Wayne Easter

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 6th, 2017]

With regard to the application by the Canadian Transit Company to expand the Ambassador Bridge, entitled “The Ambassador Bridge Enhancement Project”: (a) how long has the application been in the system; (b) why has there been a delay in the issuing of a permit under the International Bridges and Tunnels Act; (c) what is the target date for the permit to be issued; and (d) which official or officials considered the project?

[Rural-Urban Riding Exchange, September 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this summer the member for Pickering—Uxbridge and I embarked on a rural-urban riding exchange. As a long-serving member, and as a new member, mentorship and exchanging perspectives played a key part.

In Malpeque, we experienced the ingenuity of local entrepreneurs, the creativity of P.E.l.'s experiential tourism, and the quality of our national park. At Springwillow organic farm, we hand-picked potatoes, taking lessons from 90-year-old Joyce Loo. The member for Pickering—Uxbridge can now identify the qualities of a good dairy cow.

In Pickering-Uxbridge, we competed in a dragon boat race and saw the strength of local athletes. With entrepreneur Bernadette Recto, we embraced pilates and felt how important exercise was to mental health and well-being. We attended the island dinner of the Lucy Maud Montgomery Society, and reflected on our shared cultural heritage.

The exchange left us with a broader perspective on the challenges we face and the diversity of Canadians.

[Customs Act, September 18th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would not want the member opposite to unknowingly leave wrong information on the record. The member talked about the Ambassador Bridge in his remarks. This weekend he and I drove across that bridge four times while we were at Canada–U.S. meetings. However, he said that the Government of Canada gave the owners of Ambassador Bridge a bridge. That is not quite accurate. What the Government of Canada approved was the owners of Ambassador Bridge to build a bridge under certain conditions with their own money. There is not a dime of federal money in that proposal. I would not want that wrong information on the record, so we should be clear on that. They need to meet certain conditions, and so they should.

However, my question really is related to the bill, and I agree with the member on his privacy concerns. In fact, I have been in people's houses who have been called by supposedly CRA, and CRA did come up on the phone. I picked up the phone and talked to the individual. I asked the person to tell me the name of the deputy minister and of course the person did not know. We have to be very careful about that.

With respect to Bill C-21, is the additional information being required not any different than what is happening now under the Customs Act with respect to the protection of information? The bill looks at other ways and other powers to examine any goods that are imported or exported illegally. Could the member answer that?

[Recognition of Charlottetown as the Birthplace of Confederation Act, September 18th, 2017]

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-236, an act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, it was seconded by the member for Egmont.

As a proud Prince Edward Islander, I am pleased to introduce Bill S-236, an act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation, introduced in the other place by Senator Diane Griffin. Bill S-236 has been passed by the Senate unanimously.

As we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Canada's Confederation, the ideals, ambitions, and values that came from the Charlottetown conference of 1864 still form the basis of our great nation today. In September 1996, former prime minister Jean Chrétien proclaimed that Charlottetown was to be recognized as the birthplace of Confederation. This legislation would formalize the proclamation in statute, affirming the significant contribution this great historic event has had on Canada. It is legislation that I believe all members of the House can support.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

[Taxation, September 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the rhetoric of the official opposition is getting wildly out of hand. Do they not favour consultations? I know that is what happened under the previous government.

Consultations are taking place until October 2 on the Department of Finance paper, and the Minister of Finance is driving those consultations, as he should.

I would suggest to members opposite and to all Canadians to embrace the consultations, welcome them, and get their point of view out there, and then better decisions will be made.

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. The lack of real understanding of what happened in the appointments process was almost dizzying. I really cannot imagine anybody from the Conservative Party of Canada talking about appointments and credibility in the same sentence. It is amazing.

Being from Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, you would understand that if we were to do some research with respect to Peter MacKay's wedding party, we would find not one person in that wedding party who had not been appointed to a position by the previous government. They were all Conservatives and all lacked credibility in those positions.

Does the member not think that the process set up by the current Prime Minister was to make it open and transparent and to ensure there was credibility and understanding with respect to the issues with which the Liberals would deal in regard to the Prime Minister's appointments? This is all about making good appointments. That party over there has absolutely no credibility when it comes to talking about appointments and credibility in the same sentence. Would he not agree?

[Committees of the House, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, entitled “Canada's Federal Regional Development Agencies Supporting Businesses, Sectors, Individuals and Communities: A Summary of the Testimony”.

I want to add that this will be the last report for the two analysts, Dylan Gowans and Florian Richard, because they are leaving the Library of Parliament to go back to university. I want to thank them for their tremendous efforts over the last year, and their chief, June Dewetering, for working so hard with them as well.

This is a report without recommendations. It is a summary of what the regional development agencies had to say.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 16th, 2017]

With regard to the investigation into the Clyde River Fish Kill in Clyde River and area on Prince Edward Island (PEI): (a) how many personnel from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) have been involved in the investigation; (b) with regard to interviews conducted between DFO officials and individuals involved in the case, how many interviews have taken place, and over what period of time; (c) with regard to trips to PEI related to this investigation made by off-island DFO offices, (i) how many trips were made, (ii) how many vehicle hours have been accumulated, (iii) what was the duration of each trip, (iv) what were the accommodation and travel status costs; (d) who requested this extended investigation at the federal level; (e) which individual, or individuals, from PEI requested the assistance of the DFO; (f) has the DFO been provided with a report from Environment Canada on the extraordinary rain event that caused the flooding, and if so, what did the report conclude; and (g) what are the details of all correspondence, both written and electronic, related to this matter, between officials from the PEI Department of the Environment and DFO personnel?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow-up on the comments made by the Treasury Board minister.

First, the member opposite accused this government of talking the talk, but not walking the walk. If there was any experience in that kind of talking the talk and not walking the walk, it was the previous government with cuts to the RCMP, services, EI, the public service, and to pretty near everything known to man.

Let us talk about the progress this government is making. Here is a quote from today's Globe and Mail, “The Bank of Canada sent out more signals Tuesday that it's moving closer to an interest-rate hike as the economy continues to strengthen.” A quote from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, “The economy is gathering momentum, and not just in certain spots but across a much- wider array.”

That is because of things this government is doing, and because of things the Treasury Board minister talked about. This government is talking the talk and walking the walk, and we are investing in Canadian—

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Perth—Wellington. For the record, it is great to make speeches in this place, but for heaven's sake, let them have at least some semblance of reality.

The member talked about this government going into deficit, and I admit we are. Any business that is going to do anything and remain in business has to invest in the future and innovation. It has to make that investment so it is efficient and productive in the future.

I want to come back to what the member said about the debt. Let us look at some reality.

In 1984, after the Pierre Elliott Trudeau years, the debt of our country was $135 billion. In 1994, after the Mulroney years, a Conservative government, the debt was $478 billion. Conservatives have very seldom ever balanced the books. Liberals always have dealt with the tough decisions to balance the books. It went up a little bit, after the Chrétien-Martin years, but there were eight surpluses and they paid down some of the debt over those years. Then of course there was the Harper government. It added another $170 billion to the debt.

The Conservatives should look at the reality, look at the figures. It is the Conservative Party that has always driven our country into debt. Why we are moving with some deficit—