Sheri Benson

[Public Transportation, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in responding to me about the cancellation of STC, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport said the federal government delegates this responsibility to the provinces and the private sector.

That is all well and good, but if a province refuses to take responsibility and the private sector declines to take responsibility, which is contrary to a letter I received from the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, and municipalities lack the capacity, what are people supposed to do? Not go to the doctor or the hospital? Not attend post-secondary education? Not visit family and friends? Beg for rides from neighbours or strangers? If every level of government is unwilling or unable to provide support, who should vulnerable people turn to?

People across western Canada, from British Columbia to Manitoba, and in northern communities in Quebec and Ontario, have already raised the alarm that we are on the cusp of a remote and rural transportation crisis. Isolating people in northern, rural, and remote areas contributes to poorer health outcomes and poorer quality of life.

We have seen the impacts and heard testimony of the real dangers of no affordable, safe transportation systems when we heard the stories of missing and murdered women, primarily indigenous women, on the Highway of Tears in British Columbia. The Liberal government committed to help people there stay safe.

In my home province of Saskatchewan, the consequences of losing our provincial bus service are already becoming clear. In the months after the closure, several people died trying to get between cities. One of my constituents was unable to access the medical treatment she required in another city. Elderly people all over the province of Saskatchewan are losing their independence for want of a bus service.

The member opposite and many people outside the province of Saskatchewan believe the STC to be some sort of luxury, that somehow a subway in Toronto or light rail in Vancouver are worthier of federal support and leadership. In reality, it is not a luxury and much more important, in my home province of roughly one million people, it really does function as our subway.

In Saskatchewan, 50% of the population live outside urban centres. We face today, as we have always faced, unique challenges because of this. We need affordable transportation that people can access. The province of Saskatchewan has roads enough to circumvent the earth seven times. Saskatchewan people need to know that at least the federal government cares about the safety of everyone living in the province.

Even a cursory reading of the STC financial statements will reveal that the Saskatchewan Party government spent years inflating the costs, and then exaggerated its budget for the future. It eliminated a service that for many people living in remote, rural, or northern communities was absolutely essential.

I call upon the government to answer one question. If the government delegates responsibility to a province that is unwilling to live up to that responsibility, and the private sector is unable to take up that responsibility, then what are the people of my home province who require that service supposed to do? Will the federal government step forward, find a role, and lead?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the hon. member's attention to one concern that I have, which I hope we can correct at some point very soon. That is the fact that the proposed 10 days of unpaid leave of absence for victims of domestic violence might not help very many people. I will point out what I have shared with the member's colleague.

For the many women in particular who are in abusive relationships, 90% of them are also economically controlled by their partner. We can imagine a scenario in which an individual has taken unpaid leave from their job to deal with an issue, to maybe see a lawyer or to take care of some issues in order to be safe, and then come home at the end of the month and their pay is less than what it should be. That will create an unsafe scenario in some families.

I really want to call my colleague's attention to how important it is that this leave be paid if it is to be an effective policy piece by the government. I would like the member's comments on that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to call to the hon. member's attention a big concern of mine about unpaid domestic leave.

I want to hear the member's response to the fact there will be a barrier to people actually accessing unpaid domestic leave. Nine percent of women in a domestic violence situation are controlled by their partner economically. The member can imagine the impact of someone coming home with less pay than their a partner who is abusing them. Although I understand the intention, I am concerned that in reality it will not be accessible to the people it is intended to help.

[Labour, October 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, reports from The Globe and Mail state that this government is failing to track workplace fatalities in Canada. It is critical that the Liberals lead and collect new data to support evidence-based interventions in dangerous work to protect Canadian workers. Does the government know how many worker fatalities there have been in Canada this year? Of course not, as they do not have the information.

Will the Liberal government work with us, take leadership, and collect data to keep Canadian workers safe and alive?

[Bank Act, October 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I request the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion: That the House calls upon the Speaker, as one of those responsible for the Parliamentary Protective Service, to ask the director of the PPS to immediately cancel all planned disciplinary actions against guards who have been staging a reasonable and measured protest against their difficult working conditions; and furthermore, that the House wishes to thank all our security staff for the honourable and professional way they have been doing their job under such circumstances.

[Health, October 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, at the Wîcihitowin Aboriginal Engagement Conference in Saskatoon, I had the honour of attending a presentation by Dr. Jaris Swidrovich. Jaris is a member of the Yellow Quill First Nation and the first self-identified indigenous doctor of pharmacy in Canada. However, after joining the profession, Jaris witnessed over and over again the systemic racism faced by indigenous people accessing these services.

Dr. Swidrovich decided to change the way pharmacists practise and were trained in Canada. He gave up a professional salary, took a teaching position at the University of Saskatchewan, and did just that. He created the indigenous learning outcomes for entry-to-practice for pharmacy programs in Canada. In 2017, his work was included as learning outcomes by the Association of Faculties of Pharmacy of Canada for first degree pharmacy programs.

Inspired by calls to action number 18 to 24 of the TRC, Dr. Swidrovich has taken on ending racism within the pharmacy profession as his personal call to action. Please join me in celebrating this exceptional show of leadership in my community.

[Business of Supply, October 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, during my remarks, I said that I thought the mandate letters were more than just words on a page. My colleague has referred to the fact that they were created and put on the website but that there was not a lot of intention behind actually following what was in those mandate letters. I tried not to be cynical for a very long time, but the circumstances that have come up with respect to the finance minister lead me to believe that the mandate letters were not taken seriously and were not read. There was no expectation that they would actually inform the work plans of the ministers, which were included within the mandate letters as well. I think people refer to them to find out what is important for the government going forward, so like my colleague, I am quite disappointed that this does not appear to be the case.

[Business of Supply, October 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear the government side coming back to the issue at hand today.

What I mentioned in my speech is that the mandate letter the Minister of Finance received from the Prime Minister, which I would assume he would follow, asked him to go above and beyond. It asked that the activities, duties, and actions he carried out stand up to the closest public scrutiny.

To me, the next sentence in the mandate letter is extremely important. The Prime Minister said to the Minister of Finance,“This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.” My comment is that the finance minister has not followed what the Prime Minister asked of him, and I think Canadians deserve better.

[Business of Supply, October 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Today we are debating what the finance minister would like Canadians and parliamentarians to believe was just a series of misfortunate events, a “distraction”, to use the minister's own words.

I do not share the Minister of Finance's assessment of the matters we are debating today. Instead, respectfully, I would say what has transpired for the minister is not a distraction, is not an administrative error, and certainly is not of the making because of the advice of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Commissioner, but instead an error in judgment made by the minister. The minister must now find a way forward, so that Canadians can trust that their interests are first and foremost in his mind.

Let me share specifically what we are debating today since we have gone a bit off track when we heard from members on the other side.

What are these so-called distractions?

After being elected to Parliament in 2015, the Minister of Finance led Canadians to believe that he had placed his shares in Morneau Shepell into a blind trust while having never done so. He used a loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act to place his shares in a private numbered company instead of divesting them or placing them in a blind trust.

On October 19, 2016, the minister sponsored Bill C-27, a bill that would reasonably be expected, by reasonable people, to profit Morneau Shepell and the Minister of Finance in light of his continued ownership of shares in Morneau Shepell and through a company he also controls.

The minister remained in charge of regulating the pension industry in which he has a personal economic interest.

Finally, he has failed to live to up to the ethical standards set forth by the Prime Minister in his mandate letter to the minister.

The motion also clearly outlines what needs to happen going forward, a proposal so that the Minister of Finance is not distracted by circumstances of his own making and can resume his focus on the important work of a finance minister.

The motion provides a way forward for all ministers and all parliamentarians by asking the government to close the loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act as recommended by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Two years ago, like many Canadians I believed that the then newly elected Liberal government was going to lead differently and bring real change. I personally, along with many others here in the House, made the decision to run for political office to change Parliament and government for the better so that we could better serve all Canadians. More specifically, I ran to advocate for the constituents of Saskatoon West, the community where I have lived and worked for over 30 years.

I have taken every opportunity to point out when I believe the government has followed through on commitments that help my constituents, when, as the labour critic, the government has made important policy changes that support workers' rights and make workplaces safer. I have also pointed out when the government did not follow through on commitments and promises that it made during the election.

When I read the Prime Minister's mandate letters to his cabinet ministers, I was optimistic that we would see a different kind of government, not only in stark contrast to the previous government but a different kind of Liberal government than we have seen in the past. I believed that what was written down on paper in the ministerial mandate letters would be acted upon and would be more than just words.

Here are some excerpts from the finance minister's mandate letter that stood out for me personally and led me to be optimistic that real change was not just possible but indeed would happen:

“We have promised Canadians a government that will bring real change—in both what we do and how we do it”.

“We have also committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in government”.

“Its important that we acknowledge mistakes when we make them.”

Finally, the phrase most relevant to today's debate:

...you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.

Last week, the finance minister, because of pressure from the opposition and an investigation by journalists, did the right thing and after two years as the finance minister, divested himself and his family of all shares in Morneau Shepell. This was the right thing to do.

Madam Speaker, I would say that the finance minister still has more to do to live up to the Prime Minister's expectations, as stated in his mandate letter. Let me elaborate by focusing on Bill C-27.

The tabling of Bill C-27 by the finance minister when he still had business interests in his company, and thus would benefit if the bill were enacted, also put the minister at odds with what was asked of him in his mandate letter from the Prime Minister. This clearly was a conflict of interest. It is possible that he may have indeed personally benefited from simply tabling Bill C-27. I say this because we know that shares in Morneau Shepell increased in value after the bill was tabled.

We also know from news reports that the Minister of Finance, while still in private life, advocated for such a bill. The bill would amend the pension act, allowing employers to change their current commitment to defined pension plans to target benefit pension plans. Morneau Shepell is a major provider of these types of benefit plans.

Bill C-27, should it be enacted, would erode pension security for thousands of federally regulated workers by allowing employers to remove their legal obligations to current and future retirees by converting defined pension plans, even retroactively, to target benefit plans. The bill would allow all the financial risk in future pension benefits to be shifted to individual workers.

Beyond the fact that the Minister of Finance would have benefited financially from the bill, and beyond the fact that he presented a bill that would make changes in regulations that he advocated for in his private life as a business owner, Bill C-27 was introduced without any consultation with Canadians, pensioners, or unions. As well, it broke a specific election promise made by the Prime Minister. When the previous Conservative government proposed similar legislation, it was met with such opposition by retirees and other stakeholders that the effort was abandoned.

I ask the minister why he introduced the legislation. Does he not see how Canadians and parliamentarians would be somewhat suspicious about in whose interest the minister acted when tabling Bill C-27? I would respectfully ask the minister to do the right thing and tell Parliament and Canadians that he will not proceed with Bill C-27.

I believe that Canadians expect the Minister of Finance to go above and beyond, not simply to technically be in compliance with ethical guidelines but to do in word and deed as he was asked by the Prime Minister in his mandate letter, and that is to carry out his duties so that his actions can “bear the closest public scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged simply by acting within the law.”

Canadians deserve a finance minister who does not see questions about ethics as distractions. Canadians deserve a finance minister who acknowledges that he has made a mistake.

I believe I have outlined a number of actions the government and the finance minister could take to move forward for the benefit of all Canadians, such as eliminating loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act, protecting federally regulated defined pension plans, and following through on commitments made by the government during the election.

There is always an opportunity to do the right thing. I urge the Minister of Finance and the government to do the right thing as soon as possible.

[Petitions, October 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I want to table is petition e-1116, signed by over 1,500 Canadians. The petitioners are requesting improved access for Canadians to documents that have been published by their government. The petition seeks to improve the openness and transparency of our democracy by improving access to government information.