Most toxic speeches
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Liberals will cave in to Chinese belligerence at the drop of a proverbial hat. Last week, at the insistence of the Chinese government, the Prime Minister bowed to demands to meet not with the president but with the foreign minister, who then took time out of his busy schedule to berate a Canadian journalist while our foreign minister kept as quiet as a church mouse. When will the Liberals grow a backbone and ensure that Canadian foreign policy is actually run by Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, Senate Liberal leader James Cowan has now joined the growing number of Canadians saying that Bill C-14 is likely unconstitutional. Cowan said that this government legislation is so flawed that Canadians would be better off with no legislation at all. This bill does not respect the Supreme Court's decision, and it will be tied up in courts for years. Instead of ramming through Bill C-14, will the government listen to James Cowan and work on getting the bill right the first time?
Mr. Speaker, hard-working Canadians cannot afford to pay more taxes. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that no business can afford higher payroll taxes either, but the finance minister is again putting Canadian jobs at risk. The Liberals have already backed off on their election promise to lower the small business tax rate. Now they are going to raise payroll taxes.Why is the finance minister killing the backbone of the Canadian economy with irresponsible CPP payroll tax hikes?
Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is about the law, but it is, above all, about people.The Carter family fought for years alongside their mother to make it possible for people to die with dignity in Canada. Today, they are saying that they feel betrayed by the Liberal government. The government says that it listens to Canadians, but it listens only to those who agree with it.Now that the government has failed to get its bill passed by June 6, will it come up with a bill that is charter-compliant and in line with the Carter decision?
Mr. Speaker, last week, thousands of dairy farmers came to Ottawa to speak out against the government's inability to protect them on the diafiltered milk issue.Farmers have lost millions of dollars because the government did not enforce its own regulations. Now, the government is trying to convince us that opening our markets through the trans-Pacific partnership is going to be a good thing.Does the government take us for fools? How are farmers supposed to feel reassured about the trans-Pacific partnership when the government is not even capable of enforcing its own import regulations?
Mr. Speaker, this refugee at committee begged to differ. He said, when asked about his wife's chances to learn English, Her situation is worse than mine. I try my best to learn English on the streets, through my friends, or through some acquaintances. She doesn't have that chance because she mainly stays at home with the kids. Will the Liberals admit that their lack of a plan to provide language training to Syrian refugees is creating gender inequity and isolating these women, or will they continue to treat these women simply as photo ops?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will not even use our fighter jets to defeat and degrade ISIS, and the Liberal suggestion that our fighter jets are literally on their last legs is patently false. We know that our fighter jets can operate effectively until 2025, and there is no urgency to replace them on an interim basis. The Liberals do not need to sole source the Super Hornet to transition from the CF-18 to avoid their imaginary capability gap. Why are the Liberals misleading Canadians and breaking their promise for a fair and transparent competition?
Mr. Speaker, from helicopters to submarines, and now fighter jets, the legacy of the Liberals is to buy old and make do.The Liberals have made up their minds to buy the Super Hornet and now are working on the right narrative to support it.Let us be perfectly clear. The Liberals are only sole-sourcing the Super Hornets to fulfill an ill-advised political campaign promise. Simply put, the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a lot better.Will the Prime Minister admit that he broke his promise for an open and fair competition to replace our fighter jets?
Mr. Speaker, I think the minister does not need to patronize us. The fact is that this is not up for politicians to decide; it is up to Canadians.We keep asking these questions because her answers make no sense. One hundred per cent of Canadian voters deserve to have a direct say in how they will elect their governments. What is so hard to understand?My question, once again, is, will the minister finally listen to Canadians and agree to hold a referendum on how they vote?
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the minister told the CBC, if an overwhelming majority of Canadians tell us that they want system X, we will...listen to what they've said...One logical implication of the minister's words is that if the Liberal proposal for electoral reform is supported by an underwhelming minority of Canadians, say under 50% in a national referendum, then it ought not to be imposed on the nation for election 2019.Either the minister's words mean she favours a referendum, or they mean nothing at all and are meant to simply misdirect us. Which of the two is correct?
Mr. Speaker, nearly 50 years ago, thousands of people were kicked out of their homes by the federal government so that it could build the Mirabel airport. It was a colonialist fiasco of historic proportions. Today, the residents of Mirabel whose land was expropriated and their descendants want their land back, but the government is putting it up for sale. The government turned these people's lives upside down and left them a heap of ruins. Now it needs to take them into account. Will the Prime Minister promise to give the original property owners and their descendants right of first refusal in the sale of the expropriated Mirabel lands, and will he offer them an official apology?
Mr. Speaker, senior officials have confirmed that the Liberal government has already decided to purchase F-18 Super Hornets. Before making the announcement, the Liberals just have to finalize the narrative to justify this purchase. Although they promised to hold an open, transparent competition, the result has already been decided: another broken Liberal promise.Can the government confirm that it plans to purchase the F-18 Super Hornet? What expert advice is it basing this decision on?
Mr. Speaker, from day one, the Liberals have shown a complete lack of interest in the needs of small businesses. After ending the small business hiring credit, they broke their promise to lower the small business tax rate. The chamber of commerce says businesses are worried about a big CPP tax increase, which it says is headed for the middle class like an elbow to the chest.Why is the finance minister so intent on squeezing every penny he can out of middle-class businesses and workers?
Mr. Speaker, an issue as broad and complex as changing our voting system calls for engaged consultations and for multiple voices to be heard, including those of experts from the different parties and Canadians who are concerned about how we are going to go about improving our electoral system.This process is more complex than the yes or no of a referendum. This is about allowing people to express their opinion on the values behind our electoral system and good governance in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, by any realistic measure, last week's visit by China's foreign minister did not go so well. Again, the Prime Minister broke with protocol and caved in to Minister Wang's demand for a meeting. Then Canada's minister stood silent while the Chinese minister angrily scolded a Canadian journalist. When will the Liberals stand up to China and demand meaningful answers on China's human rights transgressions?
Mr. Speaker, there are two erroneous things in the member's comments. First, of course I was not silent regarding human rights groups, including in the press conference. The obligation to hurt my--
Mr. Speaker, the government had the chance to do things differently with Bill C-14, but it decided to ignore experts, not to work with the opposition, and to limit debate.Warnings were coming in from all over. Quebec's health and social services minister called Bill C-14 unenforceable. He thinks that the notion of reasonably foreseeable death is medically unfeasible and he refuses to include it in Quebec's law.Will the government finally realize that Bill C-14 must be amended?
Mr. Speaker, the current fleet of CF-18s has been refurbished to last until 2025, which is enough time to transition to the next fighter jet. The urgency the Liberals are describing seems to have been invented specifically to give the Prime Minister an excuse not to purchase the F-35.If the government goes ahead with this decision, is the minister aware of the risk of legal action and the negative repercussions this will have on the Canadian businesses that manufacture the F-35?
Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, the Liberals said that they would not purchase the F-35, but right after being elected, they said maybe yes, maybe no. Now it looks like they may have already decided on another fighter jet, but still without the promised open and transparent competition. In fact, it looks like the Liberal government is running procurement as an inside job, just like the Conservatives. Why have they abandoned an open tender process to replace our aging CF-18s, and when will they put in place a procurement system that can actually deliver the equipment our military needs?
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said in this place on Thursday and so many other times before, that there is at least a three-step process for us to undertake.The first step is to establish the committee and have it go out and hear from Canadians. The second step is for us to come up with a plan and debate that plan in this House. The third step is where my hon. colleague is at, which is determining whether or not the recommended reforms have the broad buy-in of Canadians.Let us get on with the first step.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with this government is that every time it opens its mouth, there is a big disconnect. As members will recall, they said they would make revenue-neutral tax changes. Instead, they have dug a $1.7-billion hole.Now, they are turning their attention to pensions. We are worried and we have every right to be worried.Can the government promise not to increase Canadians' CPP payroll taxes?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' stubborn refusal to listen to experts and work with the opposition will mean suffering Canadians spending years in court defending rights that they have already won.Kay Carter's family is also disillusioned with the current government. They said today that they felt betrayed. Today they called out the Prime Minister for his refusal to listen to Canadians. If the Liberals really disagree with the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Ontario court, and Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, will they at least now table the government's legal opinion on the bill, so that Canadians can judge for themselves?
Mr. Speaker, much like other times, we keep hearing about the interest of political parties and of politicians.The discussion on changing our most basic democratic institution is not about political parties nor about the interest of politicians. It is about the Canadian people.It should be about making sure that each and every Canadian voice has an opportunity to have a direct say through a referendum. Will the Liberals hold one, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, it is not just Quebec that is protesting. Peter Hogg, Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, today testified that Bill C-14 fails to respect the Carter decision and will undoubtedly be struck down as soon as it gets to court. He said that the government cannot turn around and exclude a group of people that the Supreme Court clearly ruled have these charter rights.It is never too late for the government to do the right thing. Will the Liberals finally respect the charter and announce that they are willing to fix the bill?
Mr. Speaker, soon Syrian refugees will see their one year of government-funded support terminate. Moreover, many of these refugees cannot access training to learn English or French. A refugee at committee last week said, through a translator, No, I am not working. How can I work if I don't know the English to communicate? His family has already had to turn to food banks to make ends meet.When will the Liberals admit that by failing to have any comprehensive plan to provide Syrian refugees with language training, these refugees may require social assistance after their year of funding runs out?
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians expect of this government is to make sure that we are both defending the rights and freedoms of Canadians while protecting the most vulnerable, and that is exactly the balance that we have struck with Bill C-14. Throughout we have been open to amendments, including accepting amendments from opposition members. We look forward to hearing the deliberations that the Senate is carrying forward on this same piece of legislation. We are ensuring that this big step that Canada is taking, despite people who think it goes too far and others who think it does not go far enough, is done the right way.
Mr. Speaker, our government is entering electoral reform with an open mind.As the member opposite well knows, the amended motion that the NDP put on the table late last week allows for the committee to investigate ways of determining how to engage the broad support of Canadians. This is an important addition that we added to the motion to address the hon. colleagues' concerns, and look forward to unanimous support of the House on this matter tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, the former government did not consult Canadians or experts or Elections Canada on the changes they brought forward through the Fair Elections Act. I totally understand why bringing a committee forward to hear from Canadians is a strange concept to them. We have entered this process with an open mind and look forward to getting down to the work of hearing from Canadians and moving away from a hyperpartisan debate on process.
Mr. Speaker, getting a question from the Conservative Party, having manufactured, in effect, this capability gap, is ironic in the extreme. We are, therefore, in a position where we are going to have to make serious decisions about the replacement for the CF-18. We cannot any longer carry on in the fashion we have been carrying on. Had these decisions actually been addressed and done in the last three or four or five years, we would not be here talking about this matter today.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say that they will abandon their plans to change our voting system if they do not have widespread public support. Yet they refuse to commit to the most transparent and accessible way of gauging that public support, which is a referendum.Does the Prime Minister think making such a significant change should be behind closed doors by a handful of Liberal cabinet ministers, or will he finally commit to giving Canadians a direct say in the future of their democracy?
Mr. Speaker, we recognize not just the link between land degradation and climate change, but also the risks that desertification poses to realizing sustainable development goals. We are coordinating with our international partners to implement the 2030 agenda and its ambitious objectives to eradicate poverty, fight inequality and injustice, and tackle climate change. We recognize the important work done by the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and look forward to updating the House soon, possibly on June 17 itself.
Mr. Speaker, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act gave band members for the first time ever access to critical information such as salaries and expenses of their leaders and audited financial statements. On Friday, the minister admitted to Canadians that no formal consultations were held before gutting the act.Does the minister not believe that band members should have input into a decision that affects them so directly?
Mr. Speaker, we actually need to grow the relationship between Canada and the sixth of humanity, China, which was so damaged by the former government. This is why we need to make progress in every aspect, including human rights, including the rule of law. It is what I said very clearly in the meetings with the minister of foreign affairs of China. It is what I said during the conference he just mentioned. It is what I said also in my subsequent relationship with the minister. We will continue to improve our relationship with China and to advocate the case for human rights everywhere in the world, including in China.
Mr. Speaker, it will probably hurt my modesty, but I need to quote myself. I said in the press conference, In our international engagement Canada will continue to champion the values of pluralism, democracy, inclusive and accountable governance and respect for diversity and universal human rights.About the practice of our foreign affairs ministers meeting leaders of the world, I meet leaders of the world everywhere in the world. The Prime Minister will certainly be willing to meet--
Mr. Speaker, they have been in power for seven months now, and replacing our CF-18s did not seem to be on their radar, and yet, we have known for years that they need to be replaced. I hardly need to point out that replacing any military equipment requires planning. It is not like going shopping at Toys R Us. These kinds of purchases are not made on a whim. What our soldiers need is the right equipment for the job. When will the government put in place a transparent process to replace the CF-18s?
Mr. Speaker, we are focused on ensuring that Canadians have the opportunity to retire in dignity. We started down this path immediately on getting elected. We told Canadians this is something we wanted to do. We moved forward with improving the guaranteed income supplement for seniors in poverty. We changed the OAS system so that we can help seniors retire when they can. We are working collaboratively with the provinces to enhance our Canada pension plan, which is an investment in the future of Canadians, allowing Canadians to retire in dignity.
Mr. Speaker, we have said from the very beginning that we will not move forward on any reform to our electoral system without the broad support of Canadians.This means it is vitally important for the special all-party committee to begin its work of hearing from Canadians first-hand what their needs are and what values they would like to see reflected in their electoral system. I look forward to support from all members in this House when this vote is up for discussion tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, it appears that we have found common ground.The one thing that we can all agree on in this House is that is crucial to the success of us being able to modernize our electoral system is first hearing from Canadians. That is why we committed to bringing forward an all-parliamentary committee to hear from Canadians, to act as a forum to hear their thoughts and aspirations for their electoral reform.I am really looking forward to this vote tomorrow and unanimous support from all members.
Mr. Speaker, we have sought to ensure that we hear from a diversity of voices in this country with respect to this incredibly difficult and complex issue. To paraphrase the Supreme Court of Canada, the court does not have a monopoly on the protection and promotion of rights, and Parliament has to do its job to be an ally to the vulnerable.We have sought to find a balance between the diversity of views and perspectives in this country, balancing personal autonomy and protecting the vulnerable.
Mr. Speaker, we are incredibly mindful of the deadline of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is incumbent upon parliamentarians to put in place a national framework around our medical assistance in dying to ensure that there are the appropriate and necessary safeguards in place, to ensure certainty for medical practitioners, and to ensure that there is access for patients who want to access medical assistance in dying. This is an incredibly complex discussion. We have certainly listened to the voices of Canadians, and it is the voices of Canadians who have contributed toward Bill C-14.
That they got neutral, Mr. Speaker. Those jobs are for half as long.The leaders' declaration from the G7 in Japan is a clear commitment to regional trade agreements like the TPP. Yet the Prime Minister seems more inclined to push for an early deal with China. While that is a very important market for us, the Prime Minister has also said, It is important that people know that when they sign a deal with Canada...a change in government isn't going to lead to that contract being ripped up. Since he supported the leaders' declaration, why will the Prime Minister not prioritize the TPP before holding trade talks with China?
Mr. Speaker, June 17 will be the world day to combat desertification. This is an area where Canada was once extremely helpful. We even hosted the fifth meeting of the treaty to combat desertification, having ratified it in 1995. It is a key instrument, not just for developing countries but for dealing with increasing drought within Canada. Shamefully, the previous government withdrew us in 2013. I want to know when Canada will be back. Could the Prime Minister tell us specifically if Canada can rejoin the convention?
Mr. Speaker, since the price of lumber from Quebec's public forests is set at an auction, it is higher, and our companies are only competitive when a free trade agreement exists. Under the softwood lumber agreement, Quebec has lost some major sales to British Columbia. Quebec can push for free trade all it wants, but it does not yet have status as a country. The federal government is negotiating on our behalf, but the government has been refusing to answer our questions for six months.If Ottawa accepts a protectionist agreement, will it exempt Quebec so that NAFTA applies to us?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite that we are trying to enhance the Canada pension plan. That is a plan where Canadians can save. It is a plan where we can invest money so people can have a retirement in dignity. We know that working together with the provinces, we can achieve a real difference for Canadians, helping them to have a retirement in dignity and to save appropriately for that. We are committed to doing that in collaboration with our finance ministers in our provinces.
Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes that this is a big step in the history of our country, and making sure that we do that in a responsible and thoughtful way, that both upholds Canadians' rights and freedoms while defending the most vulnerable, is exactly what we have done with this piece of legislation.On top of that, we made sure that we heard from Canadians and experts and we allowed and encouraged a free vote in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, it is disappointing that the NDP did not allow themselves a free vote on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, as part of the debates on Bill C-14, we listened to many politicians from all the different parties share their views.However, we did more than that. We listened to doctors and Canadians. We consulted the public at large, across the country, to ensure that this important and transformative measure regarding medical assistance in dying would be properly designed to uphold Canadians' rights and freedoms while protecting the most vulnerable. That is the balance we have struck, and we are proud of it.
Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an example of the reforms that the Liberal Party made to the Senate over the past years removing partisanship and patronage from that place, there is no better example than the NDP highlighting the great work that the Senate is doing weighing in on an important piece of legislation.I thank the hon. member for her comments about the excellent work done by the independent voices in the Senate, and I look forward to hearing what the Senate has to say about Bill C-14 when it returns to us.
Mr. Speaker, the previous government showed no interest in science and innovation, but, since taking office, our government has put them back on the map. That is one of the important measures taken by this government.It is by investing in leading-edge sectors that Canada will continue to progress and secure its future. Without a doubt, clean energy is one of those sectors.Will the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House of the new Canadian strategy in that regard?
Mr. Speaker, as I said in an earlier response to a question, the unfortunate reality is that we have lost five years on this particular procurement. As a consequence, we are now approaching a situation where we have a capability gap. If we are going to manage the capability gap, we need to move to the point of making a decision. Unlike the previous government, we will be making a decision.
Mr. Speaker, people in Windsor have fought for a long time for a new border crossing with the United States. Manufacturers, farmers, and those in other key sectors are left wondering whether the government will deliver the Gordie Howe international bridge border crossing on time. This means jobs and investment for Canada as this region accounts for 40% of the daily trade between Canada and the United States.My question is for the Prime Minister. His government has already missed two important deadlines for this crucial infrastructure. Could the Prime Minister confirm today that his government is on track to make this crossing happen by 2020? This is his opportunity to reassure the citizens and industries from manufacturing
You were at the press conference.
Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.If that minister actually believes his own words, will he try to convince the Prime Minister that Canadians deserve a direct say, through a vote in a referendum, on any changes to how they vote?
Mr. Speaker, our commitment is to hear directly from Canadians. Our hope is that all 338 members in this House will advocate on behalf of their constituents and contribute constructively to the substance of electoral reform.I hope that the mood tomorrow, with the vote tomorrow, will allow us to move away from an unproductive partisan debate on process to the substance of electoral reform, and ensuring that all Canadians, including young people who are not yet old enough to vote, can be part of this important conversation.
Mr. Speaker, let us continue playing who is telling the truth? Fourth, the member for Mount Royal said that the referendum is a tool we could use.Fifth, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons first rejected holding a referendum, then indicated that he was open to it. Sixth, the Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote in a policy paper that "precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.When will the Prime Minister listen to the members of his own caucus and ensure that a referendum is held so that all Canadians can express their views?
Mr. Speaker, as members know, we inherited a procurement system that by many measurements was a broken procurement system. Accordingly, the minister has had to take serious decisionsall ministers, in fact, have had to take serious decisionswith respect to getting the equipment the hon. member and I would agree is the equipment that needs to replace the CF-18. Accordingly, we are proceeding with the decision process, and hopefully we will have a decision soon.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, the previous government changed our electoral processes as a way of barring, unfortunately, many people from being able to vote, or trying to. Canadians made themselves heard in the general election, rejecting not just the platform the other party put forward, but its entire approach, which is why we favour an approach that is engaged, open, consultative, drawing in multiple voices with different ideas about how to improve our electoral system. We look forward to a strong and robust process.
Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to a well-equipped and modern air force. Unfortunately, the last five years have been a bit of a loss. As a consequence, there is a developing capability gap which needs to be managed. We have obligations to NATO, we have obligations to NORAD, we have obligations to our own defence and to expeditionary matters.Accordingly, we are proceeding forward on this matter, and we will be moving toward a decision soon.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister misled the House during question period when he said that the NDP had a whipped vote on Bill C-14. He knows that is not the case. He knows on this side of the House, it was a free vote.However, the NDP caucus is united in its determination that Bill C-14, as it is, is
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation involving the former Mirabel airport lands. The main objective of the sale, enabling tenant farmers to buy the lands they were leasing, was achieved. Approximately 750 acres, or 7% of the former airport lands, has not yet been sold. In the coming weeks, the government will proceed with the sale of the remaining Mirabel lands. Parcels will be offered in accordance with the policy on management of real property.
Mr. Speaker, we want to have a pension plan that will allow Canadians to live their retirement years with dignity. That is why we want to enhance our pension plan. I am working with the provinces in order to help Canadians retire with dignity.
Mr. Speaker, when we were elected, we promised to help middle-class families and grow the economy. An important way to achieve this objective is to ensure that young Canadians are able to find work and get the experience required in the job market. We remember how the previous government spent more time putting up billboards than creating jobs for young Canadians.Could the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour inform the House of the success of the Canada summer jobs program?
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to the inaction of the previous government, we are developing a capability gap, and that capability gap needs to be managed. So four years out, five years out, 10 years out, the chief of defence needs to be thinking about how to manage that capability gap. Accordingly, the minister has taken the responsible action, and he is moving forward with making a decision sooner rather than later, which should have happened maybe five years ago now.
Mr. Speaker, I want to report to the House that this government understands the importance of meaningful work in a summer job. That is why we promised to double the number of jobs this summer. In fact, we have more than doubled them. I am proud to say that every hon. member in the House worked hard. We not only doubled, but we increased the number of jobs to 77,000 jobs this summer. It is because of the commitment of the minister for youth that we were able to keep the promise and focus on what was important, young
Mr. Speaker, apparently the members opposite have not yet understood that we have an engaged caucus and that its members have many views and visions. For too long they have followed only one path and held only one view.We, the members of the Liberal Party, listen to Canadians, discuss our different perspectives, and, together, build the best approach for Canadians in a consultative and collaborative manner.I know this is unheard of for them, but that is how we operate.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal approach to electoral reform is a bit strange.They believe that the current system makes it difficult for people to vote, yet record numbers of Canadians voted in 2015. In the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown accord, nearly 75% of eligible Canadians voted. Three-quarters of Canadians are demanding to have their say again. Will the Liberals hold a referendum on fundamental changes to how Canadians vote?
Mr. Speaker, the medical assistance in dying bill is historic. The government should have done the right thing.That is exactly what it did not do. Knowing the timeline was tight, it nevertheless waited until April to introduce its bill. It refused to listen to the experts.Today, Peter Hogg, one of Canada's most respected constitutional experts, once again said that Bill C-14 would not pass the test in terms of the charter or the Carter decision.When will the Liberals change course and do the right thing?
Mr. Speaker, Canadian content and support for creators of content are a priority for our government.For years, our approach during trade talks has always been to maintain our capacity and to support cultural and creative industries. That remains unchanged today, especially during our talks on the TPP.We also want to seize the opportunities offered through our various trade talks. That is why our government is determined to listen to Canadians on the issue and that is why the Minister of International Trade is
Mr. Speaker, increased trade relationships with China are in the minister's mandate letter, but we are not in negotiations for a trade agreement right now. We will take a cautious step-by-step approach.As regards the TPP, we promised during the election, because it was a deal that we had not yet seen, that we would study it carefully. We are continuing to do that. We are doing our own studies, we are taking in studies, and the committee is studying. We will come to a position on that when the time is right.
Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote a policy paper on electoral reform in which he said, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support. There is one thing that does have popular support of Canadians right now, and that is if our voting system is changed, Canadians want a say. If the Prime Minister will not listen to Canadians on this, will he at least listen to his minister and give Canadians a referendum?
Mr. Speaker, last week the Toronto Star said, If the Liberal government truly wants broad buy-in from Canadians on electoral reform, it should hold a referendum and let people vote. It said that a referendum is the only way to guarantee that electoral reform has democratic legitimacy.Therefore, I ask the minister again, and particularly given her earlier words on Friday, does she support a national referendum, or was she just saying all that stuff as a way of misdirecting us?
Mr. Speaker, have you ever played a game called who is telling the truth? Let us play it now.First of all, the Prime Minister said that the 2015 election would be the last one under the current voting system.Second, his principal secretary said on Twitter, which seems to be the preferred network of the Minister of Democratic Institutions, that a referendum would be one option to consider.Third, the minister herself said that if she did not have public support, she would not go ahead with the reform.Who is telling the truth? Three-quarters of Canadians want a referendum. Will the Prime Minister listen to them?
Mr. Speaker, we certainly have a comprehensive plan to provide language training, because we understand that success in English or French is key to finding a job and key to success in Canada. That is why the government has funded $600 million for settlement in 2016-17. That is $27 million extra for the new refugees, and language is very much at the top of our priorities.
Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard through our funding to provide language training to men, to women, and to children. We also understand that many of the Syrian refugee mothers have significant numbers of children to look after, and therefore they need child care facilities to help them with the language training. We understand there is more work to do in that area, but we are working very hard through the settlement agencies to provide that funding to support language training for everybody.
Mr. Speaker, in the last election, Canadians overwhelmingly voted for parties that had committed to moving beyond first past the post, which is why in our committee we are happy to reflect a broad range of voices from Canadians and are glad to work with opposition parties to ensure there are strong voices heard on all sides of the issue. That is the kind of consultations and engagement that Canadians expect to hear and see when we talk about electoral reform. That is exactly the kind of engagement the previous government did none of.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that my hon. colleague just demonstrated how engaged we are on this issue and how open we are to perspectives of all kinds in that regard. Unlike the Conservative way of doing things, where only one person's opinion mattered in any discussion or proposal, many people in our party are involved in examining important issues. We look forward to hearing what Canadians have to say regarding our electoral system.
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian expects to have a direct say in the future of their democracy.In 2012, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.There is one thing Canadians support, and that is a referendum.Will the Prime Minister listen to his own minister and finally commit to holding a referendum?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know, being in the NDP, that for the last five, six, seven, eight years, the CF-18 decision had been pending and pending and continued to be pending. Had the previous government actually done something more than get in and out of photo ops, possibly we would not actually be talking about this at this point.
Mr. Speaker, our government's commitment to building the Gordie Howe international bridge is unwavering.Nearly 30% of the surface trade, as the hon. member has mentioned, crosses at this very important crossing. It is very critical for us to continue to grow our trade with the United States. The first step of the process, where we listed all the companies to build this bridge, has already happened. We are on the next stage
Mr. Speaker, the trans-Pacific partnership also raises concerns for cultural industries. The TPP explicitly prevents the government from developing policies to support Canadian content on digital platforms. On one hand, we have a Minister of Canadian Heritage holding consultations on digital media, and on the other hand we have her government signing a treaty that will limit its own capacity to intervene online.Despite all her fine words, the minister's hands will be tied. However, she promised to protect our cultural diversity in these trade agreements.How will the minister defend such an absurdity to our cultural industries?
Mr. Speaker, again, the department was not in charge at that time. As the opposition critic, we consulted broadly through that time. We know exactly what first nations feel about transparency. Accountability is very important to everyone. We have to do it their way, not the way the Conservatives did it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and his important work in support of Canadian entrepreneurship.The 2016 budget shows how committed we are to promoting Canadian innovation. We are investing about $4.5 billion as a down payment to start the innovation agenda, with investments in initiatives such as strengthening business clusters, building post-secondary infrastructure, and extending broadband service. This is an agenda for change. It will address the economic challenges, grow our businesses and help us take the next steps toward growing a more innovative economy.
Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes how important the forestry industry is to Quebec and Canada. We are negotiating with our American counterparts. This morning, the minister met with industry representatives in Montreal. We are working very closely with the industry, the Government of Quebec, and other governments across the country. We are working together to ensure that we get an agreement that is good for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we are consulting with dairy farmers across Canada on the trans-Pacific partnership. We have not yet taken a position, but once we do so, we will be sure to consult and provide compensation as necessary.
Mr. Speaker, headquartered in my riding of Don Valley East, Thales Canada is a global leader in the development of high technologies in aerospace, urban transportation, security, and urban science. In addition, Thales Canada is a leader in the promotion of gender diversity and equality in the workplace.Can the minister tell the House how the government can ensure that Canada continues to support innovative companies like Thales Canada?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for his question. When I was in San Francisco last week, I announced that Canada would double its funding for clean energy to $775 million by 2020. With these investments, our government is taking a strong leadership role on climate change.
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Liberals will cave in to Chinese belligerence at the drop of a proverbial hat. Last week, at the insistence of the Chinese government, the Prime Minister bowed to demands to meet not with the president but with the foreign minister, who then took time out of his busy schedule to berate a Canadian journalist while our foreign minister kept as quiet as a church mouse. When will the Liberals grow a backbone and ensure that Canadian foreign policy is actually run by Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, Senate Liberal leader James Cowan has now joined the growing number of Canadians saying that Bill C-14 is likely unconstitutional. Cowan said that this government legislation is so flawed that Canadians would be better off with no legislation at all. This bill does not respect the Supreme Court's decision, and it will be tied up in courts for years. Instead of ramming through Bill C-14, will the government listen to James Cowan and work on getting the bill right the first time?
Mr. Speaker, hard-working Canadians cannot afford to pay more taxes. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that no business can afford higher payroll taxes either, but the finance minister is again putting Canadian jobs at risk. The Liberals have already backed off on their election promise to lower the small business tax rate. Now they are going to raise payroll taxes.Why is the finance minister killing the backbone of the Canadian economy with irresponsible CPP payroll tax hikes?
Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is about the law, but it is, above all, about people.The Carter family fought for years alongside their mother to make it possible for people to die with dignity in Canada. Today, they are saying that they feel betrayed by the Liberal government. The government says that it listens to Canadians, but it listens only to those who agree with it.Now that the government has failed to get its bill passed by June 6, will it come up with a bill that is charter-compliant and in line with the Carter decision?
Mr. Speaker, last week, thousands of dairy farmers came to Ottawa to speak out against the government's inability to protect them on the diafiltered milk issue.Farmers have lost millions of dollars because the government did not enforce its own regulations. Now, the government is trying to convince us that opening our markets through the trans-Pacific partnership is going to be a good thing.Does the government take us for fools? How are farmers supposed to feel reassured about the trans-Pacific partnership when the government is not even capable of enforcing its own import regulations?
Mr. Speaker, this refugee at committee begged to differ. He said, when asked about his wife's chances to learn English, Her situation is worse than mine. I try my best to learn English on the streets, through my friends, or through some acquaintances. She doesn't have that chance because she mainly stays at home with the kids. Will the Liberals admit that their lack of a plan to provide language training to Syrian refugees is creating gender inequity and isolating these women, or will they continue to treat these women simply as photo ops?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will not even use our fighter jets to defeat and degrade ISIS, and the Liberal suggestion that our fighter jets are literally on their last legs is patently false. We know that our fighter jets can operate effectively until 2025, and there is no urgency to replace them on an interim basis. The Liberals do not need to sole source the Super Hornet to transition from the CF-18 to avoid their imaginary capability gap. Why are the Liberals misleading Canadians and breaking their promise for a fair and transparent competition?
Mr. Speaker, from helicopters to submarines, and now fighter jets, the legacy of the Liberals is to buy old and make do.The Liberals have made up their minds to buy the Super Hornet and now are working on the right narrative to support it.Let us be perfectly clear. The Liberals are only sole-sourcing the Super Hornets to fulfill an ill-advised political campaign promise. Simply put, the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a lot better.Will the Prime Minister admit that he broke his promise for an open and fair competition to replace our fighter jets?
Mr. Speaker, I think the minister does not need to patronize us. The fact is that this is not up for politicians to decide; it is up to Canadians.We keep asking these questions because her answers make no sense. One hundred per cent of Canadian voters deserve to have a direct say in how they will elect their governments. What is so hard to understand?My question, once again, is, will the minister finally listen to Canadians and agree to hold a referendum on how they vote?
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the minister told the CBC, if an overwhelming majority of Canadians tell us that they want system X, we will...listen to what they've said...One logical implication of the minister's words is that if the Liberal proposal for electoral reform is supported by an underwhelming minority of Canadians, say under 50% in a national referendum, then it ought not to be imposed on the nation for election 2019.Either the minister's words mean she favours a referendum, or they mean nothing at all and are meant to simply misdirect us. Which of the two is correct?
Mr. Speaker, nearly 50 years ago, thousands of people were kicked out of their homes by the federal government so that it could build the Mirabel airport. It was a colonialist fiasco of historic proportions. Today, the residents of Mirabel whose land was expropriated and their descendants want their land back, but the government is putting it up for sale. The government turned these people's lives upside down and left them a heap of ruins. Now it needs to take them into account. Will the Prime Minister promise to give the original property owners and their descendants right of first refusal in the sale of the expropriated Mirabel lands, and will he offer them an official apology?
Mr. Speaker, senior officials have confirmed that the Liberal government has already decided to purchase F-18 Super Hornets. Before making the announcement, the Liberals just have to finalize the narrative to justify this purchase. Although they promised to hold an open, transparent competition, the result has already been decided: another broken Liberal promise.Can the government confirm that it plans to purchase the F-18 Super Hornet? What expert advice is it basing this decision on?
Mr. Speaker, from day one, the Liberals have shown a complete lack of interest in the needs of small businesses. After ending the small business hiring credit, they broke their promise to lower the small business tax rate. The chamber of commerce says businesses are worried about a big CPP tax increase, which it says is headed for the middle class like an elbow to the chest.Why is the finance minister so intent on squeezing every penny he can out of middle-class businesses and workers?
Mr. Speaker, an issue as broad and complex as changing our voting system calls for engaged consultations and for multiple voices to be heard, including those of experts from the different parties and Canadians who are concerned about how we are going to go about improving our electoral system.This process is more complex than the yes or no of a referendum. This is about allowing people to express their opinion on the values behind our electoral system and good governance in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, by any realistic measure, last week's visit by China's foreign minister did not go so well. Again, the Prime Minister broke with protocol and caved in to Minister Wang's demand for a meeting. Then Canada's minister stood silent while the Chinese minister angrily scolded a Canadian journalist. When will the Liberals stand up to China and demand meaningful answers on China's human rights transgressions?
Mr. Speaker, there are two erroneous things in the member's comments. First, of course I was not silent regarding human rights groups, including in the press conference. The obligation to hurt my--
Mr. Speaker, the government had the chance to do things differently with Bill C-14, but it decided to ignore experts, not to work with the opposition, and to limit debate.Warnings were coming in from all over. Quebec's health and social services minister called Bill C-14 unenforceable. He thinks that the notion of reasonably foreseeable death is medically unfeasible and he refuses to include it in Quebec's law.Will the government finally realize that Bill C-14 must be amended?
Mr. Speaker, the current fleet of CF-18s has been refurbished to last until 2025, which is enough time to transition to the next fighter jet. The urgency the Liberals are describing seems to have been invented specifically to give the Prime Minister an excuse not to purchase the F-35.If the government goes ahead with this decision, is the minister aware of the risk of legal action and the negative repercussions this will have on the Canadian businesses that manufacture the F-35?
Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, the Liberals said that they would not purchase the F-35, but right after being elected, they said maybe yes, maybe no. Now it looks like they may have already decided on another fighter jet, but still without the promised open and transparent competition. In fact, it looks like the Liberal government is running procurement as an inside job, just like the Conservatives. Why have they abandoned an open tender process to replace our aging CF-18s, and when will they put in place a procurement system that can actually deliver the equipment our military needs?
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said in this place on Thursday and so many other times before, that there is at least a three-step process for us to undertake.The first step is to establish the committee and have it go out and hear from Canadians. The second step is for us to come up with a plan and debate that plan in this House. The third step is where my hon. colleague is at, which is determining whether or not the recommended reforms have the broad buy-in of Canadians.Let us get on with the first step.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with this government is that every time it opens its mouth, there is a big disconnect. As members will recall, they said they would make revenue-neutral tax changes. Instead, they have dug a $1.7-billion hole.Now, they are turning their attention to pensions. We are worried and we have every right to be worried.Can the government promise not to increase Canadians' CPP payroll taxes?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' stubborn refusal to listen to experts and work with the opposition will mean suffering Canadians spending years in court defending rights that they have already won.Kay Carter's family is also disillusioned with the current government. They said today that they felt betrayed. Today they called out the Prime Minister for his refusal to listen to Canadians. If the Liberals really disagree with the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Ontario court, and Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, will they at least now table the government's legal opinion on the bill, so that Canadians can judge for themselves?
Mr. Speaker, much like other times, we keep hearing about the interest of political parties and of politicians.The discussion on changing our most basic democratic institution is not about political parties nor about the interest of politicians. It is about the Canadian people.It should be about making sure that each and every Canadian voice has an opportunity to have a direct say through a referendum. Will the Liberals hold one, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, it is not just Quebec that is protesting. Peter Hogg, Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, today testified that Bill C-14 fails to respect the Carter decision and will undoubtedly be struck down as soon as it gets to court. He said that the government cannot turn around and exclude a group of people that the Supreme Court clearly ruled have these charter rights.It is never too late for the government to do the right thing. Will the Liberals finally respect the charter and announce that they are willing to fix the bill?
Mr. Speaker, soon Syrian refugees will see their one year of government-funded support terminate. Moreover, many of these refugees cannot access training to learn English or French. A refugee at committee last week said, through a translator, No, I am not working. How can I work if I don't know the English to communicate? His family has already had to turn to food banks to make ends meet.When will the Liberals admit that by failing to have any comprehensive plan to provide Syrian refugees with language training, these refugees may require social assistance after their year of funding runs out?
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians expect of this government is to make sure that we are both defending the rights and freedoms of Canadians while protecting the most vulnerable, and that is exactly the balance that we have struck with Bill C-14. Throughout we have been open to amendments, including accepting amendments from opposition members. We look forward to hearing the deliberations that the Senate is carrying forward on this same piece of legislation. We are ensuring that this big step that Canada is taking, despite people who think it goes too far and others who think it does not go far enough, is done the right way.
Mr. Speaker, our government is entering electoral reform with an open mind.As the member opposite well knows, the amended motion that the NDP put on the table late last week allows for the committee to investigate ways of determining how to engage the broad support of Canadians. This is an important addition that we added to the motion to address the hon. colleagues' concerns, and look forward to unanimous support of the House on this matter tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, the former government did not consult Canadians or experts or Elections Canada on the changes they brought forward through the Fair Elections Act. I totally understand why bringing a committee forward to hear from Canadians is a strange concept to them. We have entered this process with an open mind and look forward to getting down to the work of hearing from Canadians and moving away from a hyperpartisan debate on process.
Mr. Speaker, getting a question from the Conservative Party, having manufactured, in effect, this capability gap, is ironic in the extreme. We are, therefore, in a position where we are going to have to make serious decisions about the replacement for the CF-18. We cannot any longer carry on in the fashion we have been carrying on. Had these decisions actually been addressed and done in the last three or four or five years, we would not be here talking about this matter today.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say that they will abandon their plans to change our voting system if they do not have widespread public support. Yet they refuse to commit to the most transparent and accessible way of gauging that public support, which is a referendum.Does the Prime Minister think making such a significant change should be behind closed doors by a handful of Liberal cabinet ministers, or will he finally commit to giving Canadians a direct say in the future of their democracy?
Mr. Speaker, we recognize not just the link between land degradation and climate change, but also the risks that desertification poses to realizing sustainable development goals. We are coordinating with our international partners to implement the 2030 agenda and its ambitious objectives to eradicate poverty, fight inequality and injustice, and tackle climate change. We recognize the important work done by the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and look forward to updating the House soon, possibly on June 17 itself.
Mr. Speaker, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act gave band members for the first time ever access to critical information such as salaries and expenses of their leaders and audited financial statements. On Friday, the minister admitted to Canadians that no formal consultations were held before gutting the act.Does the minister not believe that band members should have input into a decision that affects them so directly?
Mr. Speaker, we actually need to grow the relationship between Canada and the sixth of humanity, China, which was so damaged by the former government. This is why we need to make progress in every aspect, including human rights, including the rule of law. It is what I said very clearly in the meetings with the minister of foreign affairs of China. It is what I said during the conference he just mentioned. It is what I said also in my subsequent relationship with the minister. We will continue to improve our relationship with China and to advocate the case for human rights everywhere in the world, including in China.
Mr. Speaker, it will probably hurt my modesty, but I need to quote myself. I said in the press conference, In our international engagement Canada will continue to champion the values of pluralism, democracy, inclusive and accountable governance and respect for diversity and universal human rights.About the practice of our foreign affairs ministers meeting leaders of the world, I meet leaders of the world everywhere in the world. The Prime Minister will certainly be willing to meet--
Mr. Speaker, they have been in power for seven months now, and replacing our CF-18s did not seem to be on their radar, and yet, we have known for years that they need to be replaced. I hardly need to point out that replacing any military equipment requires planning. It is not like going shopping at Toys R Us. These kinds of purchases are not made on a whim. What our soldiers need is the right equipment for the job. When will the government put in place a transparent process to replace the CF-18s?
Mr. Speaker, we are focused on ensuring that Canadians have the opportunity to retire in dignity. We started down this path immediately on getting elected. We told Canadians this is something we wanted to do. We moved forward with improving the guaranteed income supplement for seniors in poverty. We changed the OAS system so that we can help seniors retire when they can. We are working collaboratively with the provinces to enhance our Canada pension plan, which is an investment in the future of Canadians, allowing Canadians to retire in dignity.
Mr. Speaker, we have said from the very beginning that we will not move forward on any reform to our electoral system without the broad support of Canadians.This means it is vitally important for the special all-party committee to begin its work of hearing from Canadians first-hand what their needs are and what values they would like to see reflected in their electoral system. I look forward to support from all members in this House when this vote is up for discussion tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, it appears that we have found common ground.The one thing that we can all agree on in this House is that is crucial to the success of us being able to modernize our electoral system is first hearing from Canadians. That is why we committed to bringing forward an all-parliamentary committee to hear from Canadians, to act as a forum to hear their thoughts and aspirations for their electoral reform.I am really looking forward to this vote tomorrow and unanimous support from all members.
Mr. Speaker, we have sought to ensure that we hear from a diversity of voices in this country with respect to this incredibly difficult and complex issue. To paraphrase the Supreme Court of Canada, the court does not have a monopoly on the protection and promotion of rights, and Parliament has to do its job to be an ally to the vulnerable.We have sought to find a balance between the diversity of views and perspectives in this country, balancing personal autonomy and protecting the vulnerable.
Mr. Speaker, we are incredibly mindful of the deadline of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is incumbent upon parliamentarians to put in place a national framework around our medical assistance in dying to ensure that there are the appropriate and necessary safeguards in place, to ensure certainty for medical practitioners, and to ensure that there is access for patients who want to access medical assistance in dying. This is an incredibly complex discussion. We have certainly listened to the voices of Canadians, and it is the voices of Canadians who have contributed toward Bill C-14.
That they got neutral, Mr. Speaker. Those jobs are for half as long.The leaders' declaration from the G7 in Japan is a clear commitment to regional trade agreements like the TPP. Yet the Prime Minister seems more inclined to push for an early deal with China. While that is a very important market for us, the Prime Minister has also said, It is important that people know that when they sign a deal with Canada...a change in government isn't going to lead to that contract being ripped up. Since he supported the leaders' declaration, why will the Prime Minister not prioritize the TPP before holding trade talks with China?
Mr. Speaker, June 17 will be the world day to combat desertification. This is an area where Canada was once extremely helpful. We even hosted the fifth meeting of the treaty to combat desertification, having ratified it in 1995. It is a key instrument, not just for developing countries but for dealing with increasing drought within Canada. Shamefully, the previous government withdrew us in 2013. I want to know when Canada will be back. Could the Prime Minister tell us specifically if Canada can rejoin the convention?
Mr. Speaker, since the price of lumber from Quebec's public forests is set at an auction, it is higher, and our companies are only competitive when a free trade agreement exists. Under the softwood lumber agreement, Quebec has lost some major sales to British Columbia. Quebec can push for free trade all it wants, but it does not yet have status as a country. The federal government is negotiating on our behalf, but the government has been refusing to answer our questions for six months.If Ottawa accepts a protectionist agreement, will it exempt Quebec so that NAFTA applies to us?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite that we are trying to enhance the Canada pension plan. That is a plan where Canadians can save. It is a plan where we can invest money so people can have a retirement in dignity. We know that working together with the provinces, we can achieve a real difference for Canadians, helping them to have a retirement in dignity and to save appropriately for that. We are committed to doing that in collaboration with our finance ministers in our provinces.
Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes that this is a big step in the history of our country, and making sure that we do that in a responsible and thoughtful way, that both upholds Canadians' rights and freedoms while defending the most vulnerable, is exactly what we have done with this piece of legislation.On top of that, we made sure that we heard from Canadians and experts and we allowed and encouraged a free vote in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, it is disappointing that the NDP did not allow themselves a free vote on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, as part of the debates on Bill C-14, we listened to many politicians from all the different parties share their views.However, we did more than that. We listened to doctors and Canadians. We consulted the public at large, across the country, to ensure that this important and transformative measure regarding medical assistance in dying would be properly designed to uphold Canadians' rights and freedoms while protecting the most vulnerable. That is the balance we have struck, and we are proud of it.
Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an example of the reforms that the Liberal Party made to the Senate over the past years removing partisanship and patronage from that place, there is no better example than the NDP highlighting the great work that the Senate is doing weighing in on an important piece of legislation.I thank the hon. member for her comments about the excellent work done by the independent voices in the Senate, and I look forward to hearing what the Senate has to say about Bill C-14 when it returns to us.
Mr. Speaker, the previous government showed no interest in science and innovation, but, since taking office, our government has put them back on the map. That is one of the important measures taken by this government.It is by investing in leading-edge sectors that Canada will continue to progress and secure its future. Without a doubt, clean energy is one of those sectors.Will the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House of the new Canadian strategy in that regard?
Mr. Speaker, as I said in an earlier response to a question, the unfortunate reality is that we have lost five years on this particular procurement. As a consequence, we are now approaching a situation where we have a capability gap. If we are going to manage the capability gap, we need to move to the point of making a decision. Unlike the previous government, we will be making a decision.
Mr. Speaker, people in Windsor have fought for a long time for a new border crossing with the United States. Manufacturers, farmers, and those in other key sectors are left wondering whether the government will deliver the Gordie Howe international bridge border crossing on time. This means jobs and investment for Canada as this region accounts for 40% of the daily trade between Canada and the United States.My question is for the Prime Minister. His government has already missed two important deadlines for this crucial infrastructure. Could the Prime Minister confirm today that his government is on track to make this crossing happen by 2020? This is his opportunity to reassure the citizens and industries from manufacturing
You were at the press conference.
Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.If that minister actually believes his own words, will he try to convince the Prime Minister that Canadians deserve a direct say, through a vote in a referendum, on any changes to how they vote?
Mr. Speaker, our commitment is to hear directly from Canadians. Our hope is that all 338 members in this House will advocate on behalf of their constituents and contribute constructively to the substance of electoral reform.I hope that the mood tomorrow, with the vote tomorrow, will allow us to move away from an unproductive partisan debate on process to the substance of electoral reform, and ensuring that all Canadians, including young people who are not yet old enough to vote, can be part of this important conversation.
Mr. Speaker, let us continue playing who is telling the truth? Fourth, the member for Mount Royal said that the referendum is a tool we could use.Fifth, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons first rejected holding a referendum, then indicated that he was open to it. Sixth, the Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote in a policy paper that "precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.When will the Prime Minister listen to the members of his own caucus and ensure that a referendum is held so that all Canadians can express their views?
Mr. Speaker, as members know, we inherited a procurement system that by many measurements was a broken procurement system. Accordingly, the minister has had to take serious decisionsall ministers, in fact, have had to take serious decisionswith respect to getting the equipment the hon. member and I would agree is the equipment that needs to replace the CF-18. Accordingly, we are proceeding with the decision process, and hopefully we will have a decision soon.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, the previous government changed our electoral processes as a way of barring, unfortunately, many people from being able to vote, or trying to. Canadians made themselves heard in the general election, rejecting not just the platform the other party put forward, but its entire approach, which is why we favour an approach that is engaged, open, consultative, drawing in multiple voices with different ideas about how to improve our electoral system. We look forward to a strong and robust process.
Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to a well-equipped and modern air force. Unfortunately, the last five years have been a bit of a loss. As a consequence, there is a developing capability gap which needs to be managed. We have obligations to NATO, we have obligations to NORAD, we have obligations to our own defence and to expeditionary matters.Accordingly, we are proceeding forward on this matter, and we will be moving toward a decision soon.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister misled the House during question period when he said that the NDP had a whipped vote on Bill C-14. He knows that is not the case. He knows on this side of the House, it was a free vote.However, the NDP caucus is united in its determination that Bill C-14, as it is, is
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation involving the former Mirabel airport lands. The main objective of the sale, enabling tenant farmers to buy the lands they were leasing, was achieved. Approximately 750 acres, or 7% of the former airport lands, has not yet been sold. In the coming weeks, the government will proceed with the sale of the remaining Mirabel lands. Parcels will be offered in accordance with the policy on management of real property.
Mr. Speaker, we want to have a pension plan that will allow Canadians to live their retirement years with dignity. That is why we want to enhance our pension plan. I am working with the provinces in order to help Canadians retire with dignity.
Mr. Speaker, when we were elected, we promised to help middle-class families and grow the economy. An important way to achieve this objective is to ensure that young Canadians are able to find work and get the experience required in the job market. We remember how the previous government spent more time putting up billboards than creating jobs for young Canadians.Could the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour inform the House of the success of the Canada summer jobs program?
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to the inaction of the previous government, we are developing a capability gap, and that capability gap needs to be managed. So four years out, five years out, 10 years out, the chief of defence needs to be thinking about how to manage that capability gap. Accordingly, the minister has taken the responsible action, and he is moving forward with making a decision sooner rather than later, which should have happened maybe five years ago now.
Mr. Speaker, I want to report to the House that this government understands the importance of meaningful work in a summer job. That is why we promised to double the number of jobs this summer. In fact, we have more than doubled them. I am proud to say that every hon. member in the House worked hard. We not only doubled, but we increased the number of jobs to 77,000 jobs this summer. It is because of the commitment of the minister for youth that we were able to keep the promise and focus on what was important, young
Mr. Speaker, apparently the members opposite have not yet understood that we have an engaged caucus and that its members have many views and visions. For too long they have followed only one path and held only one view.We, the members of the Liberal Party, listen to Canadians, discuss our different perspectives, and, together, build the best approach for Canadians in a consultative and collaborative manner.I know this is unheard of for them, but that is how we operate.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal approach to electoral reform is a bit strange.They believe that the current system makes it difficult for people to vote, yet record numbers of Canadians voted in 2015. In the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown accord, nearly 75% of eligible Canadians voted. Three-quarters of Canadians are demanding to have their say again. Will the Liberals hold a referendum on fundamental changes to how Canadians vote?
Mr. Speaker, the medical assistance in dying bill is historic. The government should have done the right thing.That is exactly what it did not do. Knowing the timeline was tight, it nevertheless waited until April to introduce its bill. It refused to listen to the experts.Today, Peter Hogg, one of Canada's most respected constitutional experts, once again said that Bill C-14 would not pass the test in terms of the charter or the Carter decision.When will the Liberals change course and do the right thing?
Mr. Speaker, Canadian content and support for creators of content are a priority for our government.For years, our approach during trade talks has always been to maintain our capacity and to support cultural and creative industries. That remains unchanged today, especially during our talks on the TPP.We also want to seize the opportunities offered through our various trade talks. That is why our government is determined to listen to Canadians on the issue and that is why the Minister of International Trade is
Mr. Speaker, increased trade relationships with China are in the minister's mandate letter, but we are not in negotiations for a trade agreement right now. We will take a cautious step-by-step approach.As regards the TPP, we promised during the election, because it was a deal that we had not yet seen, that we would study it carefully. We are continuing to do that. We are doing our own studies, we are taking in studies, and the committee is studying. We will come to a position on that when the time is right.
Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote a policy paper on electoral reform in which he said, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support. There is one thing that does have popular support of Canadians right now, and that is if our voting system is changed, Canadians want a say. If the Prime Minister will not listen to Canadians on this, will he at least listen to his minister and give Canadians a referendum?
Mr. Speaker, last week the Toronto Star said, If the Liberal government truly wants broad buy-in from Canadians on electoral reform, it should hold a referendum and let people vote. It said that a referendum is the only way to guarantee that electoral reform has democratic legitimacy.Therefore, I ask the minister again, and particularly given her earlier words on Friday, does she support a national referendum, or was she just saying all that stuff as a way of misdirecting us?
Mr. Speaker, have you ever played a game called who is telling the truth? Let us play it now.First of all, the Prime Minister said that the 2015 election would be the last one under the current voting system.Second, his principal secretary said on Twitter, which seems to be the preferred network of the Minister of Democratic Institutions, that a referendum would be one option to consider.Third, the minister herself said that if she did not have public support, she would not go ahead with the reform.Who is telling the truth? Three-quarters of Canadians want a referendum. Will the Prime Minister listen to them?
Mr. Speaker, we certainly have a comprehensive plan to provide language training, because we understand that success in English or French is key to finding a job and key to success in Canada. That is why the government has funded $600 million for settlement in 2016-17. That is $27 million extra for the new refugees, and language is very much at the top of our priorities.
Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard through our funding to provide language training to men, to women, and to children. We also understand that many of the Syrian refugee mothers have significant numbers of children to look after, and therefore they need child care facilities to help them with the language training. We understand there is more work to do in that area, but we are working very hard through the settlement agencies to provide that funding to support language training for everybody.
Mr. Speaker, in the last election, Canadians overwhelmingly voted for parties that had committed to moving beyond first past the post, which is why in our committee we are happy to reflect a broad range of voices from Canadians and are glad to work with opposition parties to ensure there are strong voices heard on all sides of the issue. That is the kind of consultations and engagement that Canadians expect to hear and see when we talk about electoral reform. That is exactly the kind of engagement the previous government did none of.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that my hon. colleague just demonstrated how engaged we are on this issue and how open we are to perspectives of all kinds in that regard. Unlike the Conservative way of doing things, where only one person's opinion mattered in any discussion or proposal, many people in our party are involved in examining important issues. We look forward to hearing what Canadians have to say regarding our electoral system.
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian expects to have a direct say in the future of their democracy.In 2012, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.There is one thing Canadians support, and that is a referendum.Will the Prime Minister listen to his own minister and finally commit to holding a referendum?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know, being in the NDP, that for the last five, six, seven, eight years, the CF-18 decision had been pending and pending and continued to be pending. Had the previous government actually done something more than get in and out of photo ops, possibly we would not actually be talking about this at this point.
Mr. Speaker, our government's commitment to building the Gordie Howe international bridge is unwavering.Nearly 30% of the surface trade, as the hon. member has mentioned, crosses at this very important crossing. It is very critical for us to continue to grow our trade with the United States. The first step of the process, where we listed all the companies to build this bridge, has already happened. We are on the next stage
Mr. Speaker, the trans-Pacific partnership also raises concerns for cultural industries. The TPP explicitly prevents the government from developing policies to support Canadian content on digital platforms. On one hand, we have a Minister of Canadian Heritage holding consultations on digital media, and on the other hand we have her government signing a treaty that will limit its own capacity to intervene online.Despite all her fine words, the minister's hands will be tied. However, she promised to protect our cultural diversity in these trade agreements.How will the minister defend such an absurdity to our cultural industries?
Mr. Speaker, again, the department was not in charge at that time. As the opposition critic, we consulted broadly through that time. We know exactly what first nations feel about transparency. Accountability is very important to everyone. We have to do it their way, not the way the Conservatives did it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and his important work in support of Canadian entrepreneurship.The 2016 budget shows how committed we are to promoting Canadian innovation. We are investing about $4.5 billion as a down payment to start the innovation agenda, with investments in initiatives such as strengthening business clusters, building post-secondary infrastructure, and extending broadband service. This is an agenda for change. It will address the economic challenges, grow our businesses and help us take the next steps toward growing a more innovative economy.
Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes how important the forestry industry is to Quebec and Canada. We are negotiating with our American counterparts. This morning, the minister met with industry representatives in Montreal. We are working very closely with the industry, the Government of Quebec, and other governments across the country. We are working together to ensure that we get an agreement that is good for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we are consulting with dairy farmers across Canada on the trans-Pacific partnership. We have not yet taken a position, but once we do so, we will be sure to consult and provide compensation as necessary.
Mr. Speaker, headquartered in my riding of Don Valley East, Thales Canada is a global leader in the development of high technologies in aerospace, urban transportation, security, and urban science. In addition, Thales Canada is a leader in the promotion of gender diversity and equality in the workplace.Can the minister tell the House how the government can ensure that Canada continues to support innovative companies like Thales Canada?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for his question. When I was in San Francisco last week, I announced that Canada would double its funding for clean energy to $775 million by 2020. With these investments, our government is taking a strong leadership role on climate change.
Most negative speeches
Mr. Speaker, we have sought to ensure that we hear from a diversity of voices in this country with respect to this incredibly difficult and complex issue. To paraphrase the Supreme Court of Canada, the court does not have a monopoly on the protection and promotion of rights, and Parliament has to do its job to be an ally to the vulnerable.We have sought to find a balance between the diversity of views and perspectives in this country, balancing personal autonomy and protecting the vulnerable.
Mr. Speaker, as members know, we inherited a procurement system that by many measurements was a broken procurement system. Accordingly, the minister has had to take serious decisionsall ministers, in fact, have had to take serious decisionswith respect to getting the equipment the hon. member and I would agree is the equipment that needs to replace the CF-18. Accordingly, we are proceeding with the decision process, and hopefully we will have a decision soon.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal approach to electoral reform is a bit strange.They believe that the current system makes it difficult for people to vote, yet record numbers of Canadians voted in 2015. In the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown accord, nearly 75% of eligible Canadians voted. Three-quarters of Canadians are demanding to have their say again. Will the Liberals hold a referendum on fundamental changes to how Canadians vote?
Mr. Speaker, from day one, the Liberals have shown a complete lack of interest in the needs of small businesses. After ending the small business hiring credit, they broke their promise to lower the small business tax rate. The chamber of commerce says businesses are worried about a big CPP tax increase, which it says is headed for the middle class like an elbow to the chest.Why is the finance minister so intent on squeezing every penny he can out of middle-class businesses and workers?
Mr. Speaker, have you ever played a game called who is telling the truth? Let us play it now.First of all, the Prime Minister said that the 2015 election would be the last one under the current voting system.Second, his principal secretary said on Twitter, which seems to be the preferred network of the Minister of Democratic Institutions, that a referendum would be one option to consider.Third, the minister herself said that if she did not have public support, she would not go ahead with the reform.Who is telling the truth? Three-quarters of Canadians want a referendum. Will the Prime Minister listen to them?
Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is about the law, but it is, above all, about people.The Carter family fought for years alongside their mother to make it possible for people to die with dignity in Canada. Today, they are saying that they feel betrayed by the Liberal government. The government says that it listens to Canadians, but it listens only to those who agree with it.Now that the government has failed to get its bill passed by June 6, will it come up with a bill that is charter-compliant and in line with the Carter decision?
Mr. Speaker, as I said in an earlier response to a question, the unfortunate reality is that we have lost five years on this particular procurement. As a consequence, we are now approaching a situation where we have a capability gap. If we are going to manage the capability gap, we need to move to the point of making a decision. Unlike the previous government, we will be making a decision.
Mr. Speaker, we are focused on ensuring that Canadians have the opportunity to retire in dignity. We started down this path immediately on getting elected. We told Canadians this is something we wanted to do. We moved forward with improving the guaranteed income supplement for seniors in poverty. We changed the OAS system so that we can help seniors retire when they can. We are working collaboratively with the provinces to enhance our Canada pension plan, which is an investment in the future of Canadians, allowing Canadians to retire in dignity.
Mr. Speaker, June 17 will be the world day to combat desertification. This is an area where Canada was once extremely helpful. We even hosted the fifth meeting of the treaty to combat desertification, having ratified it in 1995. It is a key instrument, not just for developing countries but for dealing with increasing drought within Canada. Shamefully, the previous government withdrew us in 2013. I want to know when Canada will be back. Could the Prime Minister tell us specifically if Canada can rejoin the convention?
Mr. Speaker, there are two erroneous things in the member's comments. First, of course I was not silent regarding human rights groups, including in the press conference. The obligation to hurt my--
Mr. Speaker, getting a question from the Conservative Party, having manufactured, in effect, this capability gap, is ironic in the extreme. We are, therefore, in a position where we are going to have to make serious decisions about the replacement for the CF-18. We cannot any longer carry on in the fashion we have been carrying on. Had these decisions actually been addressed and done in the last three or four or five years, we would not be here talking about this matter today.
Mr. Speaker, it is not just Quebec that is protesting. Peter Hogg, Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, today testified that Bill C-14 fails to respect the Carter decision and will undoubtedly be struck down as soon as it gets to court. He said that the government cannot turn around and exclude a group of people that the Supreme Court clearly ruled have these charter rights.It is never too late for the government to do the right thing. Will the Liberals finally respect the charter and announce that they are willing to fix the bill?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' stubborn refusal to listen to experts and work with the opposition will mean suffering Canadians spending years in court defending rights that they have already won.Kay Carter's family is also disillusioned with the current government. They said today that they felt betrayed. Today they called out the Prime Minister for his refusal to listen to Canadians. If the Liberals really disagree with the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Ontario court, and Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, will they at least now table the government's legal opinion on the bill, so that Canadians can judge for themselves?
Mr. Speaker, they have been in power for seven months now, and replacing our CF-18s did not seem to be on their radar, and yet, we have known for years that they need to be replaced. I hardly need to point out that replacing any military equipment requires planning. It is not like going shopping at Toys R Us. These kinds of purchases are not made on a whim. What our soldiers need is the right equipment for the job. When will the government put in place a transparent process to replace the CF-18s?
You were at the press conference.
Mr. Speaker, we actually need to grow the relationship between Canada and the sixth of humanity, China, which was so damaged by the former government. This is why we need to make progress in every aspect, including human rights, including the rule of law. It is what I said very clearly in the meetings with the minister of foreign affairs of China. It is what I said during the conference he just mentioned. It is what I said also in my subsequent relationship with the minister. We will continue to improve our relationship with China and to advocate the case for human rights everywhere in the world, including in China.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to the inaction of the previous government, we are developing a capability gap, and that capability gap needs to be managed. So four years out, five years out, 10 years out, the chief of defence needs to be thinking about how to manage that capability gap. Accordingly, the minister has taken the responsible action, and he is moving forward with making a decision sooner rather than later, which should have happened maybe five years ago now.
Mr. Speaker, by any realistic measure, last week's visit by China's foreign minister did not go so well. Again, the Prime Minister broke with protocol and caved in to Minister Wang's demand for a meeting. Then Canada's minister stood silent while the Chinese minister angrily scolded a Canadian journalist. When will the Liberals stand up to China and demand meaningful answers on China's human rights transgressions?
Mr. Speaker, the current fleet of CF-18s has been refurbished to last until 2025, which is enough time to transition to the next fighter jet. The urgency the Liberals are describing seems to have been invented specifically to give the Prime Minister an excuse not to purchase the F-35.If the government goes ahead with this decision, is the minister aware of the risk of legal action and the negative repercussions this will have on the Canadian businesses that manufacture the F-35?
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the minister told the CBC, if an overwhelming majority of Canadians tell us that they want system X, we will...listen to what they've said...One logical implication of the minister's words is that if the Liberal proposal for electoral reform is supported by an underwhelming minority of Canadians, say under 50% in a national referendum, then it ought not to be imposed on the nation for election 2019.Either the minister's words mean she favours a referendum, or they mean nothing at all and are meant to simply misdirect us. Which of the two is correct?
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Liberals will cave in to Chinese belligerence at the drop of a proverbial hat. Last week, at the insistence of the Chinese government, the Prime Minister bowed to demands to meet not with the president but with the foreign minister, who then took time out of his busy schedule to berate a Canadian journalist while our foreign minister kept as quiet as a church mouse. When will the Liberals grow a backbone and ensure that Canadian foreign policy is actually run by Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, it will probably hurt my modesty, but I need to quote myself. I said in the press conference, In our international engagement Canada will continue to champion the values of pluralism, democracy, inclusive and accountable governance and respect for diversity and universal human rights.About the practice of our foreign affairs ministers meeting leaders of the world, I meet leaders of the world everywhere in the world. The Prime Minister will certainly be willing to meet--
Mr. Speaker, our government is entering electoral reform with an open mind.As the member opposite well knows, the amended motion that the NDP put on the table late last week allows for the committee to investigate ways of determining how to engage the broad support of Canadians. This is an important addition that we added to the motion to address the hon. colleagues' concerns, and look forward to unanimous support of the House on this matter tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation involving the former Mirabel airport lands. The main objective of the sale, enabling tenant farmers to buy the lands they were leasing, was achieved. Approximately 750 acres, or 7% of the former airport lands, has not yet been sold. In the coming weeks, the government will proceed with the sale of the remaining Mirabel lands. Parcels will be offered in accordance with the policy on management of real property.
Mr. Speaker, an issue as broad and complex as changing our voting system calls for engaged consultations and for multiple voices to be heard, including those of experts from the different parties and Canadians who are concerned about how we are going to go about improving our electoral system.This process is more complex than the yes or no of a referendum. This is about allowing people to express their opinion on the values behind our electoral system and good governance in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, the Liberals said that they would not purchase the F-35, but right after being elected, they said maybe yes, maybe no. Now it looks like they may have already decided on another fighter jet, but still without the promised open and transparent competition. In fact, it looks like the Liberal government is running procurement as an inside job, just like the Conservatives. Why have they abandoned an open tender process to replace our aging CF-18s, and when will they put in place a procurement system that can actually deliver the equipment our military needs?
Mr. Speaker, people in Windsor have fought for a long time for a new border crossing with the United States. Manufacturers, farmers, and those in other key sectors are left wondering whether the government will deliver the Gordie Howe international bridge border crossing on time. This means jobs and investment for Canada as this region accounts for 40% of the daily trade between Canada and the United States.My question is for the Prime Minister. His government has already missed two important deadlines for this crucial infrastructure. Could the Prime Minister confirm today that his government is on track to make this crossing happen by 2020? This is his opportunity to reassure the citizens and industries from manufacturing
Mr. Speaker, the government had the chance to do things differently with Bill C-14, but it decided to ignore experts, not to work with the opposition, and to limit debate.Warnings were coming in from all over. Quebec's health and social services minister called Bill C-14 unenforceable. He thinks that the notion of reasonably foreseeable death is medically unfeasible and he refuses to include it in Quebec's law.Will the government finally realize that Bill C-14 must be amended?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know, being in the NDP, that for the last five, six, seven, eight years, the CF-18 decision had been pending and pending and continued to be pending. Had the previous government actually done something more than get in and out of photo ops, possibly we would not actually be talking about this at this point.
Mr. Speaker, last week the Toronto Star said, If the Liberal government truly wants broad buy-in from Canadians on electoral reform, it should hold a referendum and let people vote. It said that a referendum is the only way to guarantee that electoral reform has democratic legitimacy.Therefore, I ask the minister again, and particularly given her earlier words on Friday, does she support a national referendum, or was she just saying all that stuff as a way of misdirecting us?
Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to a well-equipped and modern air force. Unfortunately, the last five years have been a bit of a loss. As a consequence, there is a developing capability gap which needs to be managed. We have obligations to NATO, we have obligations to NORAD, we have obligations to our own defence and to expeditionary matters.Accordingly, we are proceeding forward on this matter, and we will be moving toward a decision soon.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say that they will abandon their plans to change our voting system if they do not have widespread public support. Yet they refuse to commit to the most transparent and accessible way of gauging that public support, which is a referendum.Does the Prime Minister think making such a significant change should be behind closed doors by a handful of Liberal cabinet ministers, or will he finally commit to giving Canadians a direct say in the future of their democracy?
Mr. Speaker, nearly 50 years ago, thousands of people were kicked out of their homes by the federal government so that it could build the Mirabel airport. It was a colonialist fiasco of historic proportions. Today, the residents of Mirabel whose land was expropriated and their descendants want their land back, but the government is putting it up for sale. The government turned these people's lives upside down and left them a heap of ruins. Now it needs to take them into account. Will the Prime Minister promise to give the original property owners and their descendants right of first refusal in the sale of the expropriated Mirabel lands, and will he offer them an official apology?
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said in this place on Thursday and so many other times before, that there is at least a three-step process for us to undertake.The first step is to establish the committee and have it go out and hear from Canadians. The second step is for us to come up with a plan and debate that plan in this House. The third step is where my hon. colleague is at, which is determining whether or not the recommended reforms have the broad buy-in of Canadians.Let us get on with the first step.
Mr. Speaker, the former government did not consult Canadians or experts or Elections Canada on the changes they brought forward through the Fair Elections Act. I totally understand why bringing a committee forward to hear from Canadians is a strange concept to them. We have entered this process with an open mind and look forward to getting down to the work of hearing from Canadians and moving away from a hyperpartisan debate on process.
Mr. Speaker, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act gave band members for the first time ever access to critical information such as salaries and expenses of their leaders and audited financial statements. On Friday, the minister admitted to Canadians that no formal consultations were held before gutting the act.Does the minister not believe that band members should have input into a decision that affects them so directly?
Mr. Speaker, soon Syrian refugees will see their one year of government-funded support terminate. Moreover, many of these refugees cannot access training to learn English or French. A refugee at committee last week said, through a translator, No, I am not working. How can I work if I don't know the English to communicate? His family has already had to turn to food banks to make ends meet.When will the Liberals admit that by failing to have any comprehensive plan to provide Syrian refugees with language training, these refugees may require social assistance after their year of funding runs out?
Mr. Speaker, Senate Liberal leader James Cowan has now joined the growing number of Canadians saying that Bill C-14 is likely unconstitutional. Cowan said that this government legislation is so flawed that Canadians would be better off with no legislation at all. This bill does not respect the Supreme Court's decision, and it will be tied up in courts for years. Instead of ramming through Bill C-14, will the government listen to James Cowan and work on getting the bill right the first time?
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians expect of this government is to make sure that we are both defending the rights and freedoms of Canadians while protecting the most vulnerable, and that is exactly the balance that we have struck with Bill C-14. Throughout we have been open to amendments, including accepting amendments from opposition members. We look forward to hearing the deliberations that the Senate is carrying forward on this same piece of legislation. We are ensuring that this big step that Canada is taking, despite people who think it goes too far and others who think it does not go far enough, is done the right way.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, the previous government changed our electoral processes as a way of barring, unfortunately, many people from being able to vote, or trying to. Canadians made themselves heard in the general election, rejecting not just the platform the other party put forward, but its entire approach, which is why we favour an approach that is engaged, open, consultative, drawing in multiple voices with different ideas about how to improve our electoral system. We look forward to a strong and robust process.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian content and support for creators of content are a priority for our government.For years, our approach during trade talks has always been to maintain our capacity and to support cultural and creative industries. That remains unchanged today, especially during our talks on the TPP.We also want to seize the opportunities offered through our various trade talks. That is why our government is determined to listen to Canadians on the issue and that is why the Minister of International Trade is
Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard through our funding to provide language training to men, to women, and to children. We also understand that many of the Syrian refugee mothers have significant numbers of children to look after, and therefore they need child care facilities to help them with the language training. We understand there is more work to do in that area, but we are working very hard through the settlement agencies to provide that funding to support language training for everybody.
Mr. Speaker, hard-working Canadians cannot afford to pay more taxes. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that no business can afford higher payroll taxes either, but the finance minister is again putting Canadian jobs at risk. The Liberals have already backed off on their election promise to lower the small business tax rate. Now they are going to raise payroll taxes.Why is the finance minister killing the backbone of the Canadian economy with irresponsible CPP payroll tax hikes?
Mr. Speaker, this refugee at committee begged to differ. He said, when asked about his wife's chances to learn English, Her situation is worse than mine. I try my best to learn English on the streets, through my friends, or through some acquaintances. She doesn't have that chance because she mainly stays at home with the kids. Will the Liberals admit that their lack of a plan to provide language training to Syrian refugees is creating gender inequity and isolating these women, or will they continue to treat these women simply as photo ops?
Mr. Speaker, headquartered in my riding of Don Valley East, Thales Canada is a global leader in the development of high technologies in aerospace, urban transportation, security, and urban science. In addition, Thales Canada is a leader in the promotion of gender diversity and equality in the workplace.Can the minister tell the House how the government can ensure that Canada continues to support innovative companies like Thales Canada?
Mr. Speaker, the trans-Pacific partnership also raises concerns for cultural industries. The TPP explicitly prevents the government from developing policies to support Canadian content on digital platforms. On one hand, we have a Minister of Canadian Heritage holding consultations on digital media, and on the other hand we have her government signing a treaty that will limit its own capacity to intervene online.Despite all her fine words, the minister's hands will be tied. However, she promised to protect our cultural diversity in these trade agreements.How will the minister defend such an absurdity to our cultural industries?
Mr. Speaker, senior officials have confirmed that the Liberal government has already decided to purchase F-18 Super Hornets. Before making the announcement, the Liberals just have to finalize the narrative to justify this purchase. Although they promised to hold an open, transparent competition, the result has already been decided: another broken Liberal promise.Can the government confirm that it plans to purchase the F-18 Super Hornet? What expert advice is it basing this decision on?
Mr. Speaker, we want to have a pension plan that will allow Canadians to live their retirement years with dignity. That is why we want to enhance our pension plan. I am working with the provinces in order to help Canadians retire with dignity.
Mr. Speaker, our commitment is to hear directly from Canadians. Our hope is that all 338 members in this House will advocate on behalf of their constituents and contribute constructively to the substance of electoral reform.I hope that the mood tomorrow, with the vote tomorrow, will allow us to move away from an unproductive partisan debate on process to the substance of electoral reform, and ensuring that all Canadians, including young people who are not yet old enough to vote, can be part of this important conversation.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with this government is that every time it opens its mouth, there is a big disconnect. As members will recall, they said they would make revenue-neutral tax changes. Instead, they have dug a $1.7-billion hole.Now, they are turning their attention to pensions. We are worried and we have every right to be worried.Can the government promise not to increase Canadians' CPP payroll taxes?
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian expects to have a direct say in the future of their democracy.In 2012, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.There is one thing Canadians support, and that is a referendum.Will the Prime Minister listen to his own minister and finally commit to holding a referendum?
Mr. Speaker, much like other times, we keep hearing about the interest of political parties and of politicians.The discussion on changing our most basic democratic institution is not about political parties nor about the interest of politicians. It is about the Canadian people.It should be about making sure that each and every Canadian voice has an opportunity to have a direct say through a referendum. Will the Liberals hold one, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote a policy paper on electoral reform in which he said, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support. There is one thing that does have popular support of Canadians right now, and that is if our voting system is changed, Canadians want a say. If the Prime Minister will not listen to Canadians on this, will he at least listen to his minister and give Canadians a referendum?
Mr. Speaker, I think the minister does not need to patronize us. The fact is that this is not up for politicians to decide; it is up to Canadians.We keep asking these questions because her answers make no sense. One hundred per cent of Canadian voters deserve to have a direct say in how they will elect their governments. What is so hard to understand?My question, once again, is, will the minister finally listen to Canadians and agree to hold a referendum on how they vote?
Mr. Speaker, our government's commitment to building the Gordie Howe international bridge is unwavering.Nearly 30% of the surface trade, as the hon. member has mentioned, crosses at this very important crossing. It is very critical for us to continue to grow our trade with the United States. The first step of the process, where we listed all the companies to build this bridge, has already happened. We are on the next stage
Mr. Speaker, the previous government showed no interest in science and innovation, but, since taking office, our government has put them back on the map. That is one of the important measures taken by this government.It is by investing in leading-edge sectors that Canada will continue to progress and secure its future. Without a doubt, clean energy is one of those sectors.Will the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House of the new Canadian strategy in that regard?
Mr. Speaker, we certainly have a comprehensive plan to provide language training, because we understand that success in English or French is key to finding a job and key to success in Canada. That is why the government has funded $600 million for settlement in 2016-17. That is $27 million extra for the new refugees, and language is very much at the top of our priorities.
Mr. Speaker, it appears that we have found common ground.The one thing that we can all agree on in this House is that is crucial to the success of us being able to modernize our electoral system is first hearing from Canadians. That is why we committed to bringing forward an all-parliamentary committee to hear from Canadians, to act as a forum to hear their thoughts and aspirations for their electoral reform.I am really looking forward to this vote tomorrow and unanimous support from all members.
Mr. Speaker, we recognize not just the link between land degradation and climate change, but also the risks that desertification poses to realizing sustainable development goals. We are coordinating with our international partners to implement the 2030 agenda and its ambitious objectives to eradicate poverty, fight inequality and injustice, and tackle climate change. We recognize the important work done by the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and look forward to updating the House soon, possibly on June 17 itself.
Mr. Speaker, the medical assistance in dying bill is historic. The government should have done the right thing.That is exactly what it did not do. Knowing the timeline was tight, it nevertheless waited until April to introduce its bill. It refused to listen to the experts.Today, Peter Hogg, one of Canada's most respected constitutional experts, once again said that Bill C-14 would not pass the test in terms of the charter or the Carter decision.When will the Liberals change course and do the right thing?
Mr. Speaker, since the price of lumber from Quebec's public forests is set at an auction, it is higher, and our companies are only competitive when a free trade agreement exists. Under the softwood lumber agreement, Quebec has lost some major sales to British Columbia. Quebec can push for free trade all it wants, but it does not yet have status as a country. The federal government is negotiating on our behalf, but the government has been refusing to answer our questions for six months.If Ottawa accepts a protectionist agreement, will it exempt Quebec so that NAFTA applies to us?
Mr. Speaker, we are incredibly mindful of the deadline of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is incumbent upon parliamentarians to put in place a national framework around our medical assistance in dying to ensure that there are the appropriate and necessary safeguards in place, to ensure certainty for medical practitioners, and to ensure that there is access for patients who want to access medical assistance in dying. This is an incredibly complex discussion. We have certainly listened to the voices of Canadians, and it is the voices of Canadians who have contributed toward Bill C-14.
Mr. Speaker, when we were elected, we promised to help middle-class families and grow the economy. An important way to achieve this objective is to ensure that young Canadians are able to find work and get the experience required in the job market. We remember how the previous government spent more time putting up billboards than creating jobs for young Canadians.Could the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour inform the House of the success of the Canada summer jobs program?
Mr. Speaker, from helicopters to submarines, and now fighter jets, the legacy of the Liberals is to buy old and make do.The Liberals have made up their minds to buy the Super Hornet and now are working on the right narrative to support it.Let us be perfectly clear. The Liberals are only sole-sourcing the Super Hornets to fulfill an ill-advised political campaign promise. Simply put, the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a lot better.Will the Prime Minister admit that he broke his promise for an open and fair competition to replace our fighter jets?
Mr. Speaker, apparently the members opposite have not yet understood that we have an engaged caucus and that its members have many views and visions. For too long they have followed only one path and held only one view.We, the members of the Liberal Party, listen to Canadians, discuss our different perspectives, and, together, build the best approach for Canadians in a consultative and collaborative manner.I know this is unheard of for them, but that is how we operate.
Mr. Speaker, let us continue playing who is telling the truth? Fourth, the member for Mount Royal said that the referendum is a tool we could use.Fifth, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons first rejected holding a referendum, then indicated that he was open to it. Sixth, the Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote in a policy paper that "precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.When will the Prime Minister listen to the members of his own caucus and ensure that a referendum is held so that all Canadians can express their views?
Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.If that minister actually believes his own words, will he try to convince the Prime Minister that Canadians deserve a direct say, through a vote in a referendum, on any changes to how they vote?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for his question. When I was in San Francisco last week, I announced that Canada would double its funding for clean energy to $775 million by 2020. With these investments, our government is taking a strong leadership role on climate change.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will not even use our fighter jets to defeat and degrade ISIS, and the Liberal suggestion that our fighter jets are literally on their last legs is patently false. We know that our fighter jets can operate effectively until 2025, and there is no urgency to replace them on an interim basis. The Liberals do not need to sole source the Super Hornet to transition from the CF-18 to avoid their imaginary capability gap. Why are the Liberals misleading Canadians and breaking their promise for a fair and transparent competition?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and his important work in support of Canadian entrepreneurship.The 2016 budget shows how committed we are to promoting Canadian innovation. We are investing about $4.5 billion as a down payment to start the innovation agenda, with investments in initiatives such as strengthening business clusters, building post-secondary infrastructure, and extending broadband service. This is an agenda for change. It will address the economic challenges, grow our businesses and help us take the next steps toward growing a more innovative economy.
Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes that this is a big step in the history of our country, and making sure that we do that in a responsible and thoughtful way, that both upholds Canadians' rights and freedoms while defending the most vulnerable, is exactly what we have done with this piece of legislation.On top of that, we made sure that we heard from Canadians and experts and we allowed and encouraged a free vote in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, it is disappointing that the NDP did not allow themselves a free vote on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, as part of the debates on Bill C-14, we listened to many politicians from all the different parties share their views.However, we did more than that. We listened to doctors and Canadians. We consulted the public at large, across the country, to ensure that this important and transformative measure regarding medical assistance in dying would be properly designed to uphold Canadians' rights and freedoms while protecting the most vulnerable. That is the balance we have struck, and we are proud of it.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that my hon. colleague just demonstrated how engaged we are on this issue and how open we are to perspectives of all kinds in that regard. Unlike the Conservative way of doing things, where only one person's opinion mattered in any discussion or proposal, many people in our party are involved in examining important issues. We look forward to hearing what Canadians have to say regarding our electoral system.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite that we are trying to enhance the Canada pension plan. That is a plan where Canadians can save. It is a plan where we can invest money so people can have a retirement in dignity. We know that working together with the provinces, we can achieve a real difference for Canadians, helping them to have a retirement in dignity and to save appropriately for that. We are committed to doing that in collaboration with our finance ministers in our provinces.
Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes how important the forestry industry is to Quebec and Canada. We are negotiating with our American counterparts. This morning, the minister met with industry representatives in Montreal. We are working very closely with the industry, the Government of Quebec, and other governments across the country. We are working together to ensure that we get an agreement that is good for Canada.
That they got neutral, Mr. Speaker. Those jobs are for half as long.The leaders' declaration from the G7 in Japan is a clear commitment to regional trade agreements like the TPP. Yet the Prime Minister seems more inclined to push for an early deal with China. While that is a very important market for us, the Prime Minister has also said, It is important that people know that when they sign a deal with Canada...a change in government isn't going to lead to that contract being ripped up. Since he supported the leaders' declaration, why will the Prime Minister not prioritize the TPP before holding trade talks with China?
Mr. Speaker, we are consulting with dairy farmers across Canada on the trans-Pacific partnership. We have not yet taken a position, but once we do so, we will be sure to consult and provide compensation as necessary.
Mr. Speaker, we have said from the very beginning that we will not move forward on any reform to our electoral system without the broad support of Canadians.This means it is vitally important for the special all-party committee to begin its work of hearing from Canadians first-hand what their needs are and what values they would like to see reflected in their electoral system. I look forward to support from all members in this House when this vote is up for discussion tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, increased trade relationships with China are in the minister's mandate letter, but we are not in negotiations for a trade agreement right now. We will take a cautious step-by-step approach.As regards the TPP, we promised during the election, because it was a deal that we had not yet seen, that we would study it carefully. We are continuing to do that. We are doing our own studies, we are taking in studies, and the committee is studying. We will come to a position on that when the time is right.
Mr. Speaker, again, the department was not in charge at that time. As the opposition critic, we consulted broadly through that time. We know exactly what first nations feel about transparency. Accountability is very important to everyone. We have to do it their way, not the way the Conservatives did it.
Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an example of the reforms that the Liberal Party made to the Senate over the past years removing partisanship and patronage from that place, there is no better example than the NDP highlighting the great work that the Senate is doing weighing in on an important piece of legislation.I thank the hon. member for her comments about the excellent work done by the independent voices in the Senate, and I look forward to hearing what the Senate has to say about Bill C-14 when it returns to us.
Mr. Speaker, in the last election, Canadians overwhelmingly voted for parties that had committed to moving beyond first past the post, which is why in our committee we are happy to reflect a broad range of voices from Canadians and are glad to work with opposition parties to ensure there are strong voices heard on all sides of the issue. That is the kind of consultations and engagement that Canadians expect to hear and see when we talk about electoral reform. That is exactly the kind of engagement the previous government did none of.
Mr. Speaker, I want to report to the House that this government understands the importance of meaningful work in a summer job. That is why we promised to double the number of jobs this summer. In fact, we have more than doubled them. I am proud to say that every hon. member in the House worked hard. We not only doubled, but we increased the number of jobs to 77,000 jobs this summer. It is because of the commitment of the minister for youth that we were able to keep the promise and focus on what was important, young
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister misled the House during question period when he said that the NDP had a whipped vote on Bill C-14. He knows that is not the case. He knows on this side of the House, it was a free vote.However, the NDP caucus is united in its determination that Bill C-14, as it is, is
Mr. Speaker, last week, thousands of dairy farmers came to Ottawa to speak out against the government's inability to protect them on the diafiltered milk issue.Farmers have lost millions of dollars because the government did not enforce its own regulations. Now, the government is trying to convince us that opening our markets through the trans-Pacific partnership is going to be a good thing.Does the government take us for fools? How are farmers supposed to feel reassured about the trans-Pacific partnership when the government is not even capable of enforcing its own import regulations?
Mr. Speaker, we have sought to ensure that we hear from a diversity of voices in this country with respect to this incredibly difficult and complex issue. To paraphrase the Supreme Court of Canada, the court does not have a monopoly on the protection and promotion of rights, and Parliament has to do its job to be an ally to the vulnerable.We have sought to find a balance between the diversity of views and perspectives in this country, balancing personal autonomy and protecting the vulnerable.
Mr. Speaker, as members know, we inherited a procurement system that by many measurements was a broken procurement system. Accordingly, the minister has had to take serious decisionsall ministers, in fact, have had to take serious decisionswith respect to getting the equipment the hon. member and I would agree is the equipment that needs to replace the CF-18. Accordingly, we are proceeding with the decision process, and hopefully we will have a decision soon.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal approach to electoral reform is a bit strange.They believe that the current system makes it difficult for people to vote, yet record numbers of Canadians voted in 2015. In the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown accord, nearly 75% of eligible Canadians voted. Three-quarters of Canadians are demanding to have their say again. Will the Liberals hold a referendum on fundamental changes to how Canadians vote?
Mr. Speaker, from day one, the Liberals have shown a complete lack of interest in the needs of small businesses. After ending the small business hiring credit, they broke their promise to lower the small business tax rate. The chamber of commerce says businesses are worried about a big CPP tax increase, which it says is headed for the middle class like an elbow to the chest.Why is the finance minister so intent on squeezing every penny he can out of middle-class businesses and workers?
Mr. Speaker, have you ever played a game called who is telling the truth? Let us play it now.First of all, the Prime Minister said that the 2015 election would be the last one under the current voting system.Second, his principal secretary said on Twitter, which seems to be the preferred network of the Minister of Democratic Institutions, that a referendum would be one option to consider.Third, the minister herself said that if she did not have public support, she would not go ahead with the reform.Who is telling the truth? Three-quarters of Canadians want a referendum. Will the Prime Minister listen to them?
Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is about the law, but it is, above all, about people.The Carter family fought for years alongside their mother to make it possible for people to die with dignity in Canada. Today, they are saying that they feel betrayed by the Liberal government. The government says that it listens to Canadians, but it listens only to those who agree with it.Now that the government has failed to get its bill passed by June 6, will it come up with a bill that is charter-compliant and in line with the Carter decision?
Mr. Speaker, as I said in an earlier response to a question, the unfortunate reality is that we have lost five years on this particular procurement. As a consequence, we are now approaching a situation where we have a capability gap. If we are going to manage the capability gap, we need to move to the point of making a decision. Unlike the previous government, we will be making a decision.
Mr. Speaker, we are focused on ensuring that Canadians have the opportunity to retire in dignity. We started down this path immediately on getting elected. We told Canadians this is something we wanted to do. We moved forward with improving the guaranteed income supplement for seniors in poverty. We changed the OAS system so that we can help seniors retire when they can. We are working collaboratively with the provinces to enhance our Canada pension plan, which is an investment in the future of Canadians, allowing Canadians to retire in dignity.
Mr. Speaker, June 17 will be the world day to combat desertification. This is an area where Canada was once extremely helpful. We even hosted the fifth meeting of the treaty to combat desertification, having ratified it in 1995. It is a key instrument, not just for developing countries but for dealing with increasing drought within Canada. Shamefully, the previous government withdrew us in 2013. I want to know when Canada will be back. Could the Prime Minister tell us specifically if Canada can rejoin the convention?
Mr. Speaker, there are two erroneous things in the member's comments. First, of course I was not silent regarding human rights groups, including in the press conference. The obligation to hurt my--
Mr. Speaker, getting a question from the Conservative Party, having manufactured, in effect, this capability gap, is ironic in the extreme. We are, therefore, in a position where we are going to have to make serious decisions about the replacement for the CF-18. We cannot any longer carry on in the fashion we have been carrying on. Had these decisions actually been addressed and done in the last three or four or five years, we would not be here talking about this matter today.
Mr. Speaker, it is not just Quebec that is protesting. Peter Hogg, Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, today testified that Bill C-14 fails to respect the Carter decision and will undoubtedly be struck down as soon as it gets to court. He said that the government cannot turn around and exclude a group of people that the Supreme Court clearly ruled have these charter rights.It is never too late for the government to do the right thing. Will the Liberals finally respect the charter and announce that they are willing to fix the bill?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' stubborn refusal to listen to experts and work with the opposition will mean suffering Canadians spending years in court defending rights that they have already won.Kay Carter's family is also disillusioned with the current government. They said today that they felt betrayed. Today they called out the Prime Minister for his refusal to listen to Canadians. If the Liberals really disagree with the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Ontario court, and Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, will they at least now table the government's legal opinion on the bill, so that Canadians can judge for themselves?
Mr. Speaker, they have been in power for seven months now, and replacing our CF-18s did not seem to be on their radar, and yet, we have known for years that they need to be replaced. I hardly need to point out that replacing any military equipment requires planning. It is not like going shopping at Toys R Us. These kinds of purchases are not made on a whim. What our soldiers need is the right equipment for the job. When will the government put in place a transparent process to replace the CF-18s?
You were at the press conference.
Mr. Speaker, we actually need to grow the relationship between Canada and the sixth of humanity, China, which was so damaged by the former government. This is why we need to make progress in every aspect, including human rights, including the rule of law. It is what I said very clearly in the meetings with the minister of foreign affairs of China. It is what I said during the conference he just mentioned. It is what I said also in my subsequent relationship with the minister. We will continue to improve our relationship with China and to advocate the case for human rights everywhere in the world, including in China.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to the inaction of the previous government, we are developing a capability gap, and that capability gap needs to be managed. So four years out, five years out, 10 years out, the chief of defence needs to be thinking about how to manage that capability gap. Accordingly, the minister has taken the responsible action, and he is moving forward with making a decision sooner rather than later, which should have happened maybe five years ago now.
Mr. Speaker, by any realistic measure, last week's visit by China's foreign minister did not go so well. Again, the Prime Minister broke with protocol and caved in to Minister Wang's demand for a meeting. Then Canada's minister stood silent while the Chinese minister angrily scolded a Canadian journalist. When will the Liberals stand up to China and demand meaningful answers on China's human rights transgressions?
Mr. Speaker, the current fleet of CF-18s has been refurbished to last until 2025, which is enough time to transition to the next fighter jet. The urgency the Liberals are describing seems to have been invented specifically to give the Prime Minister an excuse not to purchase the F-35.If the government goes ahead with this decision, is the minister aware of the risk of legal action and the negative repercussions this will have on the Canadian businesses that manufacture the F-35?
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the minister told the CBC, if an overwhelming majority of Canadians tell us that they want system X, we will...listen to what they've said...One logical implication of the minister's words is that if the Liberal proposal for electoral reform is supported by an underwhelming minority of Canadians, say under 50% in a national referendum, then it ought not to be imposed on the nation for election 2019.Either the minister's words mean she favours a referendum, or they mean nothing at all and are meant to simply misdirect us. Which of the two is correct?
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Liberals will cave in to Chinese belligerence at the drop of a proverbial hat. Last week, at the insistence of the Chinese government, the Prime Minister bowed to demands to meet not with the president but with the foreign minister, who then took time out of his busy schedule to berate a Canadian journalist while our foreign minister kept as quiet as a church mouse. When will the Liberals grow a backbone and ensure that Canadian foreign policy is actually run by Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, it will probably hurt my modesty, but I need to quote myself. I said in the press conference, In our international engagement Canada will continue to champion the values of pluralism, democracy, inclusive and accountable governance and respect for diversity and universal human rights.About the practice of our foreign affairs ministers meeting leaders of the world, I meet leaders of the world everywhere in the world. The Prime Minister will certainly be willing to meet--
Mr. Speaker, our government is entering electoral reform with an open mind.As the member opposite well knows, the amended motion that the NDP put on the table late last week allows for the committee to investigate ways of determining how to engage the broad support of Canadians. This is an important addition that we added to the motion to address the hon. colleagues' concerns, and look forward to unanimous support of the House on this matter tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation involving the former Mirabel airport lands. The main objective of the sale, enabling tenant farmers to buy the lands they were leasing, was achieved. Approximately 750 acres, or 7% of the former airport lands, has not yet been sold. In the coming weeks, the government will proceed with the sale of the remaining Mirabel lands. Parcels will be offered in accordance with the policy on management of real property.
Mr. Speaker, an issue as broad and complex as changing our voting system calls for engaged consultations and for multiple voices to be heard, including those of experts from the different parties and Canadians who are concerned about how we are going to go about improving our electoral system.This process is more complex than the yes or no of a referendum. This is about allowing people to express their opinion on the values behind our electoral system and good governance in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, the Liberals said that they would not purchase the F-35, but right after being elected, they said maybe yes, maybe no. Now it looks like they may have already decided on another fighter jet, but still without the promised open and transparent competition. In fact, it looks like the Liberal government is running procurement as an inside job, just like the Conservatives. Why have they abandoned an open tender process to replace our aging CF-18s, and when will they put in place a procurement system that can actually deliver the equipment our military needs?
Mr. Speaker, people in Windsor have fought for a long time for a new border crossing with the United States. Manufacturers, farmers, and those in other key sectors are left wondering whether the government will deliver the Gordie Howe international bridge border crossing on time. This means jobs and investment for Canada as this region accounts for 40% of the daily trade between Canada and the United States.My question is for the Prime Minister. His government has already missed two important deadlines for this crucial infrastructure. Could the Prime Minister confirm today that his government is on track to make this crossing happen by 2020? This is his opportunity to reassure the citizens and industries from manufacturing
Mr. Speaker, the government had the chance to do things differently with Bill C-14, but it decided to ignore experts, not to work with the opposition, and to limit debate.Warnings were coming in from all over. Quebec's health and social services minister called Bill C-14 unenforceable. He thinks that the notion of reasonably foreseeable death is medically unfeasible and he refuses to include it in Quebec's law.Will the government finally realize that Bill C-14 must be amended?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know, being in the NDP, that for the last five, six, seven, eight years, the CF-18 decision had been pending and pending and continued to be pending. Had the previous government actually done something more than get in and out of photo ops, possibly we would not actually be talking about this at this point.
Mr. Speaker, last week the Toronto Star said, If the Liberal government truly wants broad buy-in from Canadians on electoral reform, it should hold a referendum and let people vote. It said that a referendum is the only way to guarantee that electoral reform has democratic legitimacy.Therefore, I ask the minister again, and particularly given her earlier words on Friday, does she support a national referendum, or was she just saying all that stuff as a way of misdirecting us?
Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to a well-equipped and modern air force. Unfortunately, the last five years have been a bit of a loss. As a consequence, there is a developing capability gap which needs to be managed. We have obligations to NATO, we have obligations to NORAD, we have obligations to our own defence and to expeditionary matters.Accordingly, we are proceeding forward on this matter, and we will be moving toward a decision soon.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say that they will abandon their plans to change our voting system if they do not have widespread public support. Yet they refuse to commit to the most transparent and accessible way of gauging that public support, which is a referendum.Does the Prime Minister think making such a significant change should be behind closed doors by a handful of Liberal cabinet ministers, or will he finally commit to giving Canadians a direct say in the future of their democracy?
Mr. Speaker, nearly 50 years ago, thousands of people were kicked out of their homes by the federal government so that it could build the Mirabel airport. It was a colonialist fiasco of historic proportions. Today, the residents of Mirabel whose land was expropriated and their descendants want their land back, but the government is putting it up for sale. The government turned these people's lives upside down and left them a heap of ruins. Now it needs to take them into account. Will the Prime Minister promise to give the original property owners and their descendants right of first refusal in the sale of the expropriated Mirabel lands, and will he offer them an official apology?
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said in this place on Thursday and so many other times before, that there is at least a three-step process for us to undertake.The first step is to establish the committee and have it go out and hear from Canadians. The second step is for us to come up with a plan and debate that plan in this House. The third step is where my hon. colleague is at, which is determining whether or not the recommended reforms have the broad buy-in of Canadians.Let us get on with the first step.
Mr. Speaker, the former government did not consult Canadians or experts or Elections Canada on the changes they brought forward through the Fair Elections Act. I totally understand why bringing a committee forward to hear from Canadians is a strange concept to them. We have entered this process with an open mind and look forward to getting down to the work of hearing from Canadians and moving away from a hyperpartisan debate on process.
Mr. Speaker, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act gave band members for the first time ever access to critical information such as salaries and expenses of their leaders and audited financial statements. On Friday, the minister admitted to Canadians that no formal consultations were held before gutting the act.Does the minister not believe that band members should have input into a decision that affects them so directly?
Mr. Speaker, soon Syrian refugees will see their one year of government-funded support terminate. Moreover, many of these refugees cannot access training to learn English or French. A refugee at committee last week said, through a translator, No, I am not working. How can I work if I don't know the English to communicate? His family has already had to turn to food banks to make ends meet.When will the Liberals admit that by failing to have any comprehensive plan to provide Syrian refugees with language training, these refugees may require social assistance after their year of funding runs out?
Mr. Speaker, Senate Liberal leader James Cowan has now joined the growing number of Canadians saying that Bill C-14 is likely unconstitutional. Cowan said that this government legislation is so flawed that Canadians would be better off with no legislation at all. This bill does not respect the Supreme Court's decision, and it will be tied up in courts for years. Instead of ramming through Bill C-14, will the government listen to James Cowan and work on getting the bill right the first time?
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians expect of this government is to make sure that we are both defending the rights and freedoms of Canadians while protecting the most vulnerable, and that is exactly the balance that we have struck with Bill C-14. Throughout we have been open to amendments, including accepting amendments from opposition members. We look forward to hearing the deliberations that the Senate is carrying forward on this same piece of legislation. We are ensuring that this big step that Canada is taking, despite people who think it goes too far and others who think it does not go far enough, is done the right way.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, the previous government changed our electoral processes as a way of barring, unfortunately, many people from being able to vote, or trying to. Canadians made themselves heard in the general election, rejecting not just the platform the other party put forward, but its entire approach, which is why we favour an approach that is engaged, open, consultative, drawing in multiple voices with different ideas about how to improve our electoral system. We look forward to a strong and robust process.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian content and support for creators of content are a priority for our government.For years, our approach during trade talks has always been to maintain our capacity and to support cultural and creative industries. That remains unchanged today, especially during our talks on the TPP.We also want to seize the opportunities offered through our various trade talks. That is why our government is determined to listen to Canadians on the issue and that is why the Minister of International Trade is
Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard through our funding to provide language training to men, to women, and to children. We also understand that many of the Syrian refugee mothers have significant numbers of children to look after, and therefore they need child care facilities to help them with the language training. We understand there is more work to do in that area, but we are working very hard through the settlement agencies to provide that funding to support language training for everybody.
Mr. Speaker, hard-working Canadians cannot afford to pay more taxes. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that no business can afford higher payroll taxes either, but the finance minister is again putting Canadian jobs at risk. The Liberals have already backed off on their election promise to lower the small business tax rate. Now they are going to raise payroll taxes.Why is the finance minister killing the backbone of the Canadian economy with irresponsible CPP payroll tax hikes?
Mr. Speaker, this refugee at committee begged to differ. He said, when asked about his wife's chances to learn English, Her situation is worse than mine. I try my best to learn English on the streets, through my friends, or through some acquaintances. She doesn't have that chance because she mainly stays at home with the kids. Will the Liberals admit that their lack of a plan to provide language training to Syrian refugees is creating gender inequity and isolating these women, or will they continue to treat these women simply as photo ops?
Mr. Speaker, headquartered in my riding of Don Valley East, Thales Canada is a global leader in the development of high technologies in aerospace, urban transportation, security, and urban science. In addition, Thales Canada is a leader in the promotion of gender diversity and equality in the workplace.Can the minister tell the House how the government can ensure that Canada continues to support innovative companies like Thales Canada?
Mr. Speaker, the trans-Pacific partnership also raises concerns for cultural industries. The TPP explicitly prevents the government from developing policies to support Canadian content on digital platforms. On one hand, we have a Minister of Canadian Heritage holding consultations on digital media, and on the other hand we have her government signing a treaty that will limit its own capacity to intervene online.Despite all her fine words, the minister's hands will be tied. However, she promised to protect our cultural diversity in these trade agreements.How will the minister defend such an absurdity to our cultural industries?
Mr. Speaker, senior officials have confirmed that the Liberal government has already decided to purchase F-18 Super Hornets. Before making the announcement, the Liberals just have to finalize the narrative to justify this purchase. Although they promised to hold an open, transparent competition, the result has already been decided: another broken Liberal promise.Can the government confirm that it plans to purchase the F-18 Super Hornet? What expert advice is it basing this decision on?
Mr. Speaker, we want to have a pension plan that will allow Canadians to live their retirement years with dignity. That is why we want to enhance our pension plan. I am working with the provinces in order to help Canadians retire with dignity.
Mr. Speaker, our commitment is to hear directly from Canadians. Our hope is that all 338 members in this House will advocate on behalf of their constituents and contribute constructively to the substance of electoral reform.I hope that the mood tomorrow, with the vote tomorrow, will allow us to move away from an unproductive partisan debate on process to the substance of electoral reform, and ensuring that all Canadians, including young people who are not yet old enough to vote, can be part of this important conversation.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with this government is that every time it opens its mouth, there is a big disconnect. As members will recall, they said they would make revenue-neutral tax changes. Instead, they have dug a $1.7-billion hole.Now, they are turning their attention to pensions. We are worried and we have every right to be worried.Can the government promise not to increase Canadians' CPP payroll taxes?
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian expects to have a direct say in the future of their democracy.In 2012, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.There is one thing Canadians support, and that is a referendum.Will the Prime Minister listen to his own minister and finally commit to holding a referendum?
Mr. Speaker, much like other times, we keep hearing about the interest of political parties and of politicians.The discussion on changing our most basic democratic institution is not about political parties nor about the interest of politicians. It is about the Canadian people.It should be about making sure that each and every Canadian voice has an opportunity to have a direct say through a referendum. Will the Liberals hold one, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote a policy paper on electoral reform in which he said, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support. There is one thing that does have popular support of Canadians right now, and that is if our voting system is changed, Canadians want a say. If the Prime Minister will not listen to Canadians on this, will he at least listen to his minister and give Canadians a referendum?
Mr. Speaker, I think the minister does not need to patronize us. The fact is that this is not up for politicians to decide; it is up to Canadians.We keep asking these questions because her answers make no sense. One hundred per cent of Canadian voters deserve to have a direct say in how they will elect their governments. What is so hard to understand?My question, once again, is, will the minister finally listen to Canadians and agree to hold a referendum on how they vote?
Mr. Speaker, our government's commitment to building the Gordie Howe international bridge is unwavering.Nearly 30% of the surface trade, as the hon. member has mentioned, crosses at this very important crossing. It is very critical for us to continue to grow our trade with the United States. The first step of the process, where we listed all the companies to build this bridge, has already happened. We are on the next stage
Mr. Speaker, the previous government showed no interest in science and innovation, but, since taking office, our government has put them back on the map. That is one of the important measures taken by this government.It is by investing in leading-edge sectors that Canada will continue to progress and secure its future. Without a doubt, clean energy is one of those sectors.Will the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House of the new Canadian strategy in that regard?
Mr. Speaker, we certainly have a comprehensive plan to provide language training, because we understand that success in English or French is key to finding a job and key to success in Canada. That is why the government has funded $600 million for settlement in 2016-17. That is $27 million extra for the new refugees, and language is very much at the top of our priorities.
Mr. Speaker, it appears that we have found common ground.The one thing that we can all agree on in this House is that is crucial to the success of us being able to modernize our electoral system is first hearing from Canadians. That is why we committed to bringing forward an all-parliamentary committee to hear from Canadians, to act as a forum to hear their thoughts and aspirations for their electoral reform.I am really looking forward to this vote tomorrow and unanimous support from all members.
Mr. Speaker, we recognize not just the link between land degradation and climate change, but also the risks that desertification poses to realizing sustainable development goals. We are coordinating with our international partners to implement the 2030 agenda and its ambitious objectives to eradicate poverty, fight inequality and injustice, and tackle climate change. We recognize the important work done by the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and look forward to updating the House soon, possibly on June 17 itself.
Mr. Speaker, the medical assistance in dying bill is historic. The government should have done the right thing.That is exactly what it did not do. Knowing the timeline was tight, it nevertheless waited until April to introduce its bill. It refused to listen to the experts.Today, Peter Hogg, one of Canada's most respected constitutional experts, once again said that Bill C-14 would not pass the test in terms of the charter or the Carter decision.When will the Liberals change course and do the right thing?
Mr. Speaker, since the price of lumber from Quebec's public forests is set at an auction, it is higher, and our companies are only competitive when a free trade agreement exists. Under the softwood lumber agreement, Quebec has lost some major sales to British Columbia. Quebec can push for free trade all it wants, but it does not yet have status as a country. The federal government is negotiating on our behalf, but the government has been refusing to answer our questions for six months.If Ottawa accepts a protectionist agreement, will it exempt Quebec so that NAFTA applies to us?
Mr. Speaker, we are incredibly mindful of the deadline of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is incumbent upon parliamentarians to put in place a national framework around our medical assistance in dying to ensure that there are the appropriate and necessary safeguards in place, to ensure certainty for medical practitioners, and to ensure that there is access for patients who want to access medical assistance in dying. This is an incredibly complex discussion. We have certainly listened to the voices of Canadians, and it is the voices of Canadians who have contributed toward Bill C-14.
Mr. Speaker, when we were elected, we promised to help middle-class families and grow the economy. An important way to achieve this objective is to ensure that young Canadians are able to find work and get the experience required in the job market. We remember how the previous government spent more time putting up billboards than creating jobs for young Canadians.Could the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour inform the House of the success of the Canada summer jobs program?
Mr. Speaker, from helicopters to submarines, and now fighter jets, the legacy of the Liberals is to buy old and make do.The Liberals have made up their minds to buy the Super Hornet and now are working on the right narrative to support it.Let us be perfectly clear. The Liberals are only sole-sourcing the Super Hornets to fulfill an ill-advised political campaign promise. Simply put, the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a lot better.Will the Prime Minister admit that he broke his promise for an open and fair competition to replace our fighter jets?
Mr. Speaker, apparently the members opposite have not yet understood that we have an engaged caucus and that its members have many views and visions. For too long they have followed only one path and held only one view.We, the members of the Liberal Party, listen to Canadians, discuss our different perspectives, and, together, build the best approach for Canadians in a consultative and collaborative manner.I know this is unheard of for them, but that is how we operate.
Mr. Speaker, let us continue playing who is telling the truth? Fourth, the member for Mount Royal said that the referendum is a tool we could use.Fifth, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons first rejected holding a referendum, then indicated that he was open to it. Sixth, the Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote in a policy paper that "precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.When will the Prime Minister listen to the members of his own caucus and ensure that a referendum is held so that all Canadians can express their views?
Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.If that minister actually believes his own words, will he try to convince the Prime Minister that Canadians deserve a direct say, through a vote in a referendum, on any changes to how they vote?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for his question. When I was in San Francisco last week, I announced that Canada would double its funding for clean energy to $775 million by 2020. With these investments, our government is taking a strong leadership role on climate change.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will not even use our fighter jets to defeat and degrade ISIS, and the Liberal suggestion that our fighter jets are literally on their last legs is patently false. We know that our fighter jets can operate effectively until 2025, and there is no urgency to replace them on an interim basis. The Liberals do not need to sole source the Super Hornet to transition from the CF-18 to avoid their imaginary capability gap. Why are the Liberals misleading Canadians and breaking their promise for a fair and transparent competition?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and his important work in support of Canadian entrepreneurship.The 2016 budget shows how committed we are to promoting Canadian innovation. We are investing about $4.5 billion as a down payment to start the innovation agenda, with investments in initiatives such as strengthening business clusters, building post-secondary infrastructure, and extending broadband service. This is an agenda for change. It will address the economic challenges, grow our businesses and help us take the next steps toward growing a more innovative economy.
Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes that this is a big step in the history of our country, and making sure that we do that in a responsible and thoughtful way, that both upholds Canadians' rights and freedoms while defending the most vulnerable, is exactly what we have done with this piece of legislation.On top of that, we made sure that we heard from Canadians and experts and we allowed and encouraged a free vote in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, it is disappointing that the NDP did not allow themselves a free vote on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, as part of the debates on Bill C-14, we listened to many politicians from all the different parties share their views.However, we did more than that. We listened to doctors and Canadians. We consulted the public at large, across the country, to ensure that this important and transformative measure regarding medical assistance in dying would be properly designed to uphold Canadians' rights and freedoms while protecting the most vulnerable. That is the balance we have struck, and we are proud of it.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that my hon. colleague just demonstrated how engaged we are on this issue and how open we are to perspectives of all kinds in that regard. Unlike the Conservative way of doing things, where only one person's opinion mattered in any discussion or proposal, many people in our party are involved in examining important issues. We look forward to hearing what Canadians have to say regarding our electoral system.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite that we are trying to enhance the Canada pension plan. That is a plan where Canadians can save. It is a plan where we can invest money so people can have a retirement in dignity. We know that working together with the provinces, we can achieve a real difference for Canadians, helping them to have a retirement in dignity and to save appropriately for that. We are committed to doing that in collaboration with our finance ministers in our provinces.
Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes how important the forestry industry is to Quebec and Canada. We are negotiating with our American counterparts. This morning, the minister met with industry representatives in Montreal. We are working very closely with the industry, the Government of Quebec, and other governments across the country. We are working together to ensure that we get an agreement that is good for Canada.
That they got neutral, Mr. Speaker. Those jobs are for half as long.The leaders' declaration from the G7 in Japan is a clear commitment to regional trade agreements like the TPP. Yet the Prime Minister seems more inclined to push for an early deal with China. While that is a very important market for us, the Prime Minister has also said, It is important that people know that when they sign a deal with Canada...a change in government isn't going to lead to that contract being ripped up. Since he supported the leaders' declaration, why will the Prime Minister not prioritize the TPP before holding trade talks with China?
Mr. Speaker, we are consulting with dairy farmers across Canada on the trans-Pacific partnership. We have not yet taken a position, but once we do so, we will be sure to consult and provide compensation as necessary.
Mr. Speaker, we have said from the very beginning that we will not move forward on any reform to our electoral system without the broad support of Canadians.This means it is vitally important for the special all-party committee to begin its work of hearing from Canadians first-hand what their needs are and what values they would like to see reflected in their electoral system. I look forward to support from all members in this House when this vote is up for discussion tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, increased trade relationships with China are in the minister's mandate letter, but we are not in negotiations for a trade agreement right now. We will take a cautious step-by-step approach.As regards the TPP, we promised during the election, because it was a deal that we had not yet seen, that we would study it carefully. We are continuing to do that. We are doing our own studies, we are taking in studies, and the committee is studying. We will come to a position on that when the time is right.
Mr. Speaker, again, the department was not in charge at that time. As the opposition critic, we consulted broadly through that time. We know exactly what first nations feel about transparency. Accountability is very important to everyone. We have to do it their way, not the way the Conservatives did it.
Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an example of the reforms that the Liberal Party made to the Senate over the past years removing partisanship and patronage from that place, there is no better example than the NDP highlighting the great work that the Senate is doing weighing in on an important piece of legislation.I thank the hon. member for her comments about the excellent work done by the independent voices in the Senate, and I look forward to hearing what the Senate has to say about Bill C-14 when it returns to us.
Mr. Speaker, in the last election, Canadians overwhelmingly voted for parties that had committed to moving beyond first past the post, which is why in our committee we are happy to reflect a broad range of voices from Canadians and are glad to work with opposition parties to ensure there are strong voices heard on all sides of the issue. That is the kind of consultations and engagement that Canadians expect to hear and see when we talk about electoral reform. That is exactly the kind of engagement the previous government did none of.
Mr. Speaker, I want to report to the House that this government understands the importance of meaningful work in a summer job. That is why we promised to double the number of jobs this summer. In fact, we have more than doubled them. I am proud to say that every hon. member in the House worked hard. We not only doubled, but we increased the number of jobs to 77,000 jobs this summer. It is because of the commitment of the minister for youth that we were able to keep the promise and focus on what was important, young
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister misled the House during question period when he said that the NDP had a whipped vote on Bill C-14. He knows that is not the case. He knows on this side of the House, it was a free vote.However, the NDP caucus is united in its determination that Bill C-14, as it is, is
Mr. Speaker, last week, thousands of dairy farmers came to Ottawa to speak out against the government's inability to protect them on the diafiltered milk issue.Farmers have lost millions of dollars because the government did not enforce its own regulations. Now, the government is trying to convince us that opening our markets through the trans-Pacific partnership is going to be a good thing.Does the government take us for fools? How are farmers supposed to feel reassured about the trans-Pacific partnership when the government is not even capable of enforcing its own import regulations?
Most positive speeches
Mr. Speaker, last week, thousands of dairy farmers came to Ottawa to speak out against the government's inability to protect them on the diafiltered milk issue.Farmers have lost millions of dollars because the government did not enforce its own regulations. Now, the government is trying to convince us that opening our markets through the trans-Pacific partnership is going to be a good thing.Does the government take us for fools? How are farmers supposed to feel reassured about the trans-Pacific partnership when the government is not even capable of enforcing its own import regulations?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister misled the House during question period when he said that the NDP had a whipped vote on Bill C-14. He knows that is not the case. He knows on this side of the House, it was a free vote.However, the NDP caucus is united in its determination that Bill C-14, as it is, is
Mr. Speaker, I want to report to the House that this government understands the importance of meaningful work in a summer job. That is why we promised to double the number of jobs this summer. In fact, we have more than doubled them. I am proud to say that every hon. member in the House worked hard. We not only doubled, but we increased the number of jobs to 77,000 jobs this summer. It is because of the commitment of the minister for youth that we were able to keep the promise and focus on what was important, young
Mr. Speaker, in the last election, Canadians overwhelmingly voted for parties that had committed to moving beyond first past the post, which is why in our committee we are happy to reflect a broad range of voices from Canadians and are glad to work with opposition parties to ensure there are strong voices heard on all sides of the issue. That is the kind of consultations and engagement that Canadians expect to hear and see when we talk about electoral reform. That is exactly the kind of engagement the previous government did none of.
Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an example of the reforms that the Liberal Party made to the Senate over the past years removing partisanship and patronage from that place, there is no better example than the NDP highlighting the great work that the Senate is doing weighing in on an important piece of legislation.I thank the hon. member for her comments about the excellent work done by the independent voices in the Senate, and I look forward to hearing what the Senate has to say about Bill C-14 when it returns to us.
Mr. Speaker, again, the department was not in charge at that time. As the opposition critic, we consulted broadly through that time. We know exactly what first nations feel about transparency. Accountability is very important to everyone. We have to do it their way, not the way the Conservatives did it.
Mr. Speaker, increased trade relationships with China are in the minister's mandate letter, but we are not in negotiations for a trade agreement right now. We will take a cautious step-by-step approach.As regards the TPP, we promised during the election, because it was a deal that we had not yet seen, that we would study it carefully. We are continuing to do that. We are doing our own studies, we are taking in studies, and the committee is studying. We will come to a position on that when the time is right.
Mr. Speaker, we have said from the very beginning that we will not move forward on any reform to our electoral system without the broad support of Canadians.This means it is vitally important for the special all-party committee to begin its work of hearing from Canadians first-hand what their needs are and what values they would like to see reflected in their electoral system. I look forward to support from all members in this House when this vote is up for discussion tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, we are consulting with dairy farmers across Canada on the trans-Pacific partnership. We have not yet taken a position, but once we do so, we will be sure to consult and provide compensation as necessary.
That they got neutral, Mr. Speaker. Those jobs are for half as long.The leaders' declaration from the G7 in Japan is a clear commitment to regional trade agreements like the TPP. Yet the Prime Minister seems more inclined to push for an early deal with China. While that is a very important market for us, the Prime Minister has also said, It is important that people know that when they sign a deal with Canada...a change in government isn't going to lead to that contract being ripped up. Since he supported the leaders' declaration, why will the Prime Minister not prioritize the TPP before holding trade talks with China?
Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes how important the forestry industry is to Quebec and Canada. We are negotiating with our American counterparts. This morning, the minister met with industry representatives in Montreal. We are working very closely with the industry, the Government of Quebec, and other governments across the country. We are working together to ensure that we get an agreement that is good for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite that we are trying to enhance the Canada pension plan. That is a plan where Canadians can save. It is a plan where we can invest money so people can have a retirement in dignity. We know that working together with the provinces, we can achieve a real difference for Canadians, helping them to have a retirement in dignity and to save appropriately for that. We are committed to doing that in collaboration with our finance ministers in our provinces.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that my hon. colleague just demonstrated how engaged we are on this issue and how open we are to perspectives of all kinds in that regard. Unlike the Conservative way of doing things, where only one person's opinion mattered in any discussion or proposal, many people in our party are involved in examining important issues. We look forward to hearing what Canadians have to say regarding our electoral system.
Mr. Speaker, as part of the debates on Bill C-14, we listened to many politicians from all the different parties share their views.However, we did more than that. We listened to doctors and Canadians. We consulted the public at large, across the country, to ensure that this important and transformative measure regarding medical assistance in dying would be properly designed to uphold Canadians' rights and freedoms while protecting the most vulnerable. That is the balance we have struck, and we are proud of it.
Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes that this is a big step in the history of our country, and making sure that we do that in a responsible and thoughtful way, that both upholds Canadians' rights and freedoms while defending the most vulnerable, is exactly what we have done with this piece of legislation.On top of that, we made sure that we heard from Canadians and experts and we allowed and encouraged a free vote in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, it is disappointing that the NDP did not allow themselves a free vote on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and his important work in support of Canadian entrepreneurship.The 2016 budget shows how committed we are to promoting Canadian innovation. We are investing about $4.5 billion as a down payment to start the innovation agenda, with investments in initiatives such as strengthening business clusters, building post-secondary infrastructure, and extending broadband service. This is an agenda for change. It will address the economic challenges, grow our businesses and help us take the next steps toward growing a more innovative economy.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will not even use our fighter jets to defeat and degrade ISIS, and the Liberal suggestion that our fighter jets are literally on their last legs is patently false. We know that our fighter jets can operate effectively until 2025, and there is no urgency to replace them on an interim basis. The Liberals do not need to sole source the Super Hornet to transition from the CF-18 to avoid their imaginary capability gap. Why are the Liberals misleading Canadians and breaking their promise for a fair and transparent competition?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for his question. When I was in San Francisco last week, I announced that Canada would double its funding for clean energy to $775 million by 2020. With these investments, our government is taking a strong leadership role on climate change.
Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.If that minister actually believes his own words, will he try to convince the Prime Minister that Canadians deserve a direct say, through a vote in a referendum, on any changes to how they vote?
Mr. Speaker, let us continue playing who is telling the truth? Fourth, the member for Mount Royal said that the referendum is a tool we could use.Fifth, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons first rejected holding a referendum, then indicated that he was open to it. Sixth, the Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote in a policy paper that "precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.When will the Prime Minister listen to the members of his own caucus and ensure that a referendum is held so that all Canadians can express their views?
Mr. Speaker, apparently the members opposite have not yet understood that we have an engaged caucus and that its members have many views and visions. For too long they have followed only one path and held only one view.We, the members of the Liberal Party, listen to Canadians, discuss our different perspectives, and, together, build the best approach for Canadians in a consultative and collaborative manner.I know this is unheard of for them, but that is how we operate.
Mr. Speaker, from helicopters to submarines, and now fighter jets, the legacy of the Liberals is to buy old and make do.The Liberals have made up their minds to buy the Super Hornet and now are working on the right narrative to support it.Let us be perfectly clear. The Liberals are only sole-sourcing the Super Hornets to fulfill an ill-advised political campaign promise. Simply put, the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a lot better.Will the Prime Minister admit that he broke his promise for an open and fair competition to replace our fighter jets?
Mr. Speaker, when we were elected, we promised to help middle-class families and grow the economy. An important way to achieve this objective is to ensure that young Canadians are able to find work and get the experience required in the job market. We remember how the previous government spent more time putting up billboards than creating jobs for young Canadians.Could the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour inform the House of the success of the Canada summer jobs program?
Mr. Speaker, we are incredibly mindful of the deadline of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is incumbent upon parliamentarians to put in place a national framework around our medical assistance in dying to ensure that there are the appropriate and necessary safeguards in place, to ensure certainty for medical practitioners, and to ensure that there is access for patients who want to access medical assistance in dying. This is an incredibly complex discussion. We have certainly listened to the voices of Canadians, and it is the voices of Canadians who have contributed toward Bill C-14.
Mr. Speaker, since the price of lumber from Quebec's public forests is set at an auction, it is higher, and our companies are only competitive when a free trade agreement exists. Under the softwood lumber agreement, Quebec has lost some major sales to British Columbia. Quebec can push for free trade all it wants, but it does not yet have status as a country. The federal government is negotiating on our behalf, but the government has been refusing to answer our questions for six months.If Ottawa accepts a protectionist agreement, will it exempt Quebec so that NAFTA applies to us?
Mr. Speaker, the medical assistance in dying bill is historic. The government should have done the right thing.That is exactly what it did not do. Knowing the timeline was tight, it nevertheless waited until April to introduce its bill. It refused to listen to the experts.Today, Peter Hogg, one of Canada's most respected constitutional experts, once again said that Bill C-14 would not pass the test in terms of the charter or the Carter decision.When will the Liberals change course and do the right thing?
Mr. Speaker, we recognize not just the link between land degradation and climate change, but also the risks that desertification poses to realizing sustainable development goals. We are coordinating with our international partners to implement the 2030 agenda and its ambitious objectives to eradicate poverty, fight inequality and injustice, and tackle climate change. We recognize the important work done by the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and look forward to updating the House soon, possibly on June 17 itself.
Mr. Speaker, it appears that we have found common ground.The one thing that we can all agree on in this House is that is crucial to the success of us being able to modernize our electoral system is first hearing from Canadians. That is why we committed to bringing forward an all-parliamentary committee to hear from Canadians, to act as a forum to hear their thoughts and aspirations for their electoral reform.I am really looking forward to this vote tomorrow and unanimous support from all members.
Mr. Speaker, we certainly have a comprehensive plan to provide language training, because we understand that success in English or French is key to finding a job and key to success in Canada. That is why the government has funded $600 million for settlement in 2016-17. That is $27 million extra for the new refugees, and language is very much at the top of our priorities.
Mr. Speaker, the previous government showed no interest in science and innovation, but, since taking office, our government has put them back on the map. That is one of the important measures taken by this government.It is by investing in leading-edge sectors that Canada will continue to progress and secure its future. Without a doubt, clean energy is one of those sectors.Will the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House of the new Canadian strategy in that regard?
Mr. Speaker, our government's commitment to building the Gordie Howe international bridge is unwavering.Nearly 30% of the surface trade, as the hon. member has mentioned, crosses at this very important crossing. It is very critical for us to continue to grow our trade with the United States. The first step of the process, where we listed all the companies to build this bridge, has already happened. We are on the next stage
Mr. Speaker, I think the minister does not need to patronize us. The fact is that this is not up for politicians to decide; it is up to Canadians.We keep asking these questions because her answers make no sense. One hundred per cent of Canadian voters deserve to have a direct say in how they will elect their governments. What is so hard to understand?My question, once again, is, will the minister finally listen to Canadians and agree to hold a referendum on how they vote?
Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote a policy paper on electoral reform in which he said, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support. There is one thing that does have popular support of Canadians right now, and that is if our voting system is changed, Canadians want a say. If the Prime Minister will not listen to Canadians on this, will he at least listen to his minister and give Canadians a referendum?
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian expects to have a direct say in the future of their democracy.In 2012, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.There is one thing Canadians support, and that is a referendum.Will the Prime Minister listen to his own minister and finally commit to holding a referendum?
Mr. Speaker, much like other times, we keep hearing about the interest of political parties and of politicians.The discussion on changing our most basic democratic institution is not about political parties nor about the interest of politicians. It is about the Canadian people.It should be about making sure that each and every Canadian voice has an opportunity to have a direct say through a referendum. Will the Liberals hold one, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the problem with this government is that every time it opens its mouth, there is a big disconnect. As members will recall, they said they would make revenue-neutral tax changes. Instead, they have dug a $1.7-billion hole.Now, they are turning their attention to pensions. We are worried and we have every right to be worried.Can the government promise not to increase Canadians' CPP payroll taxes?
Mr. Speaker, our commitment is to hear directly from Canadians. Our hope is that all 338 members in this House will advocate on behalf of their constituents and contribute constructively to the substance of electoral reform.I hope that the mood tomorrow, with the vote tomorrow, will allow us to move away from an unproductive partisan debate on process to the substance of electoral reform, and ensuring that all Canadians, including young people who are not yet old enough to vote, can be part of this important conversation.
Mr. Speaker, we want to have a pension plan that will allow Canadians to live their retirement years with dignity. That is why we want to enhance our pension plan. I am working with the provinces in order to help Canadians retire with dignity.
Mr. Speaker, senior officials have confirmed that the Liberal government has already decided to purchase F-18 Super Hornets. Before making the announcement, the Liberals just have to finalize the narrative to justify this purchase. Although they promised to hold an open, transparent competition, the result has already been decided: another broken Liberal promise.Can the government confirm that it plans to purchase the F-18 Super Hornet? What expert advice is it basing this decision on?
Mr. Speaker, the trans-Pacific partnership also raises concerns for cultural industries. The TPP explicitly prevents the government from developing policies to support Canadian content on digital platforms. On one hand, we have a Minister of Canadian Heritage holding consultations on digital media, and on the other hand we have her government signing a treaty that will limit its own capacity to intervene online.Despite all her fine words, the minister's hands will be tied. However, she promised to protect our cultural diversity in these trade agreements.How will the minister defend such an absurdity to our cultural industries?
Mr. Speaker, headquartered in my riding of Don Valley East, Thales Canada is a global leader in the development of high technologies in aerospace, urban transportation, security, and urban science. In addition, Thales Canada is a leader in the promotion of gender diversity and equality in the workplace.Can the minister tell the House how the government can ensure that Canada continues to support innovative companies like Thales Canada?
Mr. Speaker, this refugee at committee begged to differ. He said, when asked about his wife's chances to learn English, Her situation is worse than mine. I try my best to learn English on the streets, through my friends, or through some acquaintances. She doesn't have that chance because she mainly stays at home with the kids. Will the Liberals admit that their lack of a plan to provide language training to Syrian refugees is creating gender inequity and isolating these women, or will they continue to treat these women simply as photo ops?
Mr. Speaker, hard-working Canadians cannot afford to pay more taxes. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that no business can afford higher payroll taxes either, but the finance minister is again putting Canadian jobs at risk. The Liberals have already backed off on their election promise to lower the small business tax rate. Now they are going to raise payroll taxes.Why is the finance minister killing the backbone of the Canadian economy with irresponsible CPP payroll tax hikes?
Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard through our funding to provide language training to men, to women, and to children. We also understand that many of the Syrian refugee mothers have significant numbers of children to look after, and therefore they need child care facilities to help them with the language training. We understand there is more work to do in that area, but we are working very hard through the settlement agencies to provide that funding to support language training for everybody.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian content and support for creators of content are a priority for our government.For years, our approach during trade talks has always been to maintain our capacity and to support cultural and creative industries. That remains unchanged today, especially during our talks on the TPP.We also want to seize the opportunities offered through our various trade talks. That is why our government is determined to listen to Canadians on the issue and that is why the Minister of International Trade is
Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, the previous government changed our electoral processes as a way of barring, unfortunately, many people from being able to vote, or trying to. Canadians made themselves heard in the general election, rejecting not just the platform the other party put forward, but its entire approach, which is why we favour an approach that is engaged, open, consultative, drawing in multiple voices with different ideas about how to improve our electoral system. We look forward to a strong and robust process.
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians expect of this government is to make sure that we are both defending the rights and freedoms of Canadians while protecting the most vulnerable, and that is exactly the balance that we have struck with Bill C-14. Throughout we have been open to amendments, including accepting amendments from opposition members. We look forward to hearing the deliberations that the Senate is carrying forward on this same piece of legislation. We are ensuring that this big step that Canada is taking, despite people who think it goes too far and others who think it does not go far enough, is done the right way.
Mr. Speaker, Senate Liberal leader James Cowan has now joined the growing number of Canadians saying that Bill C-14 is likely unconstitutional. Cowan said that this government legislation is so flawed that Canadians would be better off with no legislation at all. This bill does not respect the Supreme Court's decision, and it will be tied up in courts for years. Instead of ramming through Bill C-14, will the government listen to James Cowan and work on getting the bill right the first time?
Mr. Speaker, soon Syrian refugees will see their one year of government-funded support terminate. Moreover, many of these refugees cannot access training to learn English or French. A refugee at committee last week said, through a translator, No, I am not working. How can I work if I don't know the English to communicate? His family has already had to turn to food banks to make ends meet.When will the Liberals admit that by failing to have any comprehensive plan to provide Syrian refugees with language training, these refugees may require social assistance after their year of funding runs out?
Mr. Speaker, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act gave band members for the first time ever access to critical information such as salaries and expenses of their leaders and audited financial statements. On Friday, the minister admitted to Canadians that no formal consultations were held before gutting the act.Does the minister not believe that band members should have input into a decision that affects them so directly?
Mr. Speaker, the former government did not consult Canadians or experts or Elections Canada on the changes they brought forward through the Fair Elections Act. I totally understand why bringing a committee forward to hear from Canadians is a strange concept to them. We have entered this process with an open mind and look forward to getting down to the work of hearing from Canadians and moving away from a hyperpartisan debate on process.
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said in this place on Thursday and so many other times before, that there is at least a three-step process for us to undertake.The first step is to establish the committee and have it go out and hear from Canadians. The second step is for us to come up with a plan and debate that plan in this House. The third step is where my hon. colleague is at, which is determining whether or not the recommended reforms have the broad buy-in of Canadians.Let us get on with the first step.
Mr. Speaker, nearly 50 years ago, thousands of people were kicked out of their homes by the federal government so that it could build the Mirabel airport. It was a colonialist fiasco of historic proportions. Today, the residents of Mirabel whose land was expropriated and their descendants want their land back, but the government is putting it up for sale. The government turned these people's lives upside down and left them a heap of ruins. Now it needs to take them into account. Will the Prime Minister promise to give the original property owners and their descendants right of first refusal in the sale of the expropriated Mirabel lands, and will he offer them an official apology?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say that they will abandon their plans to change our voting system if they do not have widespread public support. Yet they refuse to commit to the most transparent and accessible way of gauging that public support, which is a referendum.Does the Prime Minister think making such a significant change should be behind closed doors by a handful of Liberal cabinet ministers, or will he finally commit to giving Canadians a direct say in the future of their democracy?
Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to a well-equipped and modern air force. Unfortunately, the last five years have been a bit of a loss. As a consequence, there is a developing capability gap which needs to be managed. We have obligations to NATO, we have obligations to NORAD, we have obligations to our own defence and to expeditionary matters.Accordingly, we are proceeding forward on this matter, and we will be moving toward a decision soon.
Mr. Speaker, last week the Toronto Star said, If the Liberal government truly wants broad buy-in from Canadians on electoral reform, it should hold a referendum and let people vote. It said that a referendum is the only way to guarantee that electoral reform has democratic legitimacy.Therefore, I ask the minister again, and particularly given her earlier words on Friday, does she support a national referendum, or was she just saying all that stuff as a way of misdirecting us?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know, being in the NDP, that for the last five, six, seven, eight years, the CF-18 decision had been pending and pending and continued to be pending. Had the previous government actually done something more than get in and out of photo ops, possibly we would not actually be talking about this at this point.
Mr. Speaker, the government had the chance to do things differently with Bill C-14, but it decided to ignore experts, not to work with the opposition, and to limit debate.Warnings were coming in from all over. Quebec's health and social services minister called Bill C-14 unenforceable. He thinks that the notion of reasonably foreseeable death is medically unfeasible and he refuses to include it in Quebec's law.Will the government finally realize that Bill C-14 must be amended?
Mr. Speaker, people in Windsor have fought for a long time for a new border crossing with the United States. Manufacturers, farmers, and those in other key sectors are left wondering whether the government will deliver the Gordie Howe international bridge border crossing on time. This means jobs and investment for Canada as this region accounts for 40% of the daily trade between Canada and the United States.My question is for the Prime Minister. His government has already missed two important deadlines for this crucial infrastructure. Could the Prime Minister confirm today that his government is on track to make this crossing happen by 2020? This is his opportunity to reassure the citizens and industries from manufacturing
Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, the Liberals said that they would not purchase the F-35, but right after being elected, they said maybe yes, maybe no. Now it looks like they may have already decided on another fighter jet, but still without the promised open and transparent competition. In fact, it looks like the Liberal government is running procurement as an inside job, just like the Conservatives. Why have they abandoned an open tender process to replace our aging CF-18s, and when will they put in place a procurement system that can actually deliver the equipment our military needs?
Mr. Speaker, an issue as broad and complex as changing our voting system calls for engaged consultations and for multiple voices to be heard, including those of experts from the different parties and Canadians who are concerned about how we are going to go about improving our electoral system.This process is more complex than the yes or no of a referendum. This is about allowing people to express their opinion on the values behind our electoral system and good governance in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation involving the former Mirabel airport lands. The main objective of the sale, enabling tenant farmers to buy the lands they were leasing, was achieved. Approximately 750 acres, or 7% of the former airport lands, has not yet been sold. In the coming weeks, the government will proceed with the sale of the remaining Mirabel lands. Parcels will be offered in accordance with the policy on management of real property.
Mr. Speaker, our government is entering electoral reform with an open mind.As the member opposite well knows, the amended motion that the NDP put on the table late last week allows for the committee to investigate ways of determining how to engage the broad support of Canadians. This is an important addition that we added to the motion to address the hon. colleagues' concerns, and look forward to unanimous support of the House on this matter tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the minister told the CBC, if an overwhelming majority of Canadians tell us that they want system X, we will...listen to what they've said...One logical implication of the minister's words is that if the Liberal proposal for electoral reform is supported by an underwhelming minority of Canadians, say under 50% in a national referendum, then it ought not to be imposed on the nation for election 2019.Either the minister's words mean she favours a referendum, or they mean nothing at all and are meant to simply misdirect us. Which of the two is correct?
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Liberals will cave in to Chinese belligerence at the drop of a proverbial hat. Last week, at the insistence of the Chinese government, the Prime Minister bowed to demands to meet not with the president but with the foreign minister, who then took time out of his busy schedule to berate a Canadian journalist while our foreign minister kept as quiet as a church mouse. When will the Liberals grow a backbone and ensure that Canadian foreign policy is actually run by Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, it will probably hurt my modesty, but I need to quote myself. I said in the press conference, In our international engagement Canada will continue to champion the values of pluralism, democracy, inclusive and accountable governance and respect for diversity and universal human rights.About the practice of our foreign affairs ministers meeting leaders of the world, I meet leaders of the world everywhere in the world. The Prime Minister will certainly be willing to meet--
Mr. Speaker, the current fleet of CF-18s has been refurbished to last until 2025, which is enough time to transition to the next fighter jet. The urgency the Liberals are describing seems to have been invented specifically to give the Prime Minister an excuse not to purchase the F-35.If the government goes ahead with this decision, is the minister aware of the risk of legal action and the negative repercussions this will have on the Canadian businesses that manufacture the F-35?
Mr. Speaker, by any realistic measure, last week's visit by China's foreign minister did not go so well. Again, the Prime Minister broke with protocol and caved in to Minister Wang's demand for a meeting. Then Canada's minister stood silent while the Chinese minister angrily scolded a Canadian journalist. When will the Liberals stand up to China and demand meaningful answers on China's human rights transgressions?
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to the inaction of the previous government, we are developing a capability gap, and that capability gap needs to be managed. So four years out, five years out, 10 years out, the chief of defence needs to be thinking about how to manage that capability gap. Accordingly, the minister has taken the responsible action, and he is moving forward with making a decision sooner rather than later, which should have happened maybe five years ago now.
Mr. Speaker, we actually need to grow the relationship between Canada and the sixth of humanity, China, which was so damaged by the former government. This is why we need to make progress in every aspect, including human rights, including the rule of law. It is what I said very clearly in the meetings with the minister of foreign affairs of China. It is what I said during the conference he just mentioned. It is what I said also in my subsequent relationship with the minister. We will continue to improve our relationship with China and to advocate the case for human rights everywhere in the world, including in China.
You were at the press conference.
Mr. Speaker, they have been in power for seven months now, and replacing our CF-18s did not seem to be on their radar, and yet, we have known for years that they need to be replaced. I hardly need to point out that replacing any military equipment requires planning. It is not like going shopping at Toys R Us. These kinds of purchases are not made on a whim. What our soldiers need is the right equipment for the job. When will the government put in place a transparent process to replace the CF-18s?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' stubborn refusal to listen to experts and work with the opposition will mean suffering Canadians spending years in court defending rights that they have already won.Kay Carter's family is also disillusioned with the current government. They said today that they felt betrayed. Today they called out the Prime Minister for his refusal to listen to Canadians. If the Liberals really disagree with the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Ontario court, and Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, will they at least now table the government's legal opinion on the bill, so that Canadians can judge for themselves?
Mr. Speaker, it is not just Quebec that is protesting. Peter Hogg, Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, today testified that Bill C-14 fails to respect the Carter decision and will undoubtedly be struck down as soon as it gets to court. He said that the government cannot turn around and exclude a group of people that the Supreme Court clearly ruled have these charter rights.It is never too late for the government to do the right thing. Will the Liberals finally respect the charter and announce that they are willing to fix the bill?
Mr. Speaker, getting a question from the Conservative Party, having manufactured, in effect, this capability gap, is ironic in the extreme. We are, therefore, in a position where we are going to have to make serious decisions about the replacement for the CF-18. We cannot any longer carry on in the fashion we have been carrying on. Had these decisions actually been addressed and done in the last three or four or five years, we would not be here talking about this matter today.
Mr. Speaker, there are two erroneous things in the member's comments. First, of course I was not silent regarding human rights groups, including in the press conference. The obligation to hurt my--
Mr. Speaker, June 17 will be the world day to combat desertification. This is an area where Canada was once extremely helpful. We even hosted the fifth meeting of the treaty to combat desertification, having ratified it in 1995. It is a key instrument, not just for developing countries but for dealing with increasing drought within Canada. Shamefully, the previous government withdrew us in 2013. I want to know when Canada will be back. Could the Prime Minister tell us specifically if Canada can rejoin the convention?
Mr. Speaker, we are focused on ensuring that Canadians have the opportunity to retire in dignity. We started down this path immediately on getting elected. We told Canadians this is something we wanted to do. We moved forward with improving the guaranteed income supplement for seniors in poverty. We changed the OAS system so that we can help seniors retire when they can. We are working collaboratively with the provinces to enhance our Canada pension plan, which is an investment in the future of Canadians, allowing Canadians to retire in dignity.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever played a game called who is telling the truth? Let us play it now.First of all, the Prime Minister said that the 2015 election would be the last one under the current voting system.Second, his principal secretary said on Twitter, which seems to be the preferred network of the Minister of Democratic Institutions, that a referendum would be one option to consider.Third, the minister herself said that if she did not have public support, she would not go ahead with the reform.Who is telling the truth? Three-quarters of Canadians want a referendum. Will the Prime Minister listen to them?
Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is about the law, but it is, above all, about people.The Carter family fought for years alongside their mother to make it possible for people to die with dignity in Canada. Today, they are saying that they feel betrayed by the Liberal government. The government says that it listens to Canadians, but it listens only to those who agree with it.Now that the government has failed to get its bill passed by June 6, will it come up with a bill that is charter-compliant and in line with the Carter decision?
Mr. Speaker, as I said in an earlier response to a question, the unfortunate reality is that we have lost five years on this particular procurement. As a consequence, we are now approaching a situation where we have a capability gap. If we are going to manage the capability gap, we need to move to the point of making a decision. Unlike the previous government, we will be making a decision.
Mr. Speaker, from day one, the Liberals have shown a complete lack of interest in the needs of small businesses. After ending the small business hiring credit, they broke their promise to lower the small business tax rate. The chamber of commerce says businesses are worried about a big CPP tax increase, which it says is headed for the middle class like an elbow to the chest.Why is the finance minister so intent on squeezing every penny he can out of middle-class businesses and workers?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal approach to electoral reform is a bit strange.They believe that the current system makes it difficult for people to vote, yet record numbers of Canadians voted in 2015. In the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown accord, nearly 75% of eligible Canadians voted. Three-quarters of Canadians are demanding to have their say again. Will the Liberals hold a referendum on fundamental changes to how Canadians vote?
Mr. Speaker, as members know, we inherited a procurement system that by many measurements was a broken procurement system. Accordingly, the minister has had to take serious decisionsall ministers, in fact, have had to take serious decisionswith respect to getting the equipment the hon. member and I would agree is the equipment that needs to replace the CF-18. Accordingly, we are proceeding with the decision process, and hopefully we will have a decision soon.
Mr. Speaker, we have sought to ensure that we hear from a diversity of voices in this country with respect to this incredibly difficult and complex issue. To paraphrase the Supreme Court of Canada, the court does not have a monopoly on the protection and promotion of rights, and Parliament has to do its job to be an ally to the vulnerable.We have sought to find a balance between the diversity of views and perspectives in this country, balancing personal autonomy and protecting the vulnerable.
Mr. Speaker, last week, thousands of dairy farmers came to Ottawa to speak out against the government's inability to protect them on the diafiltered milk issue.Farmers have lost millions of dollars because the government did not enforce its own regulations. Now, the government is trying to convince us that opening our markets through the trans-Pacific partnership is going to be a good thing.Does the government take us for fools? How are farmers supposed to feel reassured about the trans-Pacific partnership when the government is not even capable of enforcing its own import regulations?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister misled the House during question period when he said that the NDP had a whipped vote on Bill C-14. He knows that is not the case. He knows on this side of the House, it was a free vote.However, the NDP caucus is united in its determination that Bill C-14, as it is, is
Mr. Speaker, I want to report to the House that this government understands the importance of meaningful work in a summer job. That is why we promised to double the number of jobs this summer. In fact, we have more than doubled them. I am proud to say that every hon. member in the House worked hard. We not only doubled, but we increased the number of jobs to 77,000 jobs this summer. It is because of the commitment of the minister for youth that we were able to keep the promise and focus on what was important, young
Mr. Speaker, in the last election, Canadians overwhelmingly voted for parties that had committed to moving beyond first past the post, which is why in our committee we are happy to reflect a broad range of voices from Canadians and are glad to work with opposition parties to ensure there are strong voices heard on all sides of the issue. That is the kind of consultations and engagement that Canadians expect to hear and see when we talk about electoral reform. That is exactly the kind of engagement the previous government did none of.
Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an example of the reforms that the Liberal Party made to the Senate over the past years removing partisanship and patronage from that place, there is no better example than the NDP highlighting the great work that the Senate is doing weighing in on an important piece of legislation.I thank the hon. member for her comments about the excellent work done by the independent voices in the Senate, and I look forward to hearing what the Senate has to say about Bill C-14 when it returns to us.
Mr. Speaker, again, the department was not in charge at that time. As the opposition critic, we consulted broadly through that time. We know exactly what first nations feel about transparency. Accountability is very important to everyone. We have to do it their way, not the way the Conservatives did it.
Mr. Speaker, increased trade relationships with China are in the minister's mandate letter, but we are not in negotiations for a trade agreement right now. We will take a cautious step-by-step approach.As regards the TPP, we promised during the election, because it was a deal that we had not yet seen, that we would study it carefully. We are continuing to do that. We are doing our own studies, we are taking in studies, and the committee is studying. We will come to a position on that when the time is right.
Mr. Speaker, we have said from the very beginning that we will not move forward on any reform to our electoral system without the broad support of Canadians.This means it is vitally important for the special all-party committee to begin its work of hearing from Canadians first-hand what their needs are and what values they would like to see reflected in their electoral system. I look forward to support from all members in this House when this vote is up for discussion tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, we are consulting with dairy farmers across Canada on the trans-Pacific partnership. We have not yet taken a position, but once we do so, we will be sure to consult and provide compensation as necessary.
That they got neutral, Mr. Speaker. Those jobs are for half as long.The leaders' declaration from the G7 in Japan is a clear commitment to regional trade agreements like the TPP. Yet the Prime Minister seems more inclined to push for an early deal with China. While that is a very important market for us, the Prime Minister has also said, It is important that people know that when they sign a deal with Canada...a change in government isn't going to lead to that contract being ripped up. Since he supported the leaders' declaration, why will the Prime Minister not prioritize the TPP before holding trade talks with China?
Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes how important the forestry industry is to Quebec and Canada. We are negotiating with our American counterparts. This morning, the minister met with industry representatives in Montreal. We are working very closely with the industry, the Government of Quebec, and other governments across the country. We are working together to ensure that we get an agreement that is good for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite that we are trying to enhance the Canada pension plan. That is a plan where Canadians can save. It is a plan where we can invest money so people can have a retirement in dignity. We know that working together with the provinces, we can achieve a real difference for Canadians, helping them to have a retirement in dignity and to save appropriately for that. We are committed to doing that in collaboration with our finance ministers in our provinces.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that my hon. colleague just demonstrated how engaged we are on this issue and how open we are to perspectives of all kinds in that regard. Unlike the Conservative way of doing things, where only one person's opinion mattered in any discussion or proposal, many people in our party are involved in examining important issues. We look forward to hearing what Canadians have to say regarding our electoral system.
Mr. Speaker, as part of the debates on Bill C-14, we listened to many politicians from all the different parties share their views.However, we did more than that. We listened to doctors and Canadians. We consulted the public at large, across the country, to ensure that this important and transformative measure regarding medical assistance in dying would be properly designed to uphold Canadians' rights and freedoms while protecting the most vulnerable. That is the balance we have struck, and we are proud of it.
Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes that this is a big step in the history of our country, and making sure that we do that in a responsible and thoughtful way, that both upholds Canadians' rights and freedoms while defending the most vulnerable, is exactly what we have done with this piece of legislation.On top of that, we made sure that we heard from Canadians and experts and we allowed and encouraged a free vote in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, it is disappointing that the NDP did not allow themselves a free vote on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and his important work in support of Canadian entrepreneurship.The 2016 budget shows how committed we are to promoting Canadian innovation. We are investing about $4.5 billion as a down payment to start the innovation agenda, with investments in initiatives such as strengthening business clusters, building post-secondary infrastructure, and extending broadband service. This is an agenda for change. It will address the economic challenges, grow our businesses and help us take the next steps toward growing a more innovative economy.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will not even use our fighter jets to defeat and degrade ISIS, and the Liberal suggestion that our fighter jets are literally on their last legs is patently false. We know that our fighter jets can operate effectively until 2025, and there is no urgency to replace them on an interim basis. The Liberals do not need to sole source the Super Hornet to transition from the CF-18 to avoid their imaginary capability gap. Why are the Liberals misleading Canadians and breaking their promise for a fair and transparent competition?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for his question. When I was in San Francisco last week, I announced that Canada would double its funding for clean energy to $775 million by 2020. With these investments, our government is taking a strong leadership role on climate change.
Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.If that minister actually believes his own words, will he try to convince the Prime Minister that Canadians deserve a direct say, through a vote in a referendum, on any changes to how they vote?
Mr. Speaker, let us continue playing who is telling the truth? Fourth, the member for Mount Royal said that the referendum is a tool we could use.Fifth, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons first rejected holding a referendum, then indicated that he was open to it. Sixth, the Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote in a policy paper that "precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.When will the Prime Minister listen to the members of his own caucus and ensure that a referendum is held so that all Canadians can express their views?
Mr. Speaker, apparently the members opposite have not yet understood that we have an engaged caucus and that its members have many views and visions. For too long they have followed only one path and held only one view.We, the members of the Liberal Party, listen to Canadians, discuss our different perspectives, and, together, build the best approach for Canadians in a consultative and collaborative manner.I know this is unheard of for them, but that is how we operate.
Mr. Speaker, from helicopters to submarines, and now fighter jets, the legacy of the Liberals is to buy old and make do.The Liberals have made up their minds to buy the Super Hornet and now are working on the right narrative to support it.Let us be perfectly clear. The Liberals are only sole-sourcing the Super Hornets to fulfill an ill-advised political campaign promise. Simply put, the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a lot better.Will the Prime Minister admit that he broke his promise for an open and fair competition to replace our fighter jets?
Mr. Speaker, when we were elected, we promised to help middle-class families and grow the economy. An important way to achieve this objective is to ensure that young Canadians are able to find work and get the experience required in the job market. We remember how the previous government spent more time putting up billboards than creating jobs for young Canadians.Could the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour inform the House of the success of the Canada summer jobs program?
Mr. Speaker, we are incredibly mindful of the deadline of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is incumbent upon parliamentarians to put in place a national framework around our medical assistance in dying to ensure that there are the appropriate and necessary safeguards in place, to ensure certainty for medical practitioners, and to ensure that there is access for patients who want to access medical assistance in dying. This is an incredibly complex discussion. We have certainly listened to the voices of Canadians, and it is the voices of Canadians who have contributed toward Bill C-14.
Mr. Speaker, since the price of lumber from Quebec's public forests is set at an auction, it is higher, and our companies are only competitive when a free trade agreement exists. Under the softwood lumber agreement, Quebec has lost some major sales to British Columbia. Quebec can push for free trade all it wants, but it does not yet have status as a country. The federal government is negotiating on our behalf, but the government has been refusing to answer our questions for six months.If Ottawa accepts a protectionist agreement, will it exempt Quebec so that NAFTA applies to us?
Mr. Speaker, the medical assistance in dying bill is historic. The government should have done the right thing.That is exactly what it did not do. Knowing the timeline was tight, it nevertheless waited until April to introduce its bill. It refused to listen to the experts.Today, Peter Hogg, one of Canada's most respected constitutional experts, once again said that Bill C-14 would not pass the test in terms of the charter or the Carter decision.When will the Liberals change course and do the right thing?
Mr. Speaker, we recognize not just the link between land degradation and climate change, but also the risks that desertification poses to realizing sustainable development goals. We are coordinating with our international partners to implement the 2030 agenda and its ambitious objectives to eradicate poverty, fight inequality and injustice, and tackle climate change. We recognize the important work done by the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and look forward to updating the House soon, possibly on June 17 itself.
Mr. Speaker, it appears that we have found common ground.The one thing that we can all agree on in this House is that is crucial to the success of us being able to modernize our electoral system is first hearing from Canadians. That is why we committed to bringing forward an all-parliamentary committee to hear from Canadians, to act as a forum to hear their thoughts and aspirations for their electoral reform.I am really looking forward to this vote tomorrow and unanimous support from all members.
Mr. Speaker, we certainly have a comprehensive plan to provide language training, because we understand that success in English or French is key to finding a job and key to success in Canada. That is why the government has funded $600 million for settlement in 2016-17. That is $27 million extra for the new refugees, and language is very much at the top of our priorities.
Mr. Speaker, the previous government showed no interest in science and innovation, but, since taking office, our government has put them back on the map. That is one of the important measures taken by this government.It is by investing in leading-edge sectors that Canada will continue to progress and secure its future. Without a doubt, clean energy is one of those sectors.Will the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House of the new Canadian strategy in that regard?
Mr. Speaker, our government's commitment to building the Gordie Howe international bridge is unwavering.Nearly 30% of the surface trade, as the hon. member has mentioned, crosses at this very important crossing. It is very critical for us to continue to grow our trade with the United States. The first step of the process, where we listed all the companies to build this bridge, has already happened. We are on the next stage
Mr. Speaker, I think the minister does not need to patronize us. The fact is that this is not up for politicians to decide; it is up to Canadians.We keep asking these questions because her answers make no sense. One hundred per cent of Canadian voters deserve to have a direct say in how they will elect their governments. What is so hard to understand?My question, once again, is, will the minister finally listen to Canadians and agree to hold a referendum on how they vote?
Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote a policy paper on electoral reform in which he said, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support. There is one thing that does have popular support of Canadians right now, and that is if our voting system is changed, Canadians want a say. If the Prime Minister will not listen to Canadians on this, will he at least listen to his minister and give Canadians a referendum?
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian expects to have a direct say in the future of their democracy.In 2012, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote, Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.There is one thing Canadians support, and that is a referendum.Will the Prime Minister listen to his own minister and finally commit to holding a referendum?
Mr. Speaker, much like other times, we keep hearing about the interest of political parties and of politicians.The discussion on changing our most basic democratic institution is not about political parties nor about the interest of politicians. It is about the Canadian people.It should be about making sure that each and every Canadian voice has an opportunity to have a direct say through a referendum. Will the Liberals hold one, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the problem with this government is that every time it opens its mouth, there is a big disconnect. As members will recall, they said they would make revenue-neutral tax changes. Instead, they have dug a $1.7-billion hole.Now, they are turning their attention to pensions. We are worried and we have every right to be worried.Can the government promise not to increase Canadians' CPP payroll taxes?
Mr. Speaker, our commitment is to hear directly from Canadians. Our hope is that all 338 members in this House will advocate on behalf of their constituents and contribute constructively to the substance of electoral reform.I hope that the mood tomorrow, with the vote tomorrow, will allow us to move away from an unproductive partisan debate on process to the substance of electoral reform, and ensuring that all Canadians, including young people who are not yet old enough to vote, can be part of this important conversation.
Mr. Speaker, we want to have a pension plan that will allow Canadians to live their retirement years with dignity. That is why we want to enhance our pension plan. I am working with the provinces in order to help Canadians retire with dignity.
Mr. Speaker, senior officials have confirmed that the Liberal government has already decided to purchase F-18 Super Hornets. Before making the announcement, the Liberals just have to finalize the narrative to justify this purchase. Although they promised to hold an open, transparent competition, the result has already been decided: another broken Liberal promise.Can the government confirm that it plans to purchase the F-18 Super Hornet? What expert advice is it basing this decision on?
Mr. Speaker, the trans-Pacific partnership also raises concerns for cultural industries. The TPP explicitly prevents the government from developing policies to support Canadian content on digital platforms. On one hand, we have a Minister of Canadian Heritage holding consultations on digital media, and on the other hand we have her government signing a treaty that will limit its own capacity to intervene online.Despite all her fine words, the minister's hands will be tied. However, she promised to protect our cultural diversity in these trade agreements.How will the minister defend such an absurdity to our cultural industries?
Mr. Speaker, headquartered in my riding of Don Valley East, Thales Canada is a global leader in the development of high technologies in aerospace, urban transportation, security, and urban science. In addition, Thales Canada is a leader in the promotion of gender diversity and equality in the workplace.Can the minister tell the House how the government can ensure that Canada continues to support innovative companies like Thales Canada?
Mr. Speaker, this refugee at committee begged to differ. He said, when asked about his wife's chances to learn English, Her situation is worse than mine. I try my best to learn English on the streets, through my friends, or through some acquaintances. She doesn't have that chance because she mainly stays at home with the kids. Will the Liberals admit that their lack of a plan to provide language training to Syrian refugees is creating gender inequity and isolating these women, or will they continue to treat these women simply as photo ops?
Mr. Speaker, hard-working Canadians cannot afford to pay more taxes. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that no business can afford higher payroll taxes either, but the finance minister is again putting Canadian jobs at risk. The Liberals have already backed off on their election promise to lower the small business tax rate. Now they are going to raise payroll taxes.Why is the finance minister killing the backbone of the Canadian economy with irresponsible CPP payroll tax hikes?
Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard through our funding to provide language training to men, to women, and to children. We also understand that many of the Syrian refugee mothers have significant numbers of children to look after, and therefore they need child care facilities to help them with the language training. We understand there is more work to do in that area, but we are working very hard through the settlement agencies to provide that funding to support language training for everybody.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian content and support for creators of content are a priority for our government.For years, our approach during trade talks has always been to maintain our capacity and to support cultural and creative industries. That remains unchanged today, especially during our talks on the TPP.We also want to seize the opportunities offered through our various trade talks. That is why our government is determined to listen to Canadians on the issue and that is why the Minister of International Trade is
Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, the previous government changed our electoral processes as a way of barring, unfortunately, many people from being able to vote, or trying to. Canadians made themselves heard in the general election, rejecting not just the platform the other party put forward, but its entire approach, which is why we favour an approach that is engaged, open, consultative, drawing in multiple voices with different ideas about how to improve our electoral system. We look forward to a strong and robust process.
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians expect of this government is to make sure that we are both defending the rights and freedoms of Canadians while protecting the most vulnerable, and that is exactly the balance that we have struck with Bill C-14. Throughout we have been open to amendments, including accepting amendments from opposition members. We look forward to hearing the deliberations that the Senate is carrying forward on this same piece of legislation. We are ensuring that this big step that Canada is taking, despite people who think it goes too far and others who think it does not go far enough, is done the right way.
Mr. Speaker, Senate Liberal leader James Cowan has now joined the growing number of Canadians saying that Bill C-14 is likely unconstitutional. Cowan said that this government legislation is so flawed that Canadians would be better off with no legislation at all. This bill does not respect the Supreme Court's decision, and it will be tied up in courts for years. Instead of ramming through Bill C-14, will the government listen to James Cowan and work on getting the bill right the first time?
Mr. Speaker, soon Syrian refugees will see their one year of government-funded support terminate. Moreover, many of these refugees cannot access training to learn English or French. A refugee at committee last week said, through a translator, No, I am not working. How can I work if I don't know the English to communicate? His family has already had to turn to food banks to make ends meet.When will the Liberals admit that by failing to have any comprehensive plan to provide Syrian refugees with language training, these refugees may require social assistance after their year of funding runs out?
Mr. Speaker, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act gave band members for the first time ever access to critical information such as salaries and expenses of their leaders and audited financial statements. On Friday, the minister admitted to Canadians that no formal consultations were held before gutting the act.Does the minister not believe that band members should have input into a decision that affects them so directly?
Mr. Speaker, the former government did not consult Canadians or experts or Elections Canada on the changes they brought forward through the Fair Elections Act. I totally understand why bringing a committee forward to hear from Canadians is a strange concept to them. We have entered this process with an open mind and look forward to getting down to the work of hearing from Canadians and moving away from a hyperpartisan debate on process.
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said in this place on Thursday and so many other times before, that there is at least a three-step process for us to undertake.The first step is to establish the committee and have it go out and hear from Canadians. The second step is for us to come up with a plan and debate that plan in this House. The third step is where my hon. colleague is at, which is determining whether or not the recommended reforms have the broad buy-in of Canadians.Let us get on with the first step.
Mr. Speaker, nearly 50 years ago, thousands of people were kicked out of their homes by the federal government so that it could build the Mirabel airport. It was a colonialist fiasco of historic proportions. Today, the residents of Mirabel whose land was expropriated and their descendants want their land back, but the government is putting it up for sale. The government turned these people's lives upside down and left them a heap of ruins. Now it needs to take them into account. Will the Prime Minister promise to give the original property owners and their descendants right of first refusal in the sale of the expropriated Mirabel lands, and will he offer them an official apology?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say that they will abandon their plans to change our voting system if they do not have widespread public support. Yet they refuse to commit to the most transparent and accessible way of gauging that public support, which is a referendum.Does the Prime Minister think making such a significant change should be behind closed doors by a handful of Liberal cabinet ministers, or will he finally commit to giving Canadians a direct say in the future of their democracy?
Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to a well-equipped and modern air force. Unfortunately, the last five years have been a bit of a loss. As a consequence, there is a developing capability gap which needs to be managed. We have obligations to NATO, we have obligations to NORAD, we have obligations to our own defence and to expeditionary matters.Accordingly, we are proceeding forward on this matter, and we will be moving toward a decision soon.
Mr. Speaker, last week the Toronto Star said, If the Liberal government truly wants broad buy-in from Canadians on electoral reform, it should hold a referendum and let people vote. It said that a referendum is the only way to guarantee that electoral reform has democratic legitimacy.Therefore, I ask the minister again, and particularly given her earlier words on Friday, does she support a national referendum, or was she just saying all that stuff as a way of misdirecting us?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know, being in the NDP, that for the last five, six, seven, eight years, the CF-18 decision had been pending and pending and continued to be pending. Had the previous government actually done something more than get in and out of photo ops, possibly we would not actually be talking about this at this point.
Mr. Speaker, the government had the chance to do things differently with Bill C-14, but it decided to ignore experts, not to work with the opposition, and to limit debate.Warnings were coming in from all over. Quebec's health and social services minister called Bill C-14 unenforceable. He thinks that the notion of reasonably foreseeable death is medically unfeasible and he refuses to include it in Quebec's law.Will the government finally realize that Bill C-14 must be amended?
Mr. Speaker, people in Windsor have fought for a long time for a new border crossing with the United States. Manufacturers, farmers, and those in other key sectors are left wondering whether the government will deliver the Gordie Howe international bridge border crossing on time. This means jobs and investment for Canada as this region accounts for 40% of the daily trade between Canada and the United States.My question is for the Prime Minister. His government has already missed two important deadlines for this crucial infrastructure. Could the Prime Minister confirm today that his government is on track to make this crossing happen by 2020? This is his opportunity to reassure the citizens and industries from manufacturing
Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, the Liberals said that they would not purchase the F-35, but right after being elected, they said maybe yes, maybe no. Now it looks like they may have already decided on another fighter jet, but still without the promised open and transparent competition. In fact, it looks like the Liberal government is running procurement as an inside job, just like the Conservatives. Why have they abandoned an open tender process to replace our aging CF-18s, and when will they put in place a procurement system that can actually deliver the equipment our military needs?
Mr. Speaker, an issue as broad and complex as changing our voting system calls for engaged consultations and for multiple voices to be heard, including those of experts from the different parties and Canadians who are concerned about how we are going to go about improving our electoral system.This process is more complex than the yes or no of a referendum. This is about allowing people to express their opinion on the values behind our electoral system and good governance in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation involving the former Mirabel airport lands. The main objective of the sale, enabling tenant farmers to buy the lands they were leasing, was achieved. Approximately 750 acres, or 7% of the former airport lands, has not yet been sold. In the coming weeks, the government will proceed with the sale of the remaining Mirabel lands. Parcels will be offered in accordance with the policy on management of real property.
Mr. Speaker, our government is entering electoral reform with an open mind.As the member opposite well knows, the amended motion that the NDP put on the table late last week allows for the committee to investigate ways of determining how to engage the broad support of Canadians. This is an important addition that we added to the motion to address the hon. colleagues' concerns, and look forward to unanimous support of the House on this matter tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the minister told the CBC, if an overwhelming majority of Canadians tell us that they want system X, we will...listen to what they've said...One logical implication of the minister's words is that if the Liberal proposal for electoral reform is supported by an underwhelming minority of Canadians, say under 50% in a national referendum, then it ought not to be imposed on the nation for election 2019.Either the minister's words mean she favours a referendum, or they mean nothing at all and are meant to simply misdirect us. Which of the two is correct?
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Liberals will cave in to Chinese belligerence at the drop of a proverbial hat. Last week, at the insistence of the Chinese government, the Prime Minister bowed to demands to meet not with the president but with the foreign minister, who then took time out of his busy schedule to berate a Canadian journalist while our foreign minister kept as quiet as a church mouse. When will the Liberals grow a backbone and ensure that Canadian foreign policy is actually run by Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, it will probably hurt my modesty, but I need to quote myself. I said in the press conference, In our international engagement Canada will continue to champion the values of pluralism, democracy, inclusive and accountable governance and respect for diversity and universal human rights.About the practice of our foreign affairs ministers meeting leaders of the world, I meet leaders of the world everywhere in the world. The Prime Minister will certainly be willing to meet--
Mr. Speaker, the current fleet of CF-18s has been refurbished to last until 2025, which is enough time to transition to the next fighter jet. The urgency the Liberals are describing seems to have been invented specifically to give the Prime Minister an excuse not to purchase the F-35.If the government goes ahead with this decision, is the minister aware of the risk of legal action and the negative repercussions this will have on the Canadian businesses that manufacture the F-35?
Mr. Speaker, by any realistic measure, last week's visit by China's foreign minister did not go so well. Again, the Prime Minister broke with protocol and caved in to Minister Wang's demand for a meeting. Then Canada's minister stood silent while the Chinese minister angrily scolded a Canadian journalist. When will the Liberals stand up to China and demand meaningful answers on China's human rights transgressions?
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to the inaction of the previous government, we are developing a capability gap, and that capability gap needs to be managed. So four years out, five years out, 10 years out, the chief of defence needs to be thinking about how to manage that capability gap. Accordingly, the minister has taken the responsible action, and he is moving forward with making a decision sooner rather than later, which should have happened maybe five years ago now.
Mr. Speaker, we actually need to grow the relationship between Canada and the sixth of humanity, China, which was so damaged by the former government. This is why we need to make progress in every aspect, including human rights, including the rule of law. It is what I said very clearly in the meetings with the minister of foreign affairs of China. It is what I said during the conference he just mentioned. It is what I said also in my subsequent relationship with the minister. We will continue to improve our relationship with China and to advocate the case for human rights everywhere in the world, including in China.
You were at the press conference.
Mr. Speaker, they have been in power for seven months now, and replacing our CF-18s did not seem to be on their radar, and yet, we have known for years that they need to be replaced. I hardly need to point out that replacing any military equipment requires planning. It is not like going shopping at Toys R Us. These kinds of purchases are not made on a whim. What our soldiers need is the right equipment for the job. When will the government put in place a transparent process to replace the CF-18s?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' stubborn refusal to listen to experts and work with the opposition will mean suffering Canadians spending years in court defending rights that they have already won.Kay Carter's family is also disillusioned with the current government. They said today that they felt betrayed. Today they called out the Prime Minister for his refusal to listen to Canadians. If the Liberals really disagree with the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Ontario court, and Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, will they at least now table the government's legal opinion on the bill, so that Canadians can judge for themselves?
Mr. Speaker, it is not just Quebec that is protesting. Peter Hogg, Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, today testified that Bill C-14 fails to respect the Carter decision and will undoubtedly be struck down as soon as it gets to court. He said that the government cannot turn around and exclude a group of people that the Supreme Court clearly ruled have these charter rights.It is never too late for the government to do the right thing. Will the Liberals finally respect the charter and announce that they are willing to fix the bill?
Mr. Speaker, getting a question from the Conservative Party, having manufactured, in effect, this capability gap, is ironic in the extreme. We are, therefore, in a position where we are going to have to make serious decisions about the replacement for the CF-18. We cannot any longer carry on in the fashion we have been carrying on. Had these decisions actually been addressed and done in the last three or four or five years, we would not be here talking about this matter today.
Mr. Speaker, there are two erroneous things in the member's comments. First, of course I was not silent regarding human rights groups, including in the press conference. The obligation to hurt my--
Mr. Speaker, June 17 will be the world day to combat desertification. This is an area where Canada was once extremely helpful. We even hosted the fifth meeting of the treaty to combat desertification, having ratified it in 1995. It is a key instrument, not just for developing countries but for dealing with increasing drought within Canada. Shamefully, the previous government withdrew us in 2013. I want to know when Canada will be back. Could the Prime Minister tell us specifically if Canada can rejoin the convention?
Mr. Speaker, we are focused on ensuring that Canadians have the opportunity to retire in dignity. We started down this path immediately on getting elected. We told Canadians this is something we wanted to do. We moved forward with improving the guaranteed income supplement for seniors in poverty. We changed the OAS system so that we can help seniors retire when they can. We are working collaboratively with the provinces to enhance our Canada pension plan, which is an investment in the future of Canadians, allowing Canadians to retire in dignity.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever played a game called who is telling the truth? Let us play it now.First of all, the Prime Minister said that the 2015 election would be the last one under the current voting system.Second, his principal secretary said on Twitter, which seems to be the preferred network of the Minister of Democratic Institutions, that a referendum would be one option to consider.Third, the minister herself said that if she did not have public support, she would not go ahead with the reform.Who is telling the truth? Three-quarters of Canadians want a referendum. Will the Prime Minister listen to them?
Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is about the law, but it is, above all, about people.The Carter family fought for years alongside their mother to make it possible for people to die with dignity in Canada. Today, they are saying that they feel betrayed by the Liberal government. The government says that it listens to Canadians, but it listens only to those who agree with it.Now that the government has failed to get its bill passed by June 6, will it come up with a bill that is charter-compliant and in line with the Carter decision?
Mr. Speaker, as I said in an earlier response to a question, the unfortunate reality is that we have lost five years on this particular procurement. As a consequence, we are now approaching a situation where we have a capability gap. If we are going to manage the capability gap, we need to move to the point of making a decision. Unlike the previous government, we will be making a decision.
Mr. Speaker, from day one, the Liberals have shown a complete lack of interest in the needs of small businesses. After ending the small business hiring credit, they broke their promise to lower the small business tax rate. The chamber of commerce says businesses are worried about a big CPP tax increase, which it says is headed for the middle class like an elbow to the chest.Why is the finance minister so intent on squeezing every penny he can out of middle-class businesses and workers?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal approach to electoral reform is a bit strange.They believe that the current system makes it difficult for people to vote, yet record numbers of Canadians voted in 2015. In the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown accord, nearly 75% of eligible Canadians voted. Three-quarters of Canadians are demanding to have their say again. Will the Liberals hold a referendum on fundamental changes to how Canadians vote?
Mr. Speaker, as members know, we inherited a procurement system that by many measurements was a broken procurement system. Accordingly, the minister has had to take serious decisionsall ministers, in fact, have had to take serious decisionswith respect to getting the equipment the hon. member and I would agree is the equipment that needs to replace the CF-18. Accordingly, we are proceeding with the decision process, and hopefully we will have a decision soon.
Mr. Speaker, we have sought to ensure that we hear from a diversity of voices in this country with respect to this incredibly difficult and complex issue. To paraphrase the Supreme Court of Canada, the court does not have a monopoly on the protection and promotion of rights, and Parliament has to do its job to be an ally to the vulnerable.We have sought to find a balance between the diversity of views and perspectives in this country, balancing personal autonomy and protecting the vulnerable.