2016-11-03

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Canada to speak truth to the world's worst human rights abusers publicly, not timidly, not in private with cautious lines crafted to win eventual Security Council votes. The minister has an opportunity to deny today that secret votes were traded with rights abusers who seek false legitimacy on the Human Rights Council.Again, will the minister stop hiding the truth and tell Canadians how Canada voted on the Human Rights Council candidacies of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are fine with saying that they are back at the United Nations, but the Liberals are back as they were before: pandering to despots, dictators, and human rights abusers.The United Nations today is not the organization it was when democracies made up the majority. The UN today has been described accurately as a broken Remington typewriter in a smart phone world.Why will the Liberals not take a tiny step towards reform and transparency and tell Canadians how Canada voted on the Human Rights Council candidacies of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba?

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is so outrageously wrong, I cannot be mute about that.This government, in the last year, has been upfront to fight everywhere for universal human rights, for an inclusive approach, and for peace everywhere. I cannot believe the question was asked this way. I think my colleague should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Speaker, recently we learned that the Minister of Public Safety has asked for a review of the pay that inmates receive while in prison, and their own investigator wants inmates to get more money. More pay for convicted criminals? Is this some sort of joke? Is this the new priority of the Liberal Party of Canada? How much more money are we going to pay criminals while Canadians are paying higher taxes for the Liberal promises that are never kept?

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague just said, there is nothing for Quebec in the economic update. What is more, a few moments ago, the Minister of Natural Resources announced an additional $2.9 billion in loan guarantees—a slap in the face for the whole of Quebec.I have a question for the minister. Is contempt for Quebec a Canadian value? Are fiascos part of their economic strategy? Is adding insult to injury the Liberals' modus operandi?

Mr. Speaker, today Amnesty International released a troubling report on resource development in northeastern B.C. and the resulting risk of violence against indigenous young women and girls. This report is consistent with what I heard from indigenous leaders directly when I travelled to the Peace River Valley this summer. To make matters worse, there are no federally funded domestic violence shelters on reserve in northeastern B.C.Did the government consider these impacts when it approved the Site C dam, and what support will the government provide to women who face violence in these areas?

Mr. Speaker, it is that kind of cynicism that creates an environment—

Mr. Speaker, the minister claims that closing the Vegreville immigration centre will increase jobs in Alberta, but he is wrong. This edict will immediately kill 280 jobs in town, but that is only the start. Jobs will be lost at the local post office, local school, the town, charities, and more. When all those people are gone, there go the small businesses. This edict is catastrophic. The minister claims he is creating jobs but he is actually killing them, and Alberta will be worse off. Will he do the right thing and stop this closure?

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, he was part of the government that spent almost $1 billion on partisan, self-promotional ads. He was actually a star in some of those ads. So, if he is asking us about how many jobs are being created, I would like him to answer how many jobs were created by those partisan, self-promotional ads? That is the kind of cynicism that Canadians rejected in the last election.

Mr. Speaker, that answer is becoming very embarrassing for the government House leader. We are not talking about Elections Canada rules. We are not talking about other jurisdictions. We are not talking about consultations with high school students. We are talking about the government violating the Prime Minister's own ethical standards.Again, I ask the government if it will uphold its own standards. We are not talking about Elections Canada. We are not talking about Ontario or any other province. We are talking about the government's rules. If the government will not uphold them, let the Ethics Commissioner do her job and uphold its rules.

Mr. Speaker, this week the Liberals have had a chance to address the concerns that Canadians face today. Jobs are being lost, the economy is shrinking, and small business owners are wondering each and every day who they might have to lay off next. However, instead of presenting a plan for jobs, the Minister of Finance just presented a plan of more spending and massive deficits for years to come. Is the minister not at all concerned about jobs for today? Why is he playing this reckless and dangerous game of massive spending with absolutely nothing to show for it?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's inability to tell us when we will achieve a zero deficit proves that the government has completely lost control of public finances. The government seems to be proud that it managed to shrink the deficit, saying that it is not as bad as expected, but it is forgetting one little $6-billion detail. The government blew through its $6-billion wiggle room so it could come up with a presentable number. That is hardly something to be proud of, and we are not the only ones saying so.Rudy Le Cours of La Presse called it sleight of hand, and Radio-Canada's Gérald Fillion wrote that “the minister is playing fast and loose with his numbers”—

Mr. Speaker, it is not working, and neither are the 6,000 people who do not have jobs.The Liberal Party promised solemnly that its deficit over the term would not exceed $25 billion. This week's economic statement showed that the number will be $100 billion, which is four times what it promised, and that presumes it does not spend another cent in its next three budgets.How could the Liberals have been so wrong, so fast? Is it because they cannot count or because they cannot tell the truth?

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is an opposition day, and the member should not be taking time out of the time for debate on the motion they have spent time working on.I have listened to the member opposite, and I do not believe this matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. What the member is referring to is a matter of policy and not a question of parliamentary procedure. As such, this does not constitute a contempt of the House.I reserve the right to return to the House with a further intervention on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have failed to create a single full-time job since they took office. This should not be a surprise because less than 1% of the announced infrastructure projects have started construction over this past year.Now we learn that, instead of building infrastructure, the Liberals have been busy setting up a bank, which is going to cost taxpayers $15 billion.When will the Liberals come up with a plan that actually creates jobs instead of pushing Canadians further into debt?

Mr. Speaker, the government's policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament requires the minister to present a report on expected impacts and consultations and to table proposed treaties for 21 days before introducing ratifying legislation. While the government has still failed to release a study of CETA impacts, the minister has tabled a bill to ratify all parts of the agreement, in spite of the fact that Europe has been clear that further changes are necessary.Why has the minister violated this policy and failed to present a study of CETA impacts in the House?

Mr. Speaker, the Canada infrastructure bank, which will privatize our infrastructure, hopes to attract $4 from the private sector for every dollar of public spending.However, pension funds, like private investment funds, foreign funds, and banks, will never invest just to impress the minister. They will want a high return on their investments.Michael Sabia said that they are chomping at the bit to get returns of 7% to 9%. My question for the minster is so simple that he does not even need an MBA to answer it.How can a profit be made on infrastructure investments without charging user fees or tolls and without increasing existing fees?

Mr. Speaker, in Ontario, political insiders bought access to Kathleen Wynne and her government. Katie Telford and Gerald Butts brought the same cash for access schemes right here to the federal level.Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians how much money he expects each minister to raise? By the way, how much will it cost me to get a meeting with the finance minister to tell him that big spending is a big problem?

Mr. Speaker, the government members have already said twice that they already know what the result is. It is not our cynicism. It is they who are undermining both.On Tuesday, I asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness if any other journalists are currently under surveillance by federal authorities. Today, the Prime Minister confirmed that he engaged with the RCMP and CSIS on this matter.Is the minister now willing to tell Canadians how many journalists are under federal surveillance?

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a lack of federal rules. We are talking about a lack of Liberal ethics. Few Canadians can afford the $1,500 price tag to get face time with the minister. The more than 100,000 energy workers who are out of a job cannot afford to pony up $1,500 to tell the minister he is doing nothing to get them back to work.The minister attended a fundraiser hosted by a law firm that now lobbies his department. Why did the minister allow himself to be put in such an obvious conflict of interest?

Mr. Speaker, the only thing the government could think of to help our entrepreneurs, who are the real job creators and wealth creators, are measures that will in fact harm them, such as imposing the Liberal carbon tax, eliminating Conservative tax credits, and making pension plans more expensive, to name a few. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance went and told the Senate that additional tax credits will be eliminated. Can the government tell us exactly which tax credits for small businesses will be eliminated?

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the minister is confused about how many infrastructure projects are actually under construction. This is not a surprise, especially when the minister told the Senate finance committee that he was confused by all the buckets of infrastructure money the Liberals had at their disposal.The truth is that less than 1% of the announced infrastructure projects are actually under construction. Why are the Liberals refusing to acknowledge that their plan is not working and they are not getting Canadians back their jobs?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has put out a tender for private subcontractors to handle complaints from Canadians regarding violations of the Official Languages Act. If the Minister of Canadian Heritage had implemented the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages regarding Air Canada, among others, and if she gave his office the budget it needs, we would not be in this mess.Instead of privatizing the complaints office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, when will the minister assume her responsibilities and solve the ongoing problems of non-compliance with the Official Languages Act?

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the minister should have listened to those quotes. It is quite clear that the Liberals have a preference. They admit that but they will not tell Canadians what it is. That is the problem. They continue to claim they are being transparent. Yeah, sure.Will the minister acknowledge that it is their own statements that are indeed undermining the committee's work?

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting choice of words, “is not applicable”, because if the number were zero, I am sure the minister would have no trouble saying so.Back in May, when I first called for a full investigation, the same minister claimed that it was an isolated case of police illegally spying on journalists, and that there was no need whatsoever to look any further. However, it is now obvious that it was not an isolated case.Will the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness order a full public inquiry into police spying on reporters at the federal level, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board president is a banker, so I am going to ask him about cost-benefit analysis.This year's $25 billion deficit was supposed to buy all kinds of jobs for Canadians; instead, we got 6,000 fewer full-time jobs. The government's answer to the problem was to borrow even more.If we spent $25 billion to buy a lot of nothing, would we buy even more of it?

Mr. Speaker, the costs of the Lower Churchill project were mismanaged by former Conservative governments, putting Newfoundland and Labrador at financial risk. I am pleased to inform the House that we will guarantee up to an additional $2.9 billion in debt using commercial terms of a guaranteed fee of a half basis point above the federal rate. Today's decision means we will contribute to our climate change goals and Atlantic Canada's future energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, freedom of the press is a fundamental Canadian value. The reports about transgressions in Quebec are cause for genuine concern, and the provincial government has announced some steps in that regard.At the federal level, I do not comment on any specific operation, but with respect to sensitive sectors like the media, we can provide the assurance that the sort of thing that is being reported in Quebec is not applicable at the federal level.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, gender-based violence, whether it is against indigenous women or other Canadian women across the country, is a serious concern of this government.We also know that safety is the foundation of gender equality, which is why it is such a privilege to work on a federal gender-based violence strategy for Canadian women and girls across this country. I look forward to bringing those results forward in 2017.

Mr. Speaker, the member very well knows that all members of Parliament and all parties fundraise, and we all abide by the exact same rules.I appreciate the member taking a moment to want to talk about Canadians and wanting to talk about what we have delivered on. The government has delivered on lowering taxes for middle-class Canadians. The government has delivered on the Canada child benefit by giving more money to Canadian families that need it the most. The government has made the historic commitment to reform and to modernize the Canada pension plan, something that Canadians have asked for and something that we will deliver on.We will continue to—

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice took money from lawyers, the Minister of Finance took money from Bay Street bankers, and the Minister of Natural Resources has taken money from natural resource lobbyists. In Ontario, Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne demanded that each of her ministers raise up to $500,000 per year for the party as a condition of remaining in cabinet.With the former masterminds of Kathleen Wynne's fundraising plan now running this PMO, does the Prime Minister demand similar quotas of his ministers?

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Liberal problem is that they continue to be completely out of touch with everyday Canadians, Canadians who work hard every day, pay their taxes, and follow the rules. This is something we have known for decades that the Liberals do not seem to be able to do. They do not seem to be able to follow any rules, much less their own. Therefore, when it comes to cash for access, if the Prime Minister cannot enforce his own rules, will he support our motion today and allow the Ethics Commissioner to do what he refuses to do?

Mr. Speaker, the member very well knows, and all Canadians know very well, that the government has embarked on unprecedented levels of public consultations and access to the government.The government is available and encourages Canadians to be involved and encourages Canadians to have their say. We will continue to consult with Canadians, and we will continue to engage with Canadians because Canadians should have their say. This government is listening and will continue to deliver on our commitments.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities appeared before a Senate committee and said, “If you feel confused about the numbers, I understand, Senator. There are so many different infrastructure funds”. The numbers are pretty straightforward: one year of Liberal government, one year of excessive spending, one year of a spiralling deficit, and only 1% of the construction projects are currently under way.If the minister cannot count to one, then we have a serious problem.When will this government get to creating real jobs for all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, after eliminating regional minister positions at Canada Economic Development, now we find out that the government is going to create an infrastructure bank to fund projects of $100 million or more. Today, 30 elected officials from my region are here. I must say that there are not too many $100-million projects in the regions.The Liberals are taking $15 billion that was earmarked for them and spending it on a structure that is not designed for them.What does the minister have to say to these municipal representatives from across Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague asked that question because it gives me an opportunity to remind everyone what we have done for Canadians this week.In the fall economic statement, we presented Canadians with a plan for economic growth that will help create jobs and improve their standard of living. The important number to remember is the $180-billion investment in infrastructure. We are investing a historic $81 billion in infrastructure. Some of those investments will be made through the infrastructure bank. The logical thing to do now is to put Canadians' money to work for Canadians. That is what Canadians expect.

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to making sure that all government procurement is done in an ethical way that protects the interests of Canadians. We must ensure that all procurements we undertake are done in an accountable and transparent manner, and that is why this government has committed to it, and that is what we will do.

Mr. Speaker, it is important this week that we honour and respect the 2.3 million Canadians who have served in our armed forces. We will continue to do that each and every day as a government.We have an aggressive mandate to do things better for veterans and their families. We have delivered a great deal in budget 2016, delivering $5.6 billion in new financial security and resources to veterans and their families. We remain committed to creating a pension option for life for our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was very clear today, as was the commissioner of the RCMP yesterday. The commissioner's answer was, very clearly and unequivocally, no.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has a pretty flexible understanding of ethics.The Prime Minister introduced rules that he refuses to follow. The Minister of Finance holds $1,500 fundraisers yet portrays himself as the champion of the middle class. He is also refusing to ensure that the millions of dollars Jacques Corriveau pocketed illegally will be returned to Canadians.Can the government reassure Canadians that it will get their $600,000 back for them?

Mr. Speaker, CETA is clearly in Canada's national interests, and it is time for all members of the House to rise above partisan politics and support it. We supported CETA when we were in opposition. We expect the opposition today to do the same.I had the honour of introducing implementing legislation for CETA on Monday, and I can assure the House that all parliamentarians will have an opportunity to vote on CETA before it can enter into force.

Mr. Speaker, there is no preferential access to this government. This government is demonstrating the most open and transparent approach, not just by following the rules but by being more engaged with Canadians and listening to them and the challenges they face.This government is making investments so that Canadian families can succeed. Our investment in the inclusive innovation agenda will get Canadians ready for not just the economy of today but the economy of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how many times I have to say it, but I will repeat it just in case the hon. member has not heard it before.Federal politics is subject to some of the strictest political financing legislation and regulations in the country. The government is committed to engaging and consulting with Canadians, and we will do that.Another prime example today is that there are future entrepreneurs here on Parliament Hill. These are our young entrepreneurs who want to grow their businesses, want to create jobs, want to create the growth that Canadians want. We are listening to the challenges Canadians are facing. We were elected to hear them out and to ensure that we can create the conditions for growth that our economy needs. We will continue to make the investments we need to make for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, in its economic update, the government did not allocate one red cent to education transfers. This means that it is going ahead with its plan to take $120 million away from Quebec's students. That $120 million would make quite a difference to students living on a budget.I asked the Minister of Youth about this on Monday, but he hid behind the parliamentary secretary to a minister who has nothing to do with this.Will he stand up today and commit to giving back the $120 million that he took away from them?

Mr. Speaker, almost 100 cash for access events have been scheduled in 2016 by the Liberals.The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to name just about all of them, have been the star attractions at these events.The Prime Minister either believes in his open and accountability rules or he does not. Today, the Prime Minister can prove he believes in his words by supporting our Conservative motion.Will the Liberals support our motion and give the Ethics Commissioner the power to investigate these cash for access schemes?

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon on a question of privilege on the manner in which the Minister of International Trade has been treating Parliament and due process in relation to the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the EU. The flagrant disrespect of Parliament shown by the minister and her government is alarming and unwarranted, but more importantly, the impact of this disrespect has obstructed me in the discharge of my duties as a member of Parliament. I will, through the course of my remarks, ask the Speaker to agree with my belief that there exists a prima facie case that my privileges as a member of Parliament have been breached, and I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion should the Speaker agree with my intervention.Before getting to the matter at hand, I would like to remind the House that obstruction in the discharge of parliamentary duties can take many forms, both physical and non-physical. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, tells us, at pages 108 and 109: If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege. Should an Hon. Member be able to say that something has happened which prevented him or her from performing functions...there would be a case for the Chair to consider. I will beg the House's indulgence to provide the proper context of what has happened and give an account of events leading up to this question of privilege. I will start with the facts of the matter at hand.To begin with, the Government of Canada adopted a policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament in 2008. That policy sets out specific guidelines and timelines on how international treaties will be presented to Parliament for debate and consideration. In section 6.2, “Tabling period for Treaties”, the policy states: b. For treaties that require implementing legislation before the Government can proceed to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession...the Government will: Observe a waiting period of at least twenty-one sitting days before the introduction of the necessary implementing legislation in Parliament; On Friday, October 28, the Minister of International Trade put an act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures on the Notice Paper, even before having signed the treaty. The Government of Canada signed CETA two days later, on Sunday, October 30. The Minister of International Trade tabled CETA in the House on Monday, October 31, and not 21 sittings days but about 21 seconds later, she introduced Bill C-30 to implement the provisions of CETA.The Minister of International Trade and the government are aware of this policy and obligation to Parliament. They have respected it as recently as this fall with regard to the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. On September 19, 2016, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade laid upon the table a copy of the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine and an explanatory memorandum. Twenty-eight sitting days later, which was this morning, as it turns out, and in full compliance with the policy, the Minister of International Trade introduced Bill C-31, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. However, in the case of CETA, the government acted in direct violation of its own policy when it came to the tabling of the treaty and the introduction of the implementing legislation that followed immediately afterward.Furthermore, the policy statement in the government's policy is as follows: The Minister of Foreign Affairs will initiate the tabling of all instruments, accompanied by a brief Explanatory Memorandum in the House of Commons following their adoption by signature or otherwise, and prior to Canada's expression of its consent to be bound by ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. This policy provision was followed when the Canada-Ukraine FTA was laid on the table and is something we are used to hearing the minister and her parliamentary secretary announce when they table international treaties, agreements, and other similar documents in the House. The explanatory memorandum is an important piece of this process, so important, in fact, that it has its own provisions in the policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament. Section 6.4 of the policy states: An Explanatory Memorandum will accompany each treaty that is tabled in the House of Commons. a. The purpose of the Explanatory Memorandum is to provide the House of Commons with information regarding the content of the Treaty. The document tabled by the minister on Monday was over 1,700 pages long, so an explanatory memorandum is particularly important in this case. Further, a long list is given of what materials must be included in the explanatory memorandum. Among other items, the policy states that the explanatory memorandum will cover the following points. First is subject matter. Second is a national interest summary. Third are policy considerations and how the treaty's obligations and their implementation will be consistent with the government's policies. Fourth are federal-provincial-territorial jurisdictional implications. Fifth are time considerations, with any upcoming dates or events that make the ratification a matter of priority. Sixth is a brief description of how the treaty will be implemented in Canadian law, including a description of the legislative or other authority under which it will fall, and seventh is a description of the consultations undertaken with the House of Commons, self-governing aboriginal governments, other government departments, and non-governmental organizations prior to the conclusion of the treaty, as appropriate.There may have been 1,700 pages tabled by the Minister of International Trade on Monday, but there was no explanatory memorandum accompanying them, blatantly showing that the Government of Canada was negligent in fulfilling its obligations under this policy. The government responded to a question on the Order Paper from the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster in a particularly alarming way. The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster put a question on the Order Paper on May 3, 2016. Among other things, Question No. 193 asked: With regard to the Minister of International Trade and the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement: (a) when did the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development start drafting an Explanatory Memorandum for tabling with the treaty; (b) what deadline was given to the department in order to draft an Explanatory Memorandum; (c) will the Minister table a copy of the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and Explanatory Memorandum, and, if so, when; The minister's honesty about violating her own policy is commendable, however alarming. She responded on September 19 by saying: Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) and (b), Global Affairs Canada, GAC, has not been tasked with drafting an explanatory memorandum for the tabling of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA. This question was first asked in May and was responded to four and a half months later with a response essentially indicating that the government intends to violate its own policy obligations to Parliament. The government had time to react. The minister could have realized that Canada was in the process of negotiating a complex and multilayered treaty with 28 countries and that she would have an obligation to fulfill when she tabled the treaty, but she chose not to. Even after she responded to the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster on September 19, she still had another 42 days to instruct her officials to respect Canadians and their duly elected representatives in Parliament, but she chose not to. Clearly, there was enough time to prepare. Europe is indicating that it is still not on board with CETA, so the timelines that are being presented to us provide more than enough time for the minister and Global Affairs to fulfill this obligation to me as a parliamentarian and to everyone who sits in the House.On May 5, 1987, at page 5766 of Debates, Speaker Fraser stated: The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions. Seventeen hundred pages is a lot for any parliamentarian to digest. We need to do a full analysis. We need time to do so, and the time that is normally allocated needs to be respected by the minister for all members in the House so that we can have the full information and analysis necessary to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of this agreement.Furthermore, the international trade committee is now being asked to pre-study the bill four days after the 1,700-page document and the 131-page bill were tabled. That is unacceptable.I am aware that the minister's own policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament is not governed by the Standing Orders of the House, but given the context of what has transpired over the past week, it is undeniably true that my ability, and the ability of all members of Parliament, to properly discharge our functions, to properly study and analyze more than 1,700 pages of text, and to adequately scrutinize government proposals and legislation are being impeded by the Minister of International Trade's deliberate decision to violate her own policy. She had time to remedy the situation regarding the explanatory memorandum, and she did not. She had time to table the treaty and wait 21 sitting days before introducing the legislation, but she did not. I think that you, Mr. Speaker, would be the first to agree that all members of Parliament are equal in their privileges in this House of Commons and that no one should be interfered with or disadvantaged in any way in the discharge of their duties as a member of Parliament, especially by other members in this House.Mr. Speaker, if you find that there was a prima facie breach of my privileges as a member, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting reports out of Penticton that all early morning and evening flights by WestJet and Air Canada have been cancelled for the past four days. This comes after a safety audit identified concerns with tree heights around the airport. These cancellations represent two-thirds of all flights in and out of Penticton and are causing serious disruption to the local economy.Can the Minister of Transport inform my constituents when these concerns will be addressed and when the Penticton airport will resume its normal operations?

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Natural Resources was asked by the Winnipeg Free Press if he attended any Liberal cash for access fundraising events, he said no. But the facts do not lie. We know that the minister attended an event hosted by MLT, a leading law firm in the natural resources sector, and that the price of admission was a donation of $1,500 to the Liberal Party of Canada.Why is the natural resources minister trying to cover up the fact that he has been a part of the Liberal cash for access scheme?

Mr. Speaker, we have been here for a number of weeks, trying to work fairly well together, and now we are all getting ready to go home to our constituencies and to take the week with our constituents but also to take that time to honour those men and women who have fallen and have paid the ultimate—

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the project was badly mishandled and the results of that have been cost overruns and budget delays, which have put the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador at risk. That is why the Government of Canada is guaranteeing an extension of a loan guarantee for $2.9 billion with a commercial fee attached. We think this is the right thing to do. We think this is good for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the government is all over the map.I would like to remind the Liberals that, in 2014, they voted in favour of my motion to compensate dairy producers. It seems that they are doing a complete 180.Senior officials are now talking about transition assistance. They say that they do not anticipate significant losses. However, these losses have been estimated at $150 million. That is significant.Producers deserve to know the truth. Can we have some clear answers? Will the Liberal government compensate dairy producers, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, we are delivering on our commitment to invest more than $180 billion in infrastructure to create long-term growth and jobs for the middle class, and to create a low-carbon economy, a green economy, and to improve our social inclusion.Within the last four months, our government has approved more funding for municipalities than that government did in the past five years combined.Now 60% of those investments are being—

Mr. Speaker, while we are on the topic of hiding things, the Minister of Democratic Institutions continues to stonewall reporters and others who have been trying to get the truth out of her for months. We all know that she is hiding something. But yesterday, news reports finally revealed the truth. The minister finally admitted that she and the Prime Minister have a preferred voting system. Canadians have made it clear that they want a referendum on any proposed changes, so will the Liberals finally put aside the Prime Minister's personal preferences and allow all Canadians to have a direct say through a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, when we came to power, we inherited a sluggish economy. That is why we made infrastructure investments. That is why we cut taxes for more than nine million middle-class Canadians. That is why we created the Canada child benefit, which is helping nine out of ten families.Making these investments for the middle class is very important, and that is what we will keep doing.

Mr. Speaker, in 2004, the Gomery commission uncovered the truth about the sponsorship scandal. One of the key players in the scandal, Jacques Corriveau, was found guilty as charged.The government refuses to admit that it is breaking its own ethics rules, but will it at least ensure that taxpayers get the remaining $600,000 from the Corriveau affair back?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a member of the Liberal Party declared that the Government of Canada has a social covenant with veterans and their families. Then a parliamentary secretary confirmed that “As a government, we will honour this social covenant”. Yet the government is still in court arguing that it does not owe any such covenant.Will the Prime Minister please clarify if his government believes we have a covenant of moral and social obligation to veterans and their families, or is he comfortable pursuing veterans in court?

Mr. Speaker, once again, the member very well knows that the federal rules are some of the strongest in the country. He also knows that in some provinces, they accept donations from unions, trade associations, and corporations. That is not the case in the federal system.The member should really read the rules.

Mr. Speaker, Liberals were elected to keep their promises, and this is another promise that they are not keeping.So far, in today's debate, we have only heard from Liberal backbenchers defending the Prime Minister's cash for access fundraising scheme, claiming that they have broken no laws. We are not talking about election financing laws. We are talking about the words and expectations of the Prime Minister, when he published the open and accountable government rules.The Prime Minister seems to do one thing for optics, and does the exact opposite for his Liberal friends. Why will the Prime Minister not enforce his own rules?

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me welcome the member to his new role as critic for public safety. The objective of our correctional system is in fact public safety, and that includes effective and successful rehabilitation. The Office of the Correctional Investigator believes that rehabilitation can be enhanced with changes to the pay system. He asked us to examine that, and I have invited Commissioner Don Head of the Correctional Service to conduct a review. I am sure that the review would welcome the input from the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, that parliamentary committee is doing important work, and we should allow that parliamentary committee to do its work. I would urge the hon. member, and all members, not to prejudge the work of the parliamentary committee. Let that committee do its work.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, and as the member knows, all members and all parties raise funds, and they all have to follow the same rules.There can be no conflict of interest when following the rules, and that is what we will continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to meet with many local innovative business leaders as part of the consultation for the creation of the innovation agenda. They raise the various different challenges that they face in growing a business in Canada. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development share with us how the fall economic update tabled this week will address those challenges and help to create jobs for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the particulars of the situation that the hon. member has identified, but the safety and security of Canadians is a priority, which is why the minister continues to maintain and improve the safety of the Canadian aviation system with an intelligent risk-based approach.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, my office has reached out to the mayor and to the member, and we are certainly helping to facilitate the transition in that all current employees will be guaranteed jobs in Edmonton. As I have said before, there will be a net increase in jobs in Alberta because this move will allow us to pursue our lines of business more effectively, meet rising demands, and provide better immigration services to all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, as the member very well knows, no, he does not.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue to debate the Conservative Party motion.Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-26, on the Canada pension plan.Next week, as the hon. member said, we will be working hard in our constituencies and attending Remembrance Day ceremonies on Friday to collectively stand in honour of all who have fallen in the service of Canada.When we return on Monday, November 14, the House will then have the fifth day of second reading debate on Bill C-26, the CPP enhancement bill. On Tuesday, the House will also have the fifth day of second reading debate on Bill C-29, the second budget implementation bill.On Wednesday, the House will consider Bill C-16, the gender identity bill, at report stage, and hopefully at third reading. On Thursday, the House will debate Bill C-25, the business framework bill, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, certainly we are committed to the students, not just in Quebec but right across Canada. In the member's own province he would know of the increase that we have made in the student grant program, though Quebec does not take part in that. We transferred $290 million for that program and we just added an additional $80 million. The minister responsible for higher education, Hélène David, commented that this is great news as the money will go straight into the pockets of students. We respect and we are working for the students of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I would also ask if I could reserve the right to look at this further and bring some comments back at a later date.

Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the assets. What we announced this week, in the fall economic statement, is a plan to invest in Canadians. After budget 2016, where we made historic investments in Canadian families and in the middle class, what we presented to Canadians was historic investments in infrastructure and historic investments to create the invest in Canada hub to attract investment in Canada, to attract global talent. That is the plan that is working for Canadians, that is what Canadians want, and that is what we are going to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, the committee has been doing very good work, working together to listen to Canadians and to take the consultations that have been done by members of Parliament across this country and to look for consensus on how they could work together. It will be the consensus of that report, it will be the work of that committee, that this government listens to. Of course, we all have opinions and there are disparate opinions in the House, but it is the work of that committee that we are looking forward to. I encourage the member to continue his work on that committee to find those solutions and to bring that report back to the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should join with Canadians to celebrate some of the success our government has had in attracting global companies like Thomson Reuters to bring 1,500 new head office jobs to Canada, companies like General Electric and Amazon, which are choosing Canada because they believe the work of this government in investing in jobs and growth, and creating more opportunities for the middle class is exactly the right thing to be doing.

Mr. Speaker, with that being said, would the government House leader share the business for the rest of the week, and for the first week after we return?

Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Democratic Institutions is consulting broadly with Canadians. Members from our party, but also members from other parties, have consulted with Canadians throughout the summer. The fact is that we think is really important to listen to Canadians, to participate actively in town halls across Canada. Those recommendations have come to a parliamentary committee. We look forward to the work of that committee, and we will not prejudge the work of that committee. Let that committee do its work.

Mr. Speaker, Canada and Ukraine share a unique bond. We stood shoulder-to-shoulder with her people during the Maidan revolution of dignity and the subsequent Russian military annexation of Ukraine's territory. During the Prime Minister's state visit to Ukraine last July, the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement was signed by the Minister of International Trade. Could the minister update the House on how this agreement will strengthen our special relationship and Ukraine's pro-western choice and statehood?

Mr. Speaker, the member very well knows that in Canada we have some of the strictest fundraising rules across the country. If we want to talk about access, let us talk about some of the good work this government is doing. Just today the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet were engaging with over 300 high school students from the national capital region. These students were able to talk about the challenges they faced and to ask some tough questions. The Prime Minister was there to answer them all.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has some of the strongest rules when it comes to fundraising across the nation. The member knows that very well. When it comes to our young people, when it comes to women entrepreneurs, when it comes to under-represented groups, these are concerns this government recognizes Canadians are facing. We were elected to engage with Canadians. We were elected to represent Canadians. We will continue to work with Canadians and for Canadians. That is why we are here every day.

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is very important to recognize the importance of investing in the middle class and creating economic growth.That is exactly what we are doing and what we will continue to do, because that is the priority of Canadians. Our actions reflect that priority.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member opposite will appreciate that the investments we made in budget 2016 are advancing the LRT project in her own city. It is being done right now. We are helping her city do its design work, do its planning work, so that city can be ready to take on the opportunities when we announce other long-term funding to build public transit in every city from coast to coast to coast.We approved $11 billion in infrastructure since taking office—

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House what the leaders of the municipalities are telling us. This is from the CEO of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities: “It is a great thing. It is creating a focal point for our country to have a strategic conversation and develop strategic directions about infrastructure generally”.Here is a quote from Linda Hepner, mayor of Surrey. She says: The City of Surrey applauds the Federal Government’s commitment to providing stable grants funding and also looks forward to the additional opportunities the newly announced—

Mr. Speaker, let me quote the Minister of Democratic Institutions on which voting system Canada should adopt, “the prime minister has a preference” and “I am arriving at a preference for a specific system”.What is the preferred Liberal system?

Mr. Speaker, dyakuyu. Today I was honoured to introduce the bill to implement the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. This deal is yet another demonstration of Canada's commitment to Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and economic growth. This deal will create jobs and growth for the middle class in Canada and Ukraine. As one of our country's 1.25 million Ukrainian Canadians, I am very proud that Canada's support for Ukraine is unwavering. Slava Ukraini, Slava Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the minister and I are former dairy producers and fully aware of the sector's needs. It was our party that established supply management, and it is our party that will defend it. As I said, we are finalizing our transition assistance programs. Our goal is to improve the position of dairy producers, to help modernize the Canadian dairy sector, and to ensure its growth and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on our plan to strengthen the middle class and improve growth. We heard from Canadians and from growing Canadian businesses about the need to support scaling up and to spur the next generation of globally competitive companies. In welcoming highly skilled workers, researchers, and entrepreneurs at a faster rate, we are providing growing Canadian companies a competitive advantage. We are helping innovative businesses grow and prosper right here in Canada. We are ensuring more Canadian jobs are created.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador requested that Canada provide more loan guarantees for the Lower Churchill projects.Given the vital importance of these projects to Newfoundland and Labrador's financial security, could the hon. Minister of Natural Resources please provide an update on Canada's consideration of those requests?

Mr. Speaker, in fact as I already said, we seek to maximize membership and to consult with countries that have strong human rights records at home and abroad. Why are we doing so? It is because we are champions fighting for universal human rights at every opportunity, at the United Nations, and on every continent. And with the Prime Minister, let me tell everyone, we are champions for universal human rights everywhere in the world.

Mr. Speaker, when we took over the government, we looked at the investments being made by the previous government. I was surprised to learn that, despite announcing $14 billion, it had invested only $25 million in the last two years before we took over. What we have done is we have approved more than 900 projects with a combined investment of $11 billion from coast to coast to coast, helping the municipalities create jobs and build the necessary infrastructure that communities need.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.I am proud to be part of a government that values our two official languages and is showing leadership in this area. Of course, all recommendations from the commissioner are always carefully considered and valued greatly. As part of my duties, I am currently developing a new official languages plan, not only to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act and the vitality of official language minority communities, but also to enhance bilingualism across the country.

Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker, indeed, gender-based violence, whether it is against indigenous women or other Canadian women across the country, is a serious concern of this government.We also know that safety is the foundation of gender equality, which is why it is such a privilege to work on a federal gender-based violence strategy for Canadian women and girls across this country. I look forward to bringing those results forward in 2017.

Mr. Speaker, the government's policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament requires the minister to present a report on expected impacts and consultations and to table proposed treaties for 21 days before introducing ratifying legislation. While the government has still failed to release a study of CETA impacts, the minister has tabled a bill to ratify all parts of the agreement, in spite of the fact that Europe has been clear that further changes are necessary.Why has the minister violated this policy and failed to present a study of CETA impacts in the House?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have failed to create a single full-time job since they took office. This should not be a surprise because less than 1% of the announced infrastructure projects have started construction over this past year.Now we learn that, instead of building infrastructure, the Liberals have been busy setting up a bank, which is going to cost taxpayers $15 billion.When will the Liberals come up with a plan that actually creates jobs instead of pushing Canadians further into debt?

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is so outrageously wrong, I cannot be mute about that.This government, in the last year, has been upfront to fight everywhere for universal human rights, for an inclusive approach, and for peace everywhere. I cannot believe the question was asked this way. I think my colleague should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Canada to speak truth to the world's worst human rights abusers publicly, not timidly, not in private with cautious lines crafted to win eventual Security Council votes. The minister has an opportunity to deny today that secret votes were traded with rights abusers who seek false legitimacy on the Human Rights Council.Again, will the minister stop hiding the truth and tell Canadians how Canada voted on the Human Rights Council candidacies of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba?

Mr. Speaker, this week the Liberals have had a chance to address the concerns that Canadians face today. Jobs are being lost, the economy is shrinking, and small business owners are wondering each and every day who they might have to lay off next. However, instead of presenting a plan for jobs, the Minister of Finance just presented a plan of more spending and massive deficits for years to come. Is the minister not at all concerned about jobs for today? Why is he playing this reckless and dangerous game of massive spending with absolutely nothing to show for it?

Mr. Speaker, we are getting reports out of Penticton that all early morning and evening flights by WestJet and Air Canada have been cancelled for the past four days. This comes after a safety audit identified concerns with tree heights around the airport. These cancellations represent two-thirds of all flights in and out of Penticton and are causing serious disruption to the local economy.Can the Minister of Transport inform my constituents when these concerns will be addressed and when the Penticton airport will resume its normal operations?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has a pretty flexible understanding of ethics.The Prime Minister introduced rules that he refuses to follow. The Minister of Finance holds $1,500 fundraisers yet portrays himself as the champion of the middle class. He is also refusing to ensure that the millions of dollars Jacques Corriveau pocketed illegally will be returned to Canadians.Can the government reassure Canadians that it will get their $600,000 back for them?

Mr. Speaker, in its economic update, the government did not allocate one red cent to education transfers. This means that it is going ahead with its plan to take $120 million away from Quebec's students. That $120 million would make quite a difference to students living on a budget.I asked the Minister of Youth about this on Monday, but he hid behind the parliamentary secretary to a minister who has nothing to do with this.Will he stand up today and commit to giving back the $120 million that he took away from them?

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue to debate the Conservative Party motion.Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-26, on the Canada pension plan.Next week, as the hon. member said, we will be working hard in our constituencies and attending Remembrance Day ceremonies on Friday to collectively stand in honour of all who have fallen in the service of Canada.When we return on Monday, November 14, the House will then have the fifth day of second reading debate on Bill C-26, the CPP enhancement bill. On Tuesday, the House will also have the fifth day of second reading debate on Bill C-29, the second budget implementation bill.On Wednesday, the House will consider Bill C-16, the gender identity bill, at report stage, and hopefully at third reading. On Thursday, the House will debate Bill C-25, the business framework bill, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the minister is confused about how many infrastructure projects are actually under construction. This is not a surprise, especially when the minister told the Senate finance committee that he was confused by all the buckets of infrastructure money the Liberals had at their disposal.The truth is that less than 1% of the announced infrastructure projects are actually under construction. Why are the Liberals refusing to acknowledge that their plan is not working and they are not getting Canadians back their jobs?

Mr. Speaker, the minister claims that closing the Vegreville immigration centre will increase jobs in Alberta, but he is wrong. This edict will immediately kill 280 jobs in town, but that is only the start. Jobs will be lost at the local post office, local school, the town, charities, and more. When all those people are gone, there go the small businesses. This edict is catastrophic. The minister claims he is creating jobs but he is actually killing them, and Alberta will be worse off. Will he do the right thing and stop this closure?

Mr. Speaker, in 2004, the Gomery commission uncovered the truth about the sponsorship scandal. One of the key players in the scandal, Jacques Corriveau, was found guilty as charged.The government refuses to admit that it is breaking its own ethics rules, but will it at least ensure that taxpayers get the remaining $600,000 from the Corriveau affair back?

Mr. Speaker, it is not working, and neither are the 6,000 people who do not have jobs.The Liberal Party promised solemnly that its deficit over the term would not exceed $25 billion. This week's economic statement showed that the number will be $100 billion, which is four times what it promised, and that presumes it does not spend another cent in its next three budgets.How could the Liberals have been so wrong, so fast? Is it because they cannot count or because they cannot tell the truth?

Mr. Speaker, the only thing the government could think of to help our entrepreneurs, who are the real job creators and wealth creators, are measures that will in fact harm them, such as imposing the Liberal carbon tax, eliminating Conservative tax credits, and making pension plans more expensive, to name a few. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance went and told the Senate that additional tax credits will be eliminated. Can the government tell us exactly which tax credits for small businesses will be eliminated?

Mr. Speaker, let me quote the Minister of Democratic Institutions on which voting system Canada should adopt, “the prime minister has a preference” and “I am arriving at a preference for a specific system”.What is the preferred Liberal system?

Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker, as I said, and as the member knows, all members and all parties raise funds, and they all have to follow the same rules.There can be no conflict of interest when following the rules, and that is what we will continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has put out a tender for private subcontractors to handle complaints from Canadians regarding violations of the Official Languages Act. If the Minister of Canadian Heritage had implemented the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages regarding Air Canada, among others, and if she gave his office the budget it needs, we would not be in this mess.Instead of privatizing the complaints office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, when will the minister assume her responsibilities and solve the ongoing problems of non-compliance with the Official Languages Act?

Mr. Speaker, the Canada infrastructure bank, which will privatize our infrastructure, hopes to attract $4 from the private sector for every dollar of public spending.However, pension funds, like private investment funds, foreign funds, and banks, will never invest just to impress the minister. They will want a high return on their investments.Michael Sabia said that they are chomping at the bit to get returns of 7% to 9%. My question for the minster is so simple that he does not even need an MBA to answer it.How can a profit be made on infrastructure investments without charging user fees or tolls and without increasing existing fees?

Mr. Speaker, today Amnesty International released a troubling report on resource development in northeastern B.C. and the resulting risk of violence against indigenous young women and girls. This report is consistent with what I heard from indigenous leaders directly when I travelled to the Peace River Valley this summer. To make matters worse, there are no federally funded domestic violence shelters on reserve in northeastern B.C.Did the government consider these impacts when it approved the Site C dam, and what support will the government provide to women who face violence in these areas?

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a lack of federal rules. We are talking about a lack of Liberal ethics. Few Canadians can afford the $1,500 price tag to get face time with the minister. The more than 100,000 energy workers who are out of a job cannot afford to pony up $1,500 to tell the minister he is doing nothing to get them back to work.The minister attended a fundraiser hosted by a law firm that now lobbies his department. Why did the minister allow himself to be put in such an obvious conflict of interest?

Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the assets. What we announced this week, in the fall economic statement, is a plan to invest in Canadians. After budget 2016, where we made historic investments in Canadian families and in the middle class, what we presented to Canadians was historic investments in infrastructure and historic investments to create the invest in Canada hub to attract investment in Canada, to attract global talent. That is the plan that is working for Canadians, that is what Canadians want, and that is what we are going to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are fine with saying that they are back at the United Nations, but the Liberals are back as they were before: pandering to despots, dictators, and human rights abusers.The United Nations today is not the organization it was when democracies made up the majority. The UN today has been described accurately as a broken Remington typewriter in a smart phone world.Why will the Liberals not take a tiny step towards reform and transparency and tell Canadians how Canada voted on the Human Rights Council candidacies of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba?

Mr. Speaker, while we are on the topic of hiding things, the Minister of Democratic Institutions continues to stonewall reporters and others who have been trying to get the truth out of her for months. We all know that she is hiding something. But yesterday, news reports finally revealed the truth. The minister finally admitted that she and the Prime Minister have a preferred voting system. Canadians have made it clear that they want a referendum on any proposed changes, so will the Liberals finally put aside the Prime Minister's personal preferences and allow all Canadians to have a direct say through a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities appeared before a Senate committee and said, “If you feel confused about the numbers, I understand, Senator. There are so many different infrastructure funds”. The numbers are pretty straightforward: one year of Liberal government, one year of excessive spending, one year of a spiralling deficit, and only 1% of the construction projects are currently under way.If the minister cannot count to one, then we have a serious problem.When will this government get to creating real jobs for all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the costs of the Lower Churchill project were mismanaged by former Conservative governments, putting Newfoundland and Labrador at financial risk. I am pleased to inform the House that we will guarantee up to an additional $2.9 billion in debt using commercial terms of a guaranteed fee of a half basis point above the federal rate. Today's decision means we will contribute to our climate change goals and Atlantic Canada's future energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, CETA is clearly in Canada's national interests, and it is time for all members of the House to rise above partisan politics and support it. We supported CETA when we were in opposition. We expect the opposition today to do the same.I had the honour of introducing implementing legislation for CETA on Monday, and I can assure the House that all parliamentarians will have an opportunity to vote on CETA before it can enter into force.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice took money from lawyers, the Minister of Finance took money from Bay Street bankers, and the Minister of Natural Resources has taken money from natural resource lobbyists. In Ontario, Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne demanded that each of her ministers raise up to $500,000 per year for the party as a condition of remaining in cabinet.With the former masterminds of Kathleen Wynne's fundraising plan now running this PMO, does the Prime Minister demand similar quotas of his ministers?

Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Democratic Institutions is consulting broadly with Canadians. Members from our party, but also members from other parties, have consulted with Canadians throughout the summer. The fact is that we think is really important to listen to Canadians, to participate actively in town halls across Canada. Those recommendations have come to a parliamentary committee. We look forward to the work of that committee, and we will not prejudge the work of that committee. Let that committee do its work.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's inability to tell us when we will achieve a zero deficit proves that the government has completely lost control of public finances. The government seems to be proud that it managed to shrink the deficit, saying that it is not as bad as expected, but it is forgetting one little $6-billion detail. The government blew through its $6-billion wiggle room so it could come up with a presentable number. That is hardly something to be proud of, and we are not the only ones saying so.Rudy Le Cours of La Presse called it sleight of hand, and Radio-Canada's Gérald Fillion wrote that “the minister is playing fast and loose with his numbers”—

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the project was badly mishandled and the results of that have been cost overruns and budget delays, which have put the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador at risk. That is why the Government of Canada is guaranteeing an extension of a loan guarantee for $2.9 billion with a commercial fee attached. We think this is the right thing to do. We think this is good for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would also ask if I could reserve the right to look at this further and bring some comments back at a later date.

Mr. Speaker, when we took over the government, we looked at the investments being made by the previous government. I was surprised to learn that, despite announcing $14 billion, it had invested only $25 million in the last two years before we took over. What we have done is we have approved more than 900 projects with a combined investment of $11 billion from coast to coast to coast, helping the municipalities create jobs and build the necessary infrastructure that communities need.

Mr. Speaker, in fact as I already said, we seek to maximize membership and to consult with countries that have strong human rights records at home and abroad. Why are we doing so? It is because we are champions fighting for universal human rights at every opportunity, at the United Nations, and on every continent. And with the Prime Minister, let me tell everyone, we are champions for universal human rights everywhere in the world.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is an opposition day, and the member should not be taking time out of the time for debate on the motion they have spent time working on.I have listened to the member opposite, and I do not believe this matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. What the member is referring to is a matter of policy and not a question of parliamentary procedure. As such, this does not constitute a contempt of the House.I reserve the right to return to the House with a further intervention on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, Liberals were elected to keep their promises, and this is another promise that they are not keeping.So far, in today's debate, we have only heard from Liberal backbenchers defending the Prime Minister's cash for access fundraising scheme, claiming that they have broken no laws. We are not talking about election financing laws. We are talking about the words and expectations of the Prime Minister, when he published the open and accountable government rules.The Prime Minister seems to do one thing for optics, and does the exact opposite for his Liberal friends. Why will the Prime Minister not enforce his own rules?

Mr. Speaker, we are delivering on our commitment to invest more than $180 billion in infrastructure to create long-term growth and jobs for the middle class, and to create a low-carbon economy, a green economy, and to improve our social inclusion.Within the last four months, our government has approved more funding for municipalities than that government did in the past five years combined.Now 60% of those investments are being—

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how many times I have to say it, but I will repeat it just in case the hon. member has not heard it before.Federal politics is subject to some of the strictest political financing legislation and regulations in the country. The government is committed to engaging and consulting with Canadians, and we will do that.Another prime example today is that there are future entrepreneurs here on Parliament Hill. These are our young entrepreneurs who want to grow their businesses, want to create jobs, want to create the growth that Canadians want. We are listening to the challenges Canadians are facing. We were elected to hear them out and to ensure that we can create the conditions for growth that our economy needs. We will continue to make the investments we need to make for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon on a question of privilege on the manner in which the Minister of International Trade has been treating Parliament and due process in relation to the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the EU. The flagrant disrespect of Parliament shown by the minister and her government is alarming and unwarranted, but more importantly, the impact of this disrespect has obstructed me in the discharge of my duties as a member of Parliament. I will, through the course of my remarks, ask the Speaker to agree with my belief that there exists a prima facie case that my privileges as a member of Parliament have been breached, and I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion should the Speaker agree with my intervention.Before getting to the matter at hand, I would like to remind the House that obstruction in the discharge of parliamentary duties can take many forms, both physical and non-physical. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, tells us, at pages 108 and 109: If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege. Should an Hon. Member be able to say that something has happened which prevented him or her from performing functions...there would be a case for the Chair to consider. I will beg the House's indulgence to provide the proper context of what has happened and give an account of events leading up to this question of privilege. I will start with the facts of the matter at hand.To begin with, the Government of Canada adopted a policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament in 2008. That policy sets out specific guidelines and timelines on how international treaties will be presented to Parliament for debate and consideration. In section 6.2, “Tabling period for Treaties”, the policy states: b. For treaties that require implementing legislation before the Government can proceed to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession...the Government will: Observe a waiting period of at least twenty-one sitting days before the introduction of the necessary implementing legislation in Parliament; On Friday, October 28, the Minister of International Trade put an act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures on the Notice Paper, even before having signed the treaty. The Government of Canada signed CETA two days later, on Sunday, October 30. The Minister of International Trade tabled CETA in the House on Monday, October 31, and not 21 sittings days but about 21 seconds later, she introduced Bill C-30 to implement the provisions of CETA.The Minister of International Trade and the government are aware of this policy and obligation to Parliament. They have respected it as recently as this fall with regard to the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. On September 19, 2016, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade laid upon the table a copy of the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine and an explanatory memorandum. Twenty-eight sitting days later, which was this morning, as it turns out, and in full compliance with the policy, the Minister of International Trade introduced Bill C-31, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. However, in the case of CETA, the government acted in direct violation of its own policy when it came to the tabling of the treaty and the introduction of the implementing legislation that followed immediately afterward.Furthermore, the policy statement in the government's policy is as follows: The Minister of Foreign Affairs will initiate the tabling of all instruments, accompanied by a brief Explanatory Memorandum in the House of Commons following their adoption by signature or otherwise, and prior to Canada's expression of its consent to be bound by ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. This policy provision was followed when the Canada-Ukraine FTA was laid on the table and is something we are used to hearing the minister and her parliamentary secretary announce when they table international treaties, agreements, and other similar documents in the House. The explanatory memorandum is an important piece of this process, so important, in fact, that it has its own provisions in the policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament. Section 6.4 of the policy states: An Explanatory Memorandum will accompany each treaty that is tabled in the House of Commons. a. The purpose of the Explanatory Memorandum is to provide the House of Commons with information regarding the content of the Treaty. The document tabled by the minister on Monday was over 1,700 pages long, so an explanatory memorandum is particularly important in this case. Further, a long list is given of what materials must be included in the explanatory memorandum. Among other items, the policy states that the explanatory memorandum will cover the following points. First is subject matter. Second is a national interest summary. Third are policy considerations and how the treaty's obligations and their implementation will be consistent with the government's policies. Fourth are federal-provincial-territorial jurisdictional implications. Fifth are time considerations, with any upcoming dates or events that make the ratification a matter of priority. Sixth is a brief description of how the treaty will be implemented in Canadian law, including a description of the legislative or other authority under which it will fall, and seventh is a description of the consultations undertaken with the House of Commons, self-governing aboriginal governments, other government departments, and non-governmental organizations prior to the conclusion of the treaty, as appropriate.There may have been 1,700 pages tabled by the Minister of International Trade on Monday, but there was no explanatory memorandum accompanying them, blatantly showing that the Government of Canada was negligent in fulfilling its obligations under this policy. The government responded to a question on the Order Paper from the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster in a particularly alarming way. The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster put a question on the Order Paper on May 3, 2016. Among other things, Question No. 193 asked: With regard to the Minister of International Trade and the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement: (a) when did the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development start drafting an Explanatory Memorandum for tabling with the treaty; (b) what deadline was given to the department in order to draft an Explanatory Memorandum; (c) will the Minister table a copy of the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and Explanatory Memorandum, and, if so, when; The minister's honesty about violating her own policy is commendable, however alarming. She responded on September 19 by saying: Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) and (b), Global Affairs Canada, GAC, has not been tasked with drafting an explanatory memorandum for the tabling of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA. This question was first asked in May and was responded to four and a half months later with a response essentially indicating that the government intends to violate its own policy obligations to Parliament. The government had time to react. The minister could have realized that Canada was in the process of negotiating a complex and multilayered treaty with 28 countries and that she would have an obligation to fulfill when she tabled the treaty, but she chose not to. Even after she responded to the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster on September 19, she still had another 42 days to instruct her officials to respect Canadians and their duly elected representatives in Parliament, but she chose not to. Clearly, there was enough time to prepare. Europe is indicating that it is still not on board with CETA, so the timelines that are being presented to us provide more than enough time for the minister and Global Affairs to fulfill this obligation to me as a parliamentarian and to everyone who sits in the House.On May 5, 1987, at page 5766 of Debates, Speaker Fraser stated: The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions. Seventeen hundred pages is a lot for any parliamentarian to digest. We need to do a full analysis. We need time to do so, and the time that is normally allocated needs to be respected by the minister for all members in the House so that we can have the full information and analysis necessary to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of this agreement.Furthermore, the international trade committee is now being asked to pre-study the bill four days after the 1,700-page document and the 131-page bill were tabled. That is unacceptable.I am aware that the minister's own policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament is not governed by the Standing Orders of the House, but given the context of what has transpired over the past week, it is undeniably true that my ability, and the ability of all members of Parliament, to properly discharge our functions, to properly study and analyze more than 1,700 pages of text, and to adequately scrutinize government proposals and legislation are being impeded by the Minister of International Trade's deliberate decision to violate her own policy. She had time to remedy the situation regarding the explanatory memorandum, and she did not. She had time to table the treaty and wait 21 sitting days before introducing the legislation, but she did not. I think that you, Mr. Speaker, would be the first to agree that all members of Parliament are equal in their privileges in this House of Commons and that no one should be interfered with or disadvantaged in any way in the discharge of their duties as a member of Parliament, especially by other members in this House.Mr. Speaker, if you find that there was a prima facie breach of my privileges as a member, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Mr. Speaker, in Ontario, political insiders bought access to Kathleen Wynne and her government. Katie Telford and Gerald Butts brought the same cash for access schemes right here to the federal level.Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians how much money he expects each minister to raise? By the way, how much will it cost me to get a meeting with the finance minister to tell him that big spending is a big problem?

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Natural Resources was asked by the Winnipeg Free Press if he attended any Liberal cash for access fundraising events, he said no. But the facts do not lie. We know that the minister attended an event hosted by MLT, a leading law firm in the natural resources sector, and that the price of admission was a donation of $1,500 to the Liberal Party of Canada.Why is the natural resources minister trying to cover up the fact that he has been a part of the Liberal cash for access scheme?

Mr. Speaker, almost 100 cash for access events have been scheduled in 2016 by the Liberals.The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to name just about all of them, have been the star attractions at these events.The Prime Minister either believes in his open and accountability rules or he does not. Today, the Prime Minister can prove he believes in his words by supporting our Conservative motion.Will the Liberals support our motion and give the Ethics Commissioner the power to investigate these cash for access schemes?

Mr. Speaker, the minister and I are former dairy producers and fully aware of the sector's needs. It was our party that established supply management, and it is our party that will defend it. As I said, we are finalizing our transition assistance programs. Our goal is to improve the position of dairy producers, to help modernize the Canadian dairy sector, and to ensure its growth and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a member of the Liberal Party declared that the Government of Canada has a social covenant with veterans and their families. Then a parliamentary secretary confirmed that “As a government, we will honour this social covenant”. Yet the government is still in court arguing that it does not owe any such covenant.Will the Prime Minister please clarify if his government believes we have a covenant of moral and social obligation to veterans and their families, or is he comfortable pursuing veterans in court?

Mr. Speaker, Canada and Ukraine share a unique bond. We stood shoulder-to-shoulder with her people during the Maidan revolution of dignity and the subsequent Russian military annexation of Ukraine's territory. During the Prime Minister's state visit to Ukraine last July, the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement was signed by the Minister of International Trade. Could the minister update the House on how this agreement will strengthen our special relationship and Ukraine's pro-western choice and statehood?

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting choice of words, “is not applicable”, because if the number were zero, I am sure the minister would have no trouble saying so.Back in May, when I first called for a full investigation, the same minister claimed that it was an isolated case of police illegally spying on journalists, and that there was no need whatsoever to look any further. However, it is now obvious that it was not an isolated case.Will the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness order a full public inquiry into police spying on reporters at the federal level, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was very clear today, as was the commissioner of the RCMP yesterday. The commissioner's answer was, very clearly and unequivocally, no.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador requested that Canada provide more loan guarantees for the Lower Churchill projects.Given the vital importance of these projects to Newfoundland and Labrador's financial security, could the hon. Minister of Natural Resources please provide an update on Canada's consideration of those requests?

Mr. Speaker, Canada has some of the strongest rules when it comes to fundraising across the nation. The member knows that very well. When it comes to our young people, when it comes to women entrepreneurs, when it comes to under-represented groups, these are concerns this government recognizes Canadians are facing. We were elected to engage with Canadians. We were elected to represent Canadians. We will continue to work with Canadians and for Canadians. That is why we are here every day.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member opposite will appreciate that the investments we made in budget 2016 are advancing the LRT project in her own city. It is being done right now. We are helping her city do its design work, do its planning work, so that city can be ready to take on the opportunities when we announce other long-term funding to build public transit in every city from coast to coast to coast.We approved $11 billion in infrastructure since taking office—

Mr. Speaker, freedom of the press is a fundamental Canadian value. The reports about transgressions in Quebec are cause for genuine concern, and the provincial government has announced some steps in that regard.At the federal level, I do not comment on any specific operation, but with respect to sensitive sectors like the media, we can provide the assurance that the sort of thing that is being reported in Quebec is not applicable at the federal level.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague just said, there is nothing for Quebec in the economic update. What is more, a few moments ago, the Minister of Natural Resources announced an additional $2.9 billion in loan guarantees—a slap in the face for the whole of Quebec.I have a question for the minister. Is contempt for Quebec a Canadian value? Are fiascos part of their economic strategy? Is adding insult to injury the Liberals' modus operandi?

Mr. Speaker, the government members have already said twice that they already know what the result is. It is not our cynicism. It is they who are undermining both.On Tuesday, I asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness if any other journalists are currently under surveillance by federal authorities. Today, the Prime Minister confirmed that he engaged with the RCMP and CSIS on this matter.Is the minister now willing to tell Canadians how many journalists are under federal surveillance?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should join with Canadians to celebrate some of the success our government has had in attracting global companies like Thomson Reuters to bring 1,500 new head office jobs to Canada, companies like General Electric and Amazon, which are choosing Canada because they believe the work of this government in investing in jobs and growth, and creating more opportunities for the middle class is exactly the right thing to be doing.

Mr. Speaker, the government is all over the map.I would like to remind the Liberals that, in 2014, they voted in favour of my motion to compensate dairy producers. It seems that they are doing a complete 180.Senior officials are now talking about transition assistance. They say that they do not anticipate significant losses. However, these losses have been estimated at $150 million. That is significant.Producers deserve to know the truth. Can we have some clear answers? Will the Liberal government compensate dairy producers, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board president is a banker, so I am going to ask him about cost-benefit analysis.This year's $25 billion deficit was supposed to buy all kinds of jobs for Canadians; instead, we got 6,000 fewer full-time jobs. The government's answer to the problem was to borrow even more.If we spent $25 billion to buy a lot of nothing, would we buy even more of it?

Mr. Speaker, as the member very well knows, no, he does not.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the member very well knows that the federal rules are some of the strongest in the country. He also knows that in some provinces, they accept donations from unions, trade associations, and corporations. That is not the case in the federal system.The member should really read the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to meet with many local innovative business leaders as part of the consultation for the creation of the innovation agenda. They raise the various different challenges that they face in growing a business in Canada. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development share with us how the fall economic update tabled this week will address those challenges and help to create jobs for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Liberal problem is that they continue to be completely out of touch with everyday Canadians, Canadians who work hard every day, pay their taxes, and follow the rules. This is something we have known for decades that the Liberals do not seem to be able to do. They do not seem to be able to follow any rules, much less their own. Therefore, when it comes to cash for access, if the Prime Minister cannot enforce his own rules, will he support our motion today and allow the Ethics Commissioner to do what he refuses to do?

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the minister should have listened to those quotes. It is quite clear that the Liberals have a preference. They admit that but they will not tell Canadians what it is. That is the problem. They continue to claim they are being transparent. Yeah, sure.Will the minister acknowledge that it is their own statements that are indeed undermining the committee's work?

Mr. Speaker, there is no preferential access to this government. This government is demonstrating the most open and transparent approach, not just by following the rules but by being more engaged with Canadians and listening to them and the challenges they face.This government is making investments so that Canadian families can succeed. Our investment in the inclusive innovation agenda will get Canadians ready for not just the economy of today but the economy of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, the member very well knows that all members of Parliament and all parties fundraise, and we all abide by the exact same rules.I appreciate the member taking a moment to want to talk about Canadians and wanting to talk about what we have delivered on. The government has delivered on lowering taxes for middle-class Canadians. The government has delivered on the Canada child benefit by giving more money to Canadian families that need it the most. The government has made the historic commitment to reform and to modernize the Canada pension plan, something that Canadians have asked for and something that we will deliver on.We will continue to—

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is very important to recognize the importance of investing in the middle class and creating economic growth.That is exactly what we are doing and what we will continue to do, because that is the priority of Canadians. Our actions reflect that priority.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague asked that question because it gives me an opportunity to remind everyone what we have done for Canadians this week.In the fall economic statement, we presented Canadians with a plan for economic growth that will help create jobs and improve their standard of living. The important number to remember is the $180-billion investment in infrastructure. We are investing a historic $81 billion in infrastructure. Some of those investments will be made through the infrastructure bank. The logical thing to do now is to put Canadians' money to work for Canadians. That is what Canadians expect.

Mr. Speaker, that answer is becoming very embarrassing for the government House leader. We are not talking about Elections Canada rules. We are not talking about other jurisdictions. We are not talking about consultations with high school students. We are talking about the government violating the Prime Minister's own ethical standards.Again, I ask the government if it will uphold its own standards. We are not talking about Elections Canada. We are not talking about Ontario or any other province. We are talking about the government's rules. If the government will not uphold them, let the Ethics Commissioner do her job and uphold its rules.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, he was part of the government that spent almost $1 billion on partisan, self-promotional ads. He was actually a star in some of those ads. So, if he is asking us about how many jobs are being created, I would like him to answer how many jobs were created by those partisan, self-promotional ads? That is the kind of cynicism that Canadians rejected in the last election.

Mr. Speaker, with that being said, would the government House leader share the business for the rest of the week, and for the first week after we return?

Mr. Speaker, when we came to power, we inherited a sluggish economy. That is why we made infrastructure investments. That is why we cut taxes for more than nine million middle-class Canadians. That is why we created the Canada child benefit, which is helping nine out of ten families.Making these investments for the middle class is very important, and that is what we will keep doing.

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on our plan to strengthen the middle class and improve growth. We heard from Canadians and from growing Canadian businesses about the need to support scaling up and to spur the next generation of globally competitive companies. In welcoming highly skilled workers, researchers, and entrepreneurs at a faster rate, we are providing growing Canadian companies a competitive advantage. We are helping innovative businesses grow and prosper right here in Canada. We are ensuring more Canadian jobs are created.

Mr. Speaker, the member very well knows that in Canada we have some of the strictest fundraising rules across the country. If we want to talk about access, let us talk about some of the good work this government is doing. Just today the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet were engaging with over 300 high school students from the national capital region. These students were able to talk about the challenges they faced and to ask some tough questions. The Prime Minister was there to answer them all.

Mr. Speaker, the member very well knows, and all Canadians know very well, that the government has embarked on unprecedented levels of public consultations and access to the government.The government is available and encourages Canadians to be involved and encourages Canadians to have their say. We will continue to consult with Canadians, and we will continue to engage with Canadians because Canadians should have their say. This government is listening and will continue to deliver on our commitments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.I am proud to be part of a government that values our two official languages and is showing leadership in this area. Of course, all recommendations from the commissioner are always carefully considered and valued greatly. As part of my duties, I am currently developing a new official languages plan, not only to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act and the vitality of official language minority communities, but also to enhance bilingualism across the country.

Mr. Speaker, recently we learned that the Minister of Public Safety has asked for a review of the pay that inmates receive while in prison, and their own investigator wants inmates to get more money. More pay for convicted criminals? Is this some sort of joke? Is this the new priority of the Liberal Party of Canada? How much more money are we going to pay criminals while Canadians are paying higher taxes for the Liberal promises that are never kept?

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, my office has reached out to the mayor and to the member, and we are certainly helping to facilitate the transition in that all current employees will be guaranteed jobs in Edmonton. As I have said before, there will be a net increase in jobs in Alberta because this move will allow us to pursue our lines of business more effectively, meet rising demands, and provide better immigration services to all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House what the leaders of the municipalities are telling us. This is from the CEO of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities: “It is a great thing. It is creating a focal point for our country to have a strategic conversation and develop strategic directions about infrastructure generally”.Here is a quote from Linda Hepner, mayor of Surrey. She says: The City of Surrey applauds the Federal Government’s commitment to providing stable grants funding and also looks forward to the additional opportunities the newly announced—

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to making sure that all government procurement is done in an ethical way that protects the interests of Canadians. We must ensure that all procurements we undertake are done in an accountable and transparent manner, and that is why this government has committed to it, and that is what we will do.

Mr. Speaker, certainly we are committed to the students, not just in Quebec but right across Canada. In the member's own province he would know of the increase that we have made in the student grant program, though Quebec does not take part in that. We transferred $290 million for that program and we just added an additional $80 million. The minister responsible for higher education, Hélène David, commented that this is great news as the money will go straight into the pockets of students. We respect and we are working for the students of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, it is important this week that we honour and respect the 2.3 million Canadians who have served in our armed forces. We will continue to do that each and every day as a government.We have an aggressive mandate to do things better for veterans and their families. We have delivered a great deal in budget 2016, delivering $5.6 billion in new financial security and resources to veterans and their families. We remain committed to creating a pension option for life for our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me welcome the member to his new role as critic for public safety. The objective of our correctional system is in fact public safety, and that includes effective and successful rehabilitation. The Office of the Correctional Investigator believes that rehabilitation can be enhanced with changes to the pay system. He asked us to examine that, and I have invited Commissioner Don Head of the Correctional Service to conduct a review. I am sure that the review would welcome the input from the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, that parliamentary committee is doing important work, and we should allow that parliamentary committee to do its work. I would urge the hon. member, and all members, not to prejudge the work of the parliamentary committee. Let that committee do its work.

Mr. Speaker, after eliminating regional minister positions at Canada Economic Development, now we find out that the government is going to create an infrastructure bank to fund projects of $100 million or more. Today, 30 elected officials from my region are here. I must say that there are not too many $100-million projects in the regions.The Liberals are taking $15 billion that was earmarked for them and spending it on a structure that is not designed for them.What does the minister have to say to these municipal representatives from across Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, dyakuyu. Today I was honoured to introduce the bill to implement the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. This deal is yet another demonstration of Canada's commitment to Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and economic growth. This deal will create jobs and growth for the middle class in Canada and Ukraine. As one of our country's 1.25 million Ukrainian Canadians, I am very proud that Canada's support for Ukraine is unwavering. Slava Ukraini, Slava Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we have been here for a number of weeks, trying to work fairly well together, and now we are all getting ready to go home to our constituencies and to take the week with our constituents but also to take that time to honour those men and women who have fallen and have paid the ultimate—

Mr. Speaker, the committee has been doing very good work, working together to listen to Canadians and to take the consultations that have been done by members of Parliament across this country and to look for consensus on how they could work together. It will be the consensus of that report, it will be the work of that committee, that this government listens to. Of course, we all have opinions and there are disparate opinions in the House, but it is the work of that committee that we are looking forward to. I encourage the member to continue his work on that committee to find those solutions and to bring that report back to the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is that kind of cynicism that creates an environment—

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the particulars of the situation that the hon. member has identified, but the safety and security of Canadians is a priority, which is why the minister continues to maintain and improve the safety of the Canadian aviation system with an intelligent risk-based approach.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the particulars of the situation that the hon. member has identified, but the safety and security of Canadians is a priority, which is why the minister continues to maintain and improve the safety of the Canadian aviation system with an intelligent risk-based approach.

Mr. Speaker, it is that kind of cynicism that creates an environment—

Mr. Speaker, the committee has been doing very good work, working together to listen to Canadians and to take the consultations that have been done by members of Parliament across this country and to look for consensus on how they could work together. It will be the consensus of that report, it will be the work of that committee, that this government listens to. Of course, we all have opinions and there are disparate opinions in the House, but it is the work of that committee that we are looking forward to. I encourage the member to continue his work on that committee to find those solutions and to bring that report back to the House.

Mr. Speaker, we have been here for a number of weeks, trying to work fairly well together, and now we are all getting ready to go home to our constituencies and to take the week with our constituents but also to take that time to honour those men and women who have fallen and have paid the ultimate—

Mr. Speaker, that parliamentary committee is doing important work, and we should allow that parliamentary committee to do its work. I would urge the hon. member, and all members, not to prejudge the work of the parliamentary committee. Let that committee do its work.

Mr. Speaker, after eliminating regional minister positions at Canada Economic Development, now we find out that the government is going to create an infrastructure bank to fund projects of $100 million or more. Today, 30 elected officials from my region are here. I must say that there are not too many $100-million projects in the regions.The Liberals are taking $15 billion that was earmarked for them and spending it on a structure that is not designed for them.What does the minister have to say to these municipal representatives from across Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, dyakuyu. Today I was honoured to introduce the bill to implement the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. This deal is yet another demonstration of Canada's commitment to Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and economic growth. This deal will create jobs and growth for the middle class in Canada and Ukraine. As one of our country's 1.25 million Ukrainian Canadians, I am very proud that Canada's support for Ukraine is unwavering. Slava Ukraini, Slava Canada.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me welcome the member to his new role as critic for public safety. The objective of our correctional system is in fact public safety, and that includes effective and successful rehabilitation. The Office of the Correctional Investigator believes that rehabilitation can be enhanced with changes to the pay system. He asked us to examine that, and I have invited Commissioner Don Head of the Correctional Service to conduct a review. I am sure that the review would welcome the input from the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, it is important this week that we honour and respect the 2.3 million Canadians who have served in our armed forces. We will continue to do that each and every day as a government.We have an aggressive mandate to do things better for veterans and their families. We have delivered a great deal in budget 2016, delivering $5.6 billion in new financial security and resources to veterans and their families. We remain committed to creating a pension option for life for our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, certainly we are committed to the students, not just in Quebec but right across Canada. In the member's own province he would know of the increase that we have made in the student grant program, though Quebec does not take part in that. We transferred $290 million for that program and we just added an additional $80 million. The minister responsible for higher education, Hélène David, commented that this is great news as the money will go straight into the pockets of students. We respect and we are working for the students of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to making sure that all government procurement is done in an ethical way that protects the interests of Canadians. We must ensure that all procurements we undertake are done in an accountable and transparent manner, and that is why this government has committed to it, and that is what we will do.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House what the leaders of the municipalities are telling us. This is from the CEO of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities: “It is a great thing. It is creating a focal point for our country to have a strategic conversation and develop strategic directions about infrastructure generally”.Here is a quote from Linda Hepner, mayor of Surrey. She says: The City of Surrey applauds the Federal Government’s commitment to providing stable grants funding and also looks forward to the additional opportunities the newly announced—

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, my office has reached out to the mayor and to the member, and we are certainly helping to facilitate the transition in that all current employees will be guaranteed jobs in Edmonton. As I have said before, there will be a net increase in jobs in Alberta because this move will allow us to pursue our lines of business more effectively, meet rising demands, and provide better immigration services to all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, recently we learned that the Minister of Public Safety has asked for a review of the pay that inmates receive while in prison, and their own investigator wants inmates to get more money. More pay for convicted criminals? Is this some sort of joke? Is this the new priority of the Liberal Party of Canada? How much more money are we going to pay criminals while Canadians are paying higher taxes for the Liberal promises that are never kept?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.I am proud to be part of a government that values our two official languages and is showing leadership in this area. Of course, all recommendations from the commissioner are always carefully considered and valued greatly. As part of my duties, I am currently developing a new official languages plan, not only to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act and the vitality of official language minority communities, but also to enhance bilingualism across the country.

Mr. Speaker, the member very well knows, and all Canadians know very well, that the government has embarked on unprecedented levels of public consultations and access to the government.The government is available and encourages Canadians to be involved and encourages Canadians to have their say. We will continue to consult with Canadians, and we will continue to engage with Canadians because Canadians should have their say. This government is listening and will continue to deliver on our commitments.

Mr. Speaker, the member very well knows that in Canada we have some of the strictest fundraising rules across the country. If we want to talk about access, let us talk about some of the good work this government is doing. Just today the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet were engaging with over 300 high school students from the national capital region. These students were able to talk about the challenges they faced and to ask some tough questions. The Prime Minister was there to answer them all.

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on our plan to strengthen the middle class and improve growth. We heard from Canadians and from growing Canadian businesses about the need to support scaling up and to spur the next generation of globally competitive companies. In welcoming highly skilled workers, researchers, and entrepreneurs at a faster rate, we are providing growing Canadian companies a competitive advantage. We are helping innovative businesses grow and prosper right here in Canada. We are ensuring more Canadian jobs are created.

Mr. Speaker, when we came to power, we inherited a sluggish economy. That is why we made infrastructure investments. That is why we cut taxes for more than nine million middle-class Canadians. That is why we created the Canada child benefit, which is helping nine out of ten families.Making these investments for the middle class is very important, and that is what we will keep doing.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, he was part of the government that spent almost $1 billion on partisan, self-promotional ads. He was actually a star in some of those ads. So, if he is asking us about how many jobs are being created, I would like him to answer how many jobs were created by those partisan, self-promotional ads? That is the kind of cynicism that Canadians rejected in the last election.

Mr. Speaker, with that being said, would the government House leader share the business for the rest of the week, and for the first week after we return?

Mr. Speaker, that answer is becoming very embarrassing for the government House leader. We are not talking about Elections Canada rules. We are not talking about other jurisdictions. We are not talking about consultations with high school students. We are talking about the government violating the Prime Minister's own ethical standards.Again, I ask the government if it will uphold its own standards. We are not talking about Elections Canada. We are not talking about Ontario or any other province. We are talking about the government's rules. If the government will not uphold them, let the Ethics Commissioner do her job and uphold its rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague asked that question because it gives me an opportunity to remind everyone what we have done for Canadians this week.In the fall economic statement, we presented Canadians with a plan for economic growth that will help create jobs and improve their standard of living. The important number to remember is the $180-billion investment in infrastructure. We are investing a historic $81 billion in infrastructure. Some of those investments will be made through the infrastructure bank. The logical thing to do now is to put Canadians' money to work for Canadians. That is what Canadians expect.

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is very important to recognize the importance of investing in the middle class and creating economic growth.That is exactly what we are doing and what we will continue to do, because that is the priority of Canadians. Our actions reflect that priority.

Mr. Speaker, the member very well knows that all members of Parliament and all parties fundraise, and we all abide by the exact same rules.I appreciate the member taking a moment to want to talk about Canadians and wanting to talk about what we have delivered on. The government has delivered on lowering taxes for middle-class Canadians. The government has delivered on the Canada child benefit by giving more money to Canadian families that need it the most. The government has made the historic commitment to reform and to modernize the Canada pension plan, something that Canadians have asked for and something that we will deliver on.We will continue to—

Mr. Speaker, there is no preferential access to this government. This government is demonstrating the most open and transparent approach, not just by following the rules but by being more engaged with Canadians and listening to them and the challenges they face.This government is making investments so that Canadian families can succeed. Our investment in the inclusive innovation agenda will get Canadians ready for not just the economy of today but the economy of tomorrow.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the minister should have listened to those quotes. It is quite clear that the Liberals have a preference. They admit that but they will not tell Canadians what it is. That is the problem. They continue to claim they are being transparent. Yeah, sure.Will the minister acknowledge that it is their own statements that are indeed undermining the committee's work?

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Liberal problem is that they continue to be completely out of touch with everyday Canadians, Canadians who work hard every day, pay their taxes, and follow the rules. This is something we have known for decades that the Liberals do not seem to be able to do. They do not seem to be able to follow any rules, much less their own. Therefore, when it comes to cash for access, if the Prime Minister cannot enforce his own rules, will he support our motion today and allow the Ethics Commissioner to do what he refuses to do?

Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board president is a banker, so I am going to ask him about cost-benefit analysis.This year's $25 billion deficit was supposed to buy all kinds of jobs for Canadians; instead, we got 6,000 fewer full-time jobs. The government's answer to the problem was to borrow even more.If we spent $25 billion to buy a lot of nothing, would we buy even more of it?

Mr. Speaker, as the member very well knows, no, he does not.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the member very well knows that the federal rules are some of the strongest in the country. He also knows that in some provinces, they accept donations from unions, trade associations, and corporations. That is not the case in the federal system.The member should really read the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to meet with many local innovative business leaders as part of the consultation for the creation of the innovation agenda. They raise the various different challenges that they face in growing a business in Canada. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development share with us how the fall economic update tabled this week will address those challenges and help to create jobs for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the government is all over the map.I would like to remind the Liberals that, in 2014, they voted in favour of my motion to compensate dairy producers. It seems that they are doing a complete 180.Senior officials are now talking about transition assistance. They say that they do not anticipate significant losses. However, these losses have been estimated at $150 million. That is significant.Producers deserve to know the truth. Can we have some clear answers? Will the Liberal government compensate dairy producers, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should join with Canadians to celebrate some of the success our government has had in attracting global companies like Thomson Reuters to bring 1,500 new head office jobs to Canada, companies like General Electric and Amazon, which are choosing Canada because they believe the work of this government in investing in jobs and growth, and creating more opportunities for the middle class is exactly the right thing to be doing.

Mr. Speaker, the government members have already said twice that they already know what the result is. It is not our cynicism. It is they who are undermining both.On Tuesday, I asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness if any other journalists are currently under surveillance by federal authorities. Today, the Prime Minister confirmed that he engaged with the RCMP and CSIS on this matter.Is the minister now willing to tell Canadians how many journalists are under federal surveillance?

Mr. Speaker, freedom of the press is a fundamental Canadian value. The reports about transgressions in Quebec are cause for genuine concern, and the provincial government has announced some steps in that regard.At the federal level, I do not comment on any specific operation, but with respect to sensitive sectors like the media, we can provide the assurance that the sort of thing that is being reported in Quebec is not applicable at the federal level.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague just said, there is nothing for Quebec in the economic update. What is more, a few moments ago, the Minister of Natural Resources announced an additional $2.9 billion in loan guarantees—a slap in the face for the whole of Quebec.I have a question for the minister. Is contempt for Quebec a Canadian value? Are fiascos part of their economic strategy? Is adding insult to injury the Liberals' modus operandi?

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member opposite will appreciate that the investments we made in budget 2016 are advancing the LRT project in her own city. It is being done right now. We are helping her city do its design work, do its planning work, so that city can be ready to take on the opportunities when we announce other long-term funding to build public transit in every city from coast to coast to coast.We approved $11 billion in infrastructure since taking office—

Mr. Speaker, Canada has some of the strongest rules when it comes to fundraising across the nation. The member knows that very well. When it comes to our young people, when it comes to women entrepreneurs, when it comes to under-represented groups, these are concerns this government recognizes Canadians are facing. We were elected to engage with Canadians. We were elected to represent Canadians. We will continue to work with Canadians and for Canadians. That is why we are here every day.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador requested that Canada provide more loan guarantees for the Lower Churchill projects.Given the vital importance of these projects to Newfoundland and Labrador's financial security, could the hon. Minister of Natural Resources please provide an update on Canada's consideration of those requests?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was very clear today, as was the commissioner of the RCMP yesterday. The commissioner's answer was, very clearly and unequivocally, no.

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting choice of words, “is not applicable”, because if the number were zero, I am sure the minister would have no trouble saying so.Back in May, when I first called for a full investigation, the same minister claimed that it was an isolated case of police illegally spying on journalists, and that there was no need whatsoever to look any further. However, it is now obvious that it was not an isolated case.Will the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness order a full public inquiry into police spying on reporters at the federal level, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, Canada and Ukraine share a unique bond. We stood shoulder-to-shoulder with her people during the Maidan revolution of dignity and the subsequent Russian military annexation of Ukraine's territory. During the Prime Minister's state visit to Ukraine last July, the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement was signed by the Minister of International Trade. Could the minister update the House on how this agreement will strengthen our special relationship and Ukraine's pro-western choice and statehood?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a member of the Liberal Party declared that the Government of Canada has a social covenant with veterans and their families. Then a parliamentary secretary confirmed that “As a government, we will honour this social covenant”. Yet the government is still in court arguing that it does not owe any such covenant.Will the Prime Minister please clarify if his government believes we have a covenant of moral and social obligation to veterans and their families, or is he comfortable pursuing veterans in court?

Mr. Speaker, the minister and I are former dairy producers and fully aware of the sector's needs. It was our party that established supply management, and it is our party that will defend it. As I said, we are finalizing our transition assistance programs. Our goal is to improve the position of dairy producers, to help modernize the Canadian dairy sector, and to ensure its growth and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, almost 100 cash for access events have been scheduled in 2016 by the Liberals.The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to name just about all of them, have been the star attractions at these events.The Prime Minister either believes in his open and accountability rules or he does not. Today, the Prime Minister can prove he believes in his words by supporting our Conservative motion.Will the Liberals support our motion and give the Ethics Commissioner the power to investigate these cash for access schemes?

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Natural Resources was asked by the Winnipeg Free Press if he attended any Liberal cash for access fundraising events, he said no. But the facts do not lie. We know that the minister attended an event hosted by MLT, a leading law firm in the natural resources sector, and that the price of admission was a donation of $1,500 to the Liberal Party of Canada.Why is the natural resources minister trying to cover up the fact that he has been a part of the Liberal cash for access scheme?

Mr. Speaker, in Ontario, political insiders bought access to Kathleen Wynne and her government. Katie Telford and Gerald Butts brought the same cash for access schemes right here to the federal level.Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians how much money he expects each minister to raise? By the way, how much will it cost me to get a meeting with the finance minister to tell him that big spending is a big problem?

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon on a question of privilege on the manner in which the Minister of International Trade has been treating Parliament and due process in relation to the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the EU. The flagrant disrespect of Parliament shown by the minister and her government is alarming and unwarranted, but more importantly, the impact of this disrespect has obstructed me in the discharge of my duties as a member of Parliament. I will, through the course of my remarks, ask the Speaker to agree with my belief that there exists a prima facie case that my privileges as a member of Parliament have been breached, and I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion should the Speaker agree with my intervention.Before getting to the matter at hand, I would like to remind the House that obstruction in the discharge of parliamentary duties can take many forms, both physical and non-physical. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, tells us, at pages 108 and 109: If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege. Should an Hon. Member be able to say that something has happened which prevented him or her from performing functions...there would be a case for the Chair to consider. I will beg the House's indulgence to provide the proper context of what has happened and give an account of events leading up to this question of privilege. I will start with the facts of the matter at hand.To begin with, the Government of Canada adopted a policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament in 2008. That policy sets out specific guidelines and timelines on how international treaties will be presented to Parliament for debate and consideration. In section 6.2, “Tabling period for Treaties”, the policy states: b. For treaties that require implementing legislation before the Government can proceed to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession...the Government will: Observe a waiting period of at least twenty-one sitting days before the introduction of the necessary implementing legislation in Parliament; On Friday, October 28, the Minister of International Trade put an act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures on the Notice Paper, even before having signed the treaty. The Government of Canada signed CETA two days later, on Sunday, October 30. The Minister of International Trade tabled CETA in the House on Monday, October 31, and not 21 sittings days but about 21 seconds later, she introduced Bill C-30 to implement the provisions of CETA.The Minister of International Trade and the government are aware of this policy and obligation to Parliament. They have respected it as recently as this fall with regard to the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. On September 19, 2016, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade laid upon the table a copy of the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine and an explanatory memorandum. Twenty-eight sitting days later, which was this morning, as it turns out, and in full compliance with the policy, the Minister of International Trade introduced Bill C-31, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. However, in the case of CETA, the government acted in direct violation of its own policy when it came to the tabling of the treaty and the introduction of the implementing legislation that followed immediately afterward.Furthermore, the policy statement in the government's policy is as follows: The Minister of Foreign Affairs will initiate the tabling of all instruments, accompanied by a brief Explanatory Memorandum in the House of Commons following their adoption by signature or otherwise, and prior to Canada's expression of its consent to be bound by ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. This policy provision was followed when the Canada-Ukraine FTA was laid on the table and is something we are used to hearing the minister and her parliamentary secretary announce when they table international treaties, agreements, and other similar documents in the House. The explanatory memorandum is an important piece of this process, so important, in fact, that it has its own provisions in the policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament. Section 6.4 of the policy states: An Explanatory Memorandum will accompany each treaty that is tabled in the House of Commons. a. The purpose of the Explanatory Memorandum is to provide the House of Commons with information regarding the content of the Treaty. The document tabled by the minister on Monday was over 1,700 pages long, so an explanatory memorandum is particularly important in this case. Further, a long list is given of what materials must be included in the explanatory memorandum. Among other items, the policy states that the explanatory memorandum will cover the following points. First is subject matter. Second is a national interest summary. Third are policy considerations and how the treaty's obligations and their implementation will be consistent with the government's policies. Fourth are federal-provincial-territorial jurisdictional implications. Fifth are time considerations, with any upcoming dates or events that make the ratification a matter of priority. Sixth is a brief description of how the treaty will be implemented in Canadian law, including a description of the legislative or other authority under which it will fall, and seventh is a description of the consultations undertaken with the House of Commons, self-governing aboriginal governments, other government departments, and non-governmental organizations prior to the conclusion of the treaty, as appropriate.There may have been 1,700 pages tabled by the Minister of International Trade on Monday, but there was no explanatory memorandum accompanying them, blatantly showing that the Government of Canada was negligent in fulfilling its obligations under this policy. The government responded to a question on the Order Paper from the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster in a particularly alarming way. The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster put a question on the Order Paper on May 3, 2016. Among other things, Question No. 193 asked: With regard to the Minister of International Trade and the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement: (a) when did the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development start drafting an Explanatory Memorandum for tabling with the treaty; (b) what deadline was given to the department in order to draft an Explanatory Memorandum; (c) will the Minister table a copy of the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and Explanatory Memorandum, and, if so, when; The minister's honesty about violating her own policy is commendable, however alarming. She responded on September 19 by saying: Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) and (b), Global Affairs Canada, GAC, has not been tasked with drafting an explanatory memorandum for the tabling of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA. This question was first asked in May and was responded to four and a half months later with a response essentially indicating that the government intends to violate its own policy obligations to Parliament. The government had time to react. The minister could have realized that Canada was in the process of negotiating a complex and multilayered treaty with 28 countries and that she would have an obligation to fulfill when she tabled the treaty, but she chose not to. Even after she responded to the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster on September 19, she still had another 42 days to instruct her officials to respect Canadians and their duly elected representatives in Parliament, but she chose not to. Clearly, there was enough time to prepare. Europe is indicating that it is still not on board with CETA, so the timelines that are being presented to us provide more than enough time for the minister and Global Affairs to fulfill this obligation to me as a parliamentarian and to everyone who sits in the House.On May 5, 1987, at page 5766 of Debates, Speaker Fraser stated: The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions. Seventeen hundred pages is a lot for any parliamentarian to digest. We need to do a full analysis. We need time to do so, and the time that is normally allocated needs to be respected by the minister for all members in the House so that we can have the full information and analysis necessary to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of this agreement.Furthermore, the international trade committee is now being asked to pre-study the bill four days after the 1,700-page document and the 131-page bill were tabled. That is unacceptable.I am aware that the minister's own policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament is not governed by the Standing Orders of the House, but given the context of what has transpired over the past week, it is undeniably true that my ability, and the ability of all members of Parliament, to properly discharge our functions, to properly study and analyze more than 1,700 pages of text, and to adequately scrutinize government proposals and legislation are being impeded by the Minister of International Trade's deliberate decision to violate her own policy. She had time to remedy the situation regarding the explanatory memorandum, and she did not. She had time to table the treaty and wait 21 sitting days before introducing the legislation, but she did not. I think that you, Mr. Speaker, would be the first to agree that all members of Parliament are equal in their privileges in this House of Commons and that no one should be interfered with or disadvantaged in any way in the discharge of their duties as a member of Parliament, especially by other members in this House.Mr. Speaker, if you find that there was a prima facie breach of my privileges as a member, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Mr. Speaker, we are delivering on our commitment to invest more than $180 billion in infrastructure to create long-term growth and jobs for the middle class, and to create a low-carbon economy, a green economy, and to improve our social inclusion.Within the last four months, our government has approved more funding for municipalities than that government did in the past five years combined.Now 60% of those investments are being—

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how many times I have to say it, but I will repeat it just in case the hon. member has not heard it before.Federal politics is subject to some of the strictest political financing legislation and regulations in the country. The government is committed to engaging and consulting with Canadians, and we will do that.Another prime example today is that there are future entrepreneurs here on Parliament Hill. These are our young entrepreneurs who want to grow their businesses, want to create jobs, want to create the growth that Canadians want. We are listening to the challenges Canadians are facing. We were elected to hear them out and to ensure that we can create the conditions for growth that our economy needs. We will continue to make the investments we need to make for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, Liberals were elected to keep their promises, and this is another promise that they are not keeping.So far, in today's debate, we have only heard from Liberal backbenchers defending the Prime Minister's cash for access fundraising scheme, claiming that they have broken no laws. We are not talking about election financing laws. We are talking about the words and expectations of the Prime Minister, when he published the open and accountable government rules.The Prime Minister seems to do one thing for optics, and does the exact opposite for his Liberal friends. Why will the Prime Minister not enforce his own rules?

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is an opposition day, and the member should not be taking time out of the time for debate on the motion they have spent time working on.I have listened to the member opposite, and I do not believe this matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. What the member is referring to is a matter of policy and not a question of parliamentary procedure. As such, this does not constitute a contempt of the House.I reserve the right to return to the House with a further intervention on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, when we took over the government, we looked at the investments being made by the previous government. I was surprised to learn that, despite announcing $14 billion, it had invested only $25 million in the last two years before we took over. What we have done is we have approved more than 900 projects with a combined investment of $11 billion from coast to coast to coast, helping the municipalities create jobs and build the necessary infrastructure that communities need.

Mr. Speaker, in fact as I already said, we seek to maximize membership and to consult with countries that have strong human rights records at home and abroad. Why are we doing so? It is because we are champions fighting for universal human rights at every opportunity, at the United Nations, and on every continent. And with the Prime Minister, let me tell everyone, we are champions for universal human rights everywhere in the world.

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the project was badly mishandled and the results of that have been cost overruns and budget delays, which have put the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador at risk. That is why the Government of Canada is guaranteeing an extension of a loan guarantee for $2.9 billion with a commercial fee attached. We think this is the right thing to do. We think this is good for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would also ask if I could reserve the right to look at this further and bring some comments back at a later date.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's inability to tell us when we will achieve a zero deficit proves that the government has completely lost control of public finances. The government seems to be proud that it managed to shrink the deficit, saying that it is not as bad as expected, but it is forgetting one little $6-billion detail. The government blew through its $6-billion wiggle room so it could come up with a presentable number. That is hardly something to be proud of, and we are not the only ones saying so.Rudy Le Cours of La Presse called it sleight of hand, and Radio-Canada's Gérald Fillion wrote that “the minister is playing fast and loose with his numbers”—

Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Democratic Institutions is consulting broadly with Canadians. Members from our party, but also members from other parties, have consulted with Canadians throughout the summer. The fact is that we think is really important to listen to Canadians, to participate actively in town halls across Canada. Those recommendations have come to a parliamentary committee. We look forward to the work of that committee, and we will not prejudge the work of that committee. Let that committee do its work.

Mr. Speaker, CETA is clearly in Canada's national interests, and it is time for all members of the House to rise above partisan politics and support it. We supported CETA when we were in opposition. We expect the opposition today to do the same.I had the honour of introducing implementing legislation for CETA on Monday, and I can assure the House that all parliamentarians will have an opportunity to vote on CETA before it can enter into force.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice took money from lawyers, the Minister of Finance took money from Bay Street bankers, and the Minister of Natural Resources has taken money from natural resource lobbyists. In Ontario, Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne demanded that each of her ministers raise up to $500,000 per year for the party as a condition of remaining in cabinet.With the former masterminds of Kathleen Wynne's fundraising plan now running this PMO, does the Prime Minister demand similar quotas of his ministers?

Mr. Speaker, the costs of the Lower Churchill project were mismanaged by former Conservative governments, putting Newfoundland and Labrador at financial risk. I am pleased to inform the House that we will guarantee up to an additional $2.9 billion in debt using commercial terms of a guaranteed fee of a half basis point above the federal rate. Today's decision means we will contribute to our climate change goals and Atlantic Canada's future energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities appeared before a Senate committee and said, “If you feel confused about the numbers, I understand, Senator. There are so many different infrastructure funds”. The numbers are pretty straightforward: one year of Liberal government, one year of excessive spending, one year of a spiralling deficit, and only 1% of the construction projects are currently under way.If the minister cannot count to one, then we have a serious problem.When will this government get to creating real jobs for all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, while we are on the topic of hiding things, the Minister of Democratic Institutions continues to stonewall reporters and others who have been trying to get the truth out of her for months. We all know that she is hiding something. But yesterday, news reports finally revealed the truth. The minister finally admitted that she and the Prime Minister have a preferred voting system. Canadians have made it clear that they want a referendum on any proposed changes, so will the Liberals finally put aside the Prime Minister's personal preferences and allow all Canadians to have a direct say through a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are fine with saying that they are back at the United Nations, but the Liberals are back as they were before: pandering to despots, dictators, and human rights abusers.The United Nations today is not the organization it was when democracies made up the majority. The UN today has been described accurately as a broken Remington typewriter in a smart phone world.Why will the Liberals not take a tiny step towards reform and transparency and tell Canadians how Canada voted on the Human Rights Council candidacies of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba?

Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the assets. What we announced this week, in the fall economic statement, is a plan to invest in Canadians. After budget 2016, where we made historic investments in Canadian families and in the middle class, what we presented to Canadians was historic investments in infrastructure and historic investments to create the invest in Canada hub to attract investment in Canada, to attract global talent. That is the plan that is working for Canadians, that is what Canadians want, and that is what we are going to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a lack of federal rules. We are talking about a lack of Liberal ethics. Few Canadians can afford the $1,500 price tag to get face time with the minister. The more than 100,000 energy workers who are out of a job cannot afford to pony up $1,500 to tell the minister he is doing nothing to get them back to work.The minister attended a fundraiser hosted by a law firm that now lobbies his department. Why did the minister allow himself to be put in such an obvious conflict of interest?

Mr. Speaker, today Amnesty International released a troubling report on resource development in northeastern B.C. and the resulting risk of violence against indigenous young women and girls. This report is consistent with what I heard from indigenous leaders directly when I travelled to the Peace River Valley this summer. To make matters worse, there are no federally funded domestic violence shelters on reserve in northeastern B.C.Did the government consider these impacts when it approved the Site C dam, and what support will the government provide to women who face violence in these areas?

Mr. Speaker, the Canada infrastructure bank, which will privatize our infrastructure, hopes to attract $4 from the private sector for every dollar of public spending.However, pension funds, like private investment funds, foreign funds, and banks, will never invest just to impress the minister. They will want a high return on their investments.Michael Sabia said that they are chomping at the bit to get returns of 7% to 9%. My question for the minster is so simple that he does not even need an MBA to answer it.How can a profit be made on infrastructure investments without charging user fees or tolls and without increasing existing fees?

Mr. Speaker, let me quote the Minister of Democratic Institutions on which voting system Canada should adopt, “the prime minister has a preference” and “I am arriving at a preference for a specific system”.What is the preferred Liberal system?

Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker, as I said, and as the member knows, all members and all parties raise funds, and they all have to follow the same rules.There can be no conflict of interest when following the rules, and that is what we will continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has put out a tender for private subcontractors to handle complaints from Canadians regarding violations of the Official Languages Act. If the Minister of Canadian Heritage had implemented the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages regarding Air Canada, among others, and if she gave his office the budget it needs, we would not be in this mess.Instead of privatizing the complaints office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, when will the minister assume her responsibilities and solve the ongoing problems of non-compliance with the Official Languages Act?

Mr. Speaker, the only thing the government could think of to help our entrepreneurs, who are the real job creators and wealth creators, are measures that will in fact harm them, such as imposing the Liberal carbon tax, eliminating Conservative tax credits, and making pension plans more expensive, to name a few. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance went and told the Senate that additional tax credits will be eliminated. Can the government tell us exactly which tax credits for small businesses will be eliminated?

Mr. Speaker, it is not working, and neither are the 6,000 people who do not have jobs.The Liberal Party promised solemnly that its deficit over the term would not exceed $25 billion. This week's economic statement showed that the number will be $100 billion, which is four times what it promised, and that presumes it does not spend another cent in its next three budgets.How could the Liberals have been so wrong, so fast? Is it because they cannot count or because they cannot tell the truth?

Mr. Speaker, in 2004, the Gomery commission uncovered the truth about the sponsorship scandal. One of the key players in the scandal, Jacques Corriveau, was found guilty as charged.The government refuses to admit that it is breaking its own ethics rules, but will it at least ensure that taxpayers get the remaining $600,000 from the Corriveau affair back?

Mr. Speaker, the minister claims that closing the Vegreville immigration centre will increase jobs in Alberta, but he is wrong. This edict will immediately kill 280 jobs in town, but that is only the start. Jobs will be lost at the local post office, local school, the town, charities, and more. When all those people are gone, there go the small businesses. This edict is catastrophic. The minister claims he is creating jobs but he is actually killing them, and Alberta will be worse off. Will he do the right thing and stop this closure?

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the minister is confused about how many infrastructure projects are actually under construction. This is not a surprise, especially when the minister told the Senate finance committee that he was confused by all the buckets of infrastructure money the Liberals had at their disposal.The truth is that less than 1% of the announced infrastructure projects are actually under construction. Why are the Liberals refusing to acknowledge that their plan is not working and they are not getting Canadians back their jobs?

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue to debate the Conservative Party motion.Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-26, on the Canada pension plan.Next week, as the hon. member said, we will be working hard in our constituencies and attending Remembrance Day ceremonies on Friday to collectively stand in honour of all who have fallen in the service of Canada.When we return on Monday, November 14, the House will then have the fifth day of second reading debate on Bill C-26, the CPP enhancement bill. On Tuesday, the House will also have the fifth day of second reading debate on Bill C-29, the second budget implementation bill.On Wednesday, the House will consider Bill C-16, the gender identity bill, at report stage, and hopefully at third reading. On Thursday, the House will debate Bill C-25, the business framework bill, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, in its economic update, the government did not allocate one red cent to education transfers. This means that it is going ahead with its plan to take $120 million away from Quebec's students. That $120 million would make quite a difference to students living on a budget.I asked the Minister of Youth about this on Monday, but he hid behind the parliamentary secretary to a minister who has nothing to do with this.Will he stand up today and commit to giving back the $120 million that he took away from them?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has a pretty flexible understanding of ethics.The Prime Minister introduced rules that he refuses to follow. The Minister of Finance holds $1,500 fundraisers yet portrays himself as the champion of the middle class. He is also refusing to ensure that the millions of dollars Jacques Corriveau pocketed illegally will be returned to Canadians.Can the government reassure Canadians that it will get their $600,000 back for them?

Mr. Speaker, we are getting reports out of Penticton that all early morning and evening flights by WestJet and Air Canada have been cancelled for the past four days. This comes after a safety audit identified concerns with tree heights around the airport. These cancellations represent two-thirds of all flights in and out of Penticton and are causing serious disruption to the local economy.Can the Minister of Transport inform my constituents when these concerns will be addressed and when the Penticton airport will resume its normal operations?

Mr. Speaker, this week the Liberals have had a chance to address the concerns that Canadians face today. Jobs are being lost, the economy is shrinking, and small business owners are wondering each and every day who they might have to lay off next. However, instead of presenting a plan for jobs, the Minister of Finance just presented a plan of more spending and massive deficits for years to come. Is the minister not at all concerned about jobs for today? Why is he playing this reckless and dangerous game of massive spending with absolutely nothing to show for it?

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Canada to speak truth to the world's worst human rights abusers publicly, not timidly, not in private with cautious lines crafted to win eventual Security Council votes. The minister has an opportunity to deny today that secret votes were traded with rights abusers who seek false legitimacy on the Human Rights Council.Again, will the minister stop hiding the truth and tell Canadians how Canada voted on the Human Rights Council candidacies of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba?

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is so outrageously wrong, I cannot be mute about that.This government, in the last year, has been upfront to fight everywhere for universal human rights, for an inclusive approach, and for peace everywhere. I cannot believe the question was asked this way. I think my colleague should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have failed to create a single full-time job since they took office. This should not be a surprise because less than 1% of the announced infrastructure projects have started construction over this past year.Now we learn that, instead of building infrastructure, the Liberals have been busy setting up a bank, which is going to cost taxpayers $15 billion.When will the Liberals come up with a plan that actually creates jobs instead of pushing Canadians further into debt?

Mr. Speaker, the government's policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament requires the minister to present a report on expected impacts and consultations and to table proposed treaties for 21 days before introducing ratifying legislation. While the government has still failed to release a study of CETA impacts, the minister has tabled a bill to ratify all parts of the agreement, in spite of the fact that Europe has been clear that further changes are necessary.Why has the minister violated this policy and failed to present a study of CETA impacts in the House?

Mr. Speaker, indeed, gender-based violence, whether it is against indigenous women or other Canadian women across the country, is a serious concern of this government.We also know that safety is the foundation of gender equality, which is why it is such a privilege to work on a federal gender-based violence strategy for Canadian women and girls across this country. I look forward to bringing those results forward in 2017.