Matt Jeneroux

[Disaster Assistance, May 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we apparently have managed to get under the hon. member's skin in the last few days.

Today I would like to talk about Fort McMurray. It will be a while before the people of Fort McMurray can return to their homes. Despite the disaster, rebuilding plans have already begun, but the Prime Minister has left almost no wiggle room in his fiscal plan to help fund the rebuilding efforts.

Will the Liberals change their infrastructure plan to rebuild Fort McMurray?

[Disaster Assistance, May 9th, 2016]

That hardly seems like an answer to my question, Mr. Speaker.

However, the fire of Fort McMurray has displaced more than 80,000 people, who are unsure if they will have a home to return to.

Organizations, businesses, and everyday people have come together unselfishly to raise money. In contrast to that, the Liberals took a non-partisan meeting with the official opposition and turned it into a Liberal Party fundraising email.

Can the Prime Minister explain how it is appropriate for the Liberals to take advantage of this tragedy for a partisan gain?

[Disaster Assistance, May 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how they responded to it yet. However, Fort McMurray has been home to economic infrastructure that has fuelled our Canadian economy.

In the past few days, oil companies have shut down. The Canadian economy is about to take a huge hit.

A household saves for times of disaster such as the loss of a job or family emergency. In his budget, the Prime Minister has left almost no wiggle room for disasters such as this.

Will the Prime Minister change his current spending habits to accommodate for this massive economic loss?

[Taxation, April 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, let me re-establish the facts. Every time we turn around, the Liberals are destroying opportunities for job creators. The Liberals are knee-capping the clean technology sector by eliminating the hiring credit for small businesses. This tax credit helps small companies hire the people they need to develop clean technologies and bring those clean technologies to market. Under the Conservatives, this sector saw consistent growth.

Why do the Liberals believe this tax is a great idea even though it is killing the sector they so eagerly pretend to support?

[Taxation in Alberta, April 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, Albertans are an amazing group of hard-working, dedicated people. However, they are being attacked by both the federal Liberals and the Alberta provincial NDP. These attacks are only making it harder for Albertans to get back up.

Last week the Alberta NDP announced its intention, in spite of the struggling economy, to continue moving forward on a provincial carbon tax. This tax would be on top of the Liberal pet project of a federal carbon tax. Alberta unemployment remains high, and families are finding it harder every day to make ends meet. These carbon taxes would increase food prices, increase the price of heating homes, and make it more expensive to fill up at the gas pumps.

This carbon tax would hit small businesses, the businesses and the very entrepreneurial spirit that Albertans are known for. These tax increases would be unfair to hard-working people across Canada, particularly in Alberta, where families are struggling to get by. Quite simply, now is not the time to be taxing Albertans more.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that was a bunch of inaccurate facts.

Let us first of all talk about the omnibus bills. We just heard not even an hour ago a notice of time allocation. I cannot see how that member can stand and argue that fact.

I would like to think I could fetch a fee, but perhaps we will see how the justice minister survives this and I will go from there.

With respect to the mandate letters, I bet the member wished that there were some changes to those mandate letters, particularly the lines which were quoted from. It is important that we acknowledge our mistakes when we make them.

I have outlined pretty clearly that the justice minister showed a poor lack of judgment when she went to this fundraiser and when she did a media interview in front of the fundraiser, saying that she was there as a member of Parliament. Absolutely nobody believes that. Even members on the other side have to admit deep down they do not believe that. Then the minister stood in the House and said that she was there talking about Canada. It speaks to some of the culture the member talks about, that we supposedly have changed.

This is the minister's second incident. We have talked about the agriculture minister in the House. We have talked about the House leader in the House. We talked today about the international trade minister. I would like to know what type of culture the member is referring to because this is not looking too good.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would not necessarily say it is an honour to rise in the House today. It is something we all have to do, unfortunately, particularly when there is an incident like this one.

I commend the member for St. Albert—Edmonton for bringing the motion before the House. It is something he has worked hard at, to ensure we are holding the government to account, not only in his critic role but as a member of Parliament as well. He has been doing a bunch of media interviews. I have seen him on them. I know it is something that has kept him up late at night and something he prepares for each next day.

When the government House leader gave his speech, he had some interesting points, but then he began to attack the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton on the very issue that he is debating here, that he had a fundraiser with the then minister of health. It was a $35 fundraiser versus a $500-a-plate fundraiser, and it was not in her capacity as the minister of health. There were no stakeholders there. There was nothing to be gained by people in the health care profession attending.

It is rich to hear. That was the attempt made by the members opposite because, quite honestly, we are here because there is a lot of back and forth.

We have had finger-pointing all day from both sides of the House. It reminds me of being back home in the wonderful constituency of Edmonton Riverbend. I have two little daughters. One is eight and one is seven. They constantly attempt to blame each other and say, “It was her” and “No, it was her”. However, at the end of the day, it is not necessarily about who did it or why they did it; it is about getting an apology from one to the other. That is a value I try to instill in them.

It is frustrating to see the Minister of Justice repeatedly refuse to stand in the House and let the House leader stand and do the dirty work for her. Also, it is frustrating to not have her admit the mistake. That is simply what we are looking for. I imagine how this day would be different if she did do that, even if the government House leader did that on her behalf. I am sure that would have made the day a bit less like this and a bit more progressive a day.

In the motion, we say the minister should follow her own guidelines. We are assuming the minister read the guidelines. Perhaps that is where it has gone south for the minister. Quite honestly, I read the guidelines. They are penned by the Prime Minister. The document is called “Open and Accountable Government”.

I have a number of tabs here. One of the parts reads: “...sets limitations on outside activities, acceptance of gifts, invitations to special events and hospitality, and post-employment activities”.

Just for that alone, if a minister were looking at that, he or she would say, wait a minute, maybe this is an event they should not attend.

Next, under part I, public scrutiny, it states:

Public office holders have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.

I imagine that the minister would have read that and decided it was not an event she should have attended.

Next, in annex B, the big one, it states: “...the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest”.

That is what we are debating here. We are not debating whether we agree or disagree with the Ethics Commissioner, as a lot of the members on the other side have suggested in their questions. We are talking largely about this specific point in annex B. That is on page 21, for those following along.

The Prime Minister has told his entire front bench this is what he intends to hold them up to. When they disregard this very point, it is questionable what they will disregard from the Prime Minister in the future.

Again, under “General Principles”, on page 22, it states:

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must ensure that political fundraising activities or considerations do not affect, or appear to affect, the exercise of their official duties or the access of individuals or organizations to government.

That again should have a huge check mark beside it. I would think the minister would have looked at it and said, “Wait a minute. Let's double-check this before we go ahead”, not 48 hours before, but weeks before the event happened. I bet this would not have gone forward if she had done that.

The last one is this:

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries should not seek to have departmental stakeholders included on fundraising or campaign teams or on the boards of electoral district associations.

That gets me to the points I would like to discuss.

We do not know who was at this fundraiser. We will find out eventually, when the report comes out. However, the motion simply asks that the minister tell us who was at the fundraiser. We want her to let us know so we can be clear, on this side of the House, that whoever was there is not going to be appointed to a federal bench job or appointed to any other sort of special committee.

It is something that we need to know on our side, as critics, to ensure that we are holding the government to account. Not knowing these sorts of things makes our job a lot harder. This speaks to open and accountable government, and it would be a lot more open and transparent if we could have that information.

I am assuming, with everything I said about “Open and Accountable Government”, the letter penned by the Prime Minister to all of his frontbenchers, that she did not read it, or if she did read it, she did not read it thoroughly. However, I assume she read her mandate letter.

In the mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the justice minister, he states, first, “It is my expectation that we will deliver real results and professional government to Canadians.”

I think the mere fact that we are having this debate calls that into question.

He further states, “We made a commitment to Canadians to pursue our goals with a renewed sense of collaboration.”

I am certain that he did not mean to indicate that was a fundraiser with a law firm.

At page 3, he says, “It is important that we acknowledge mistakes when we make them.”

She is not standing up and recognizing that a mistake was made. Obviously she was not there as the member for Vancouver Granville. I think the laughter from our side of the House was a good indication that it probably was not going to go over too well with the general public either. Why would she be there as the member for Vancouver Granville to speak at a downtown law firm in Toronto?

It boggles my mind to see each member standing up and defending the position that she was there as—what were her words?—a member of Parliament to talk about Canada.

I talk about Canada every day. People are not paying $500 to come to hear me talk. Granted, I am a backbencher on the Conservative side, but still, as a member of Parliament, I go out and talk about Canada. I think it is rich to argue that as the reason she should be invited to a downtown law firm. She is the top lawyer in the country talking to a bunch of other lawyers, a lot of whom could possibly be looking for contracts in the future.

I think it was an exercise of poor judgment on the minister's part. If this motion is defeated, I would encourage the minister, since this is not her first run in the House, to consider that maybe she should think twice, three times, four times, before she attends these events or any future events.

[Employment, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals in Edmonton campaigned on deficits and told us, “Don't worry. We got this, and it will only cost you $10 billion a year.” It is now three times that much. They also told Albertans, “Don't worry; we know what's best for your region.” Edmonton's economy has been seriously impacted and we were completely left out of the EI expansion. We are told that we should be thankful and pleased at the work of the Prime Minister. Honestly, how can the Liberals be so out of touch with what is happening in western Canada?

[The Budget, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is rich coming from the NDP, which time and time again in Alberta has devastated our job market, has devastated our workers. People are losing jobs en masse, largely because of what has happened not only at the federal level but also at the provincial level. To stand up in the House and defend what the provincial NDP is doing is borderline laughable.

However, the member does bring up a good point. It is making sure that all of us together are standing up for Edmonton, for southern Saskatchewan, because quite frankly, it is not being done by the government. If that member is willing to stand up and fight for Edmonton, I support him 100%.

When I go—

[The Budget, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appear to have caused the member for Winnipeg North to get worked up over there, which is fine.

Quite honestly, I thought it had been determined in the House that four pipelines were approved during the tenure of the previous government. He keeps spouting off about there being zero. I guess we will agree to disagree on that point.

However, the point he brought up about how Liberals are supporting western Canada, I find laughable. He mentioned that he was amazed at my speech. I was amazed by watching Liberal after Liberal vote against the energy east motion that the Conservatives brought before the House, which explicitly asked members to show support for western Canada. They stood en masse and voted against it.

The most shocking part, getting back to my speech, is the four Liberal members of Parliament from Alberta who stood one after the other and voted against the energy east pipeline. If winning four seats in Alberta is the record number that he is so excited about, then I would encourage him to keep working.