. It is sad, and it requires dissenting reports to actually get to the truth.

The dissenting report went on to say:

One of the major failings of the report, in our opinion, is that it does not reflect the fact that “witnesses acknowledge that in practice, few individuals lost their EI benefits due to these new definitions.”

The following citations show that this statement is true:

According to Hans Marotte, representative of the Inter-Provincial EI Working Group, “it is true that I didn't handle a great many cases stemming from the Conservative reform.”

There are a number of quotes. The core point I want to make is that if we have a government that will not permit the truth, that tinkers and manipulates so that we do not have the truth, then how can Canadians trust it? I do not think Canadians do trust this government anymore.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 8th, 2017]

With regard to the government’s projection presented on page 253 of Budget 2017 showing a 4% increase in Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenues from 2016-17 to 2021-22: (a) upon what basis is the government’s projection based; (b) how much of this forecasted increase will result from an increase in the GST rate; and (c) how much of this forecasted increase is the result of provincial carbon taxes, prices and levies?