2018-05-29

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a real air passengers' bill of rights, a U.S. firm told us that Canadian travellers are being gouged to the tune of $65 million a year.We are familiar with the strategy. When the Minister of Transport cannot make a decision, he launches consultations.Why bother with a consultation when the European charter is leading the way and the minister has already taken a position by rejecting the amendments proposed in the House and in the Senate? Does the minister take travellers for fools?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals cancelled the northern gateway pipeline. They dithered on the Keystone XL pipeline. They killed the energy east pipeline. They have talked down our world-class energy regulator and have told audiences, both foreign and domestic, that they want to phase out the energy sector and the jobs that go with it. They botched the Trans Mountain project so badly that they have turned a multi-billion dollar private sector investment into a multi-billion dollar bill for Canadian taxpayers. Why should Canadians be forced to pay billions to Kinder Morgan to cover for the Prime Minister's embarrassing incompetence?

Mr. Speaker, not long ago, Kinder Morgan, a private company, was a proud owner of a pipeline with plans to expand. Today, Kinder Morgan is divesting its Canadian assets to the taxpayer for $4.5 billion. The Liberals have screwed up this deal so badly that the only solution is to throw billions of taxpayer dollars at the project, and they still have not told us what it will actually cost to build the expansion. Will the finance minister tell Canadians the total cost of this Liberal failure?

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. Illegal migrants are coming from all over the world.The Liberals could have cut the budget, and that is what they did, in fact. The Liberals cut the Canada Border Services Agency's budget by $302 million. They reduced the number of border guards. They also cut $30 million from the budget of those responsible for stopping illegal immigration.If the Liberals are serious about this, when will they deal with this problem and put a stop to this wave of illegal immigration at the border?

Mr. Speaker, it is not the Liberals, but rather private companies, that create jobs.They left the Trans Mountain project to languish for months, and now they announce that they are buying the pipeline using taxpayers' money. What is even worse is that Kinder Morgan never asked for money and never asked to be purchased. The Prime Minister has failed again.My question for the minister is simple. How much is this folly going to cost Canadian taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' track record on energy matters is nothing short of disastrous. Since they took office, the energy sector has lost 125,000 jobs and over $60 billion in investment.What is the Liberal government's miracle solution? Take money from taxpayers and buy a Texas company for $4.5 billion. That is the Liberal solution.My question for my friend, the Minister of Finance, is very simple. A fat lot of good Bay Street experience does us. Why is he making such bad decisions?

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals have failed to appoint a victims' ombudsman after six months, when the prisoners' ombudsman position became vacant, they filled it immediately. When it comes to filling a position to protect the rights of criminals, the Liberals could not move fast enough. However, when it comes to filling a position to protect the rights of victims, the Liberals are AWOL. Why do the Liberals always put the rights of criminals ahead of victims?

Mr. Speaker, today the Liberals bought Kinder Morgan out of Canada. It is a loss of nearly $8 billion that will be invested in other countries, and $4.5 billion is just the beginning of the costs to taxpayers. For a year and a half, the Liberals failed to assert federal jurisdiction and to enforce the rule of law. Today, the Liberals are forcing Canadians to pay for their failures. Trans Mountain's opponents will keep fighting to stop it and to kill pipelines in Canada. It is a catastrophic indictment on the Prime Minister. When will he finally admit that today's announcement is really Kinder Morgan divesting from Canada, and Canadians paying for it?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the government that this week is Victims and Survivors of Crime Week. I know that the Liberals have made it clear that victims have not been a priority of theirs in the last two and a half years, and of course the latest example is Bill C-75, which would reduce the penalties for many serious crimes, including the abduction of a child under 14 years of age, forced marriage, participation in terrorist groups and criminal organizations, and many others.Is there any hope that the government can change its philosophy before the next election and start putting victims first? Can it do that?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Auditor General for his report. We are accepting all of his recommendations.This is one of the most studied government projects in the history of the Government of Canada. We called in the Auditor General and had two reports performed, third party reports. We know very clearly what happened. The former government treated this as a cost-cutting measure, instead of the government-wide initiative that it so clearly was. The Conservatives set this project up to fail, and now they are paying the consequences publicly. Shame on all of them.

Mr. Speaker, CP Rail workers can go on strike legally as soon as tonight, and those workers, like all Canadian workers, have the right to free and fair collective bargaining. The minister has addressed this issue before in the House, but she has not clearly stated that her government will not use back-to-work legislation to unilaterally end the strike, so I am giving her that opportunity now.Will the minister commit to those workers today, on the record, that she will not use back-to-work legislation to end the strike?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that more than $100 billion in energy investment has left and hundreds of thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs under the Liberals. Meanwhile, oil and gas are thriving around the world, especially in the U.S., Canada's biggest competitor. The Prime Minister is destroying future private sector energy opportunities, driving investment out of Canada into other countries, and sacrificing Canada's best interests. Now that the Liberals have chased away yet another private sector energy investor, how can Canadians possibly trust them to rebuild confidence in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, does anyone want to buy a 65-year-old leaky pipeline? No? Wait, it is located next to schools and parks, and literally crosses hundreds of rivers.The Liberals do, and they somehow decided that paying $4.5 billion to buy an old pipeline, and not telling us how much it is going to cost to build some illusory new pipeline, is somehow a good “investment”.When did the Liberals decide that trampling over the rights of indigenous peoples and putting our coasts further at risk was somehow in the public interest?

Mr. Speaker, two and a half years ago, this country saw pipelines being built without a cent of taxpayer dollars going into a socialized, nationalized energy program. Kinder Morgan was prepared to invest billions into the Canadian economy, and that has gone because the Prime Minister politically destabilized the investment climate in Canada. We have no idea how much it is going to cost to build this pipeline, or how it is going to be built by a man who has not successfully managed to do much of anything. Why should Canadians pay for his failures?

Mr. Speaker, apparently a close friend and advisor of the Prime Minister once advocated for the elimination of our supply management system. The really bad news is that this advisor is now playing an important role in renegotiating NAFTA on behalf of the Liberal government. That is disturbing—scary, even. I see shades of the Conservative Party.The government says it wants to defend our supply management system, but it hires people like that who want to eliminate it. That makes no sense. I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.Will he swear by all he holds dear that he will defend our supply management system in its entirety?

Mr. Speaker, it would be $3.2 billion to provide safe drinking water for every kid living on reserve in this country; it is $4.5 billion to buy a 65-year-old pipeline. We have to ask ourselves what kind of priorities the Liberals actually have. When a Texas oil company shows up and needs a bailout, the Liberals cannot find a shovel big enough to pitch in. It will not stop first nations in court and it will not stop people in the street. When exactly did the Liberals decide to trump first nations' rights and title, and protecting our coast, all in favour of some Texas oil company they want to help out?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak about Bill C-75, which will address delays and efficiencies in the criminal justice system. The member opposite spoke about the reclassification provisions in terms of the reforms that were proposed. It is simply untrue that we are changing the sentencing regime. We are hybridizing offences, but providing prosecutors with additional tools. I would like to ask my friend across the way what he feels about the provisions in terms of intimate partner violence, where we are supporting those victims of sexual assault and domestic violence in this bill. Does he not support that?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals give us a lot of rhetoric, but the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food refuses to promise that there will not be any new concessions on supply management as part of the NAFTA renegotiations with the Americans. I asked this question a number of times in committee yesterday, and every time he abdicated his position and his role as an advocate for milk, egg, and poultry producers.I am giving him one more chance to be honest with producers and to be transparent. What part of the market under supply management do the Liberals plan on handing over to the Americans as part of the NAFTA negotiations?

Mr. Speaker, what he did was spend over $4 billion on a pipeline that Canadians have had for over 60 years. We get absolutely nothing new with this, except a lot of financial risk, and $7 billion that was going to be invested by a private sector company has now vanished into thin air.I have a very simple question: How much will it cost taxpayers to actually build the expansion, or is this all just a pipe dream?

Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that we brought changes to the regulations to update PIPEDA, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. These regulatory changes are very important, because if any private entity, a bank or otherwise, suffers lost or stolen data, they must report it immediately to the individual and to the Privacy Commissioner. Failure to do so will lead to an infraction and a fine of $100,000 per data breach. That is a significant cost per data breach. It is an important signal that we are sending to protect the privacy of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the government is preparing to buy the Trans Mountain expansion, a project that Kinder Morgan is backing away from due to its high risk. It is a project that poses a constant threat to the environment and is opposed by British Columbians and indigenous nations. Quebec is also not interested in assuming the economic, environmental, and social risks.Will the government reimburse Quebeckers for their share of the $4.5 billion it is going to spend to finance its irresponsible action so that Quebeckers can instead invest in renewable energy?

Mr. Speaker, certainly we are taking a broad approach to a review of the criminal justice system, a balanced approach that supports victims of crime, that ensures the offenders are held to account, and that promotes public safety. We are committed to appointing a new federal ombudsperson for victims of crime. We are presently undertaking a review and identifying a potential candidate. This is a priority for our government. We will move forward at the nearest and closest time with the most appropriate and skilled individual.

Mr. Speaker, the government is going to spend $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money to nationalize a pipeline, $4.5 billion of public money to assume all the risk. This from a government that promised to get rid of subsidies for the oil and gas industry.Why are the Liberals insisting on investing so much in fossil fuels and so little in renewable energy?

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General was clear: the implementation and management of the Phoenix pay system was an incomprehensible failure.Those responsible chose to operate within their budgets and deadlines instead of implementing a working system.The warnings were everywhere, but officials ignored them. What happened? Workers are still living with the consequences of this disaster.When will the government launch a public inquiry to get to the bottom of what really happened?

Mr. Speaker, considering how the government and the Minister of Finance are managing public finances, we have good reason to be worried about mounting deficits year after year.Now the Liberals have decided to pretend that they know how to build a pipeline using taxpayers' money. It is completely unacceptable. This is just one more failure on the part of this government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance, now that he is in on it.My question, then, is simple. How much is this spending spree going to cost Canadian taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Harper Conservatives a question.Yesterday, the member for Milton said that 600 people had crossed the border illegally. I would like to know where she got that information, because I do not have the same numbers. It is wrong to tell untruths in the House. I would like to know where she got that number.

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about where the advantage on this deal is going. The Prime Minister is now cutting a cheque of taxpayers' money, $4.5 billion, which is going to shareholders in a Texas-based company. This is in addition to the hundreds of billions of dollars that have already left Canada's energy sector. The Prime Minister claims he wants to attract investment into Canada. How much of the $4.5 billion that is being sent to Kinder Morgan will be spent and invested in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Harper Conservatives, who gutted our immigration system, we are investing $173 million to strengthen security at the Canada-U.S. border—

Mr. Speaker, we now have reports of two of Canada's largest banks saying that hackers have breached the private information of up to 90,000 Canadian consumers. This is just months after the data breaches at Uber, Equifax, and Bell Canada, which affected tens of thousands of Canadians and their private information.The European Union took action and implemented new data protection last week. What did the Liberal government do? Absolutely nothing. In fact, this government has not even followed through on basic recommendations. When will the Liberals take action to protect Canadian consumers with a digital bill of rights and stop letting these companies off the hook?

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about a fictional story from the opposite side of the House. The Conservatives' fictional story is that they got pipelines done. The reality is that there was not one pipeline to international markets. We know this to be true. The reason for the discount on Canadian resources is lack of access to international markets. That is why the Trans Mountain expansion is so important. It is why we are moving forward to invest in those assets. It is why we are de-risking the project, to make sure it gets done for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, with no business experience, I understand the member opposite might not understand what we are talking about. We are talking about a $4.5-billion investment in the assets of Kinder Morgan, creating long-term value for our country. We know that is the right thing to do for our country.

Mr. Speaker, like her Liberal Prime Minister, the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie is saying that illegal migrants are welcome, but the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is saying that they are not. Who is telling the truth? What is the government going to do with these illegal migrants?Meanwhile, businesses in Sainte-Justine, Sainte-Claire, and Saint-Anselme have been waiting a long time for the arrival of legal immigrants.When will the Liberal government stop the wave of illegal immigration at the border?

Mr. Speaker, they are not buying assets. They are nationalizing a private pipeline. Yesterday, there were protesters willing to stop this project. Yesterday, the B.C. government was in court fighting against this pipeline. Yesterday, there were Liberal MPs from B.C. opposed to this project. Today, nothing has changed, except taxpayers are $4.5 billion poorer. Will nationalizing the pipeline actually get Liberal members of Parliament from B.C. to back it?

Mr. Speaker, turning back to today's question of privilege, I am rising because these online government publications presume the adoption of Bill C-71 by Parliament. There is no caveat given by the RCMP that the legislation is subject to parliamentary approval, and there is no acknowledgement of the parliamentary process at all, in fact. This, in my view, is nothing but a contempt of Parliament.Page 14 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, explains contempt as follows: As in the case of a Superior Court, when by some act or word a person disobeys or is openly disrespectful of the authority of the House of Commons or Senate or of their lawful commands, that person is subject to being held in contempt of the House of Commons or Senate as the case may be; therefore it will be seen that the Senate and House of Commons have the power or right to punish actions that, while not appearing to be breaches of any specific privilege, are offences against their authority or dignity. Page 81 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, adds: The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly. Let me read a sampling of the content found in “Special Business Bulletin No. 93”. To begin with, we see: Because not all CZ firearms will be impacted by changes in their classification, business will need to determine if their firearm( s) will be affected by these changes. Bill C-71 also lists a number of specific Swiss Arms (SA) firearm that will also become prohibited. If you own CZ/SA firearms, the steps below can help you identify whether your inventory of firearms is affected by Bill C-71. They explain the grandfathering requirements and how to avoid being in illegal possession of a firearm. That language is quite clear. It is “will be impacted”, “will...become prohibited”, and “is affected”, not “could be”, “may become”, or “might be affected”. Later in the bulletin, we read: Business owners will continue to be authorized to transfer any and all impacted CZ or SA firearms in their inventory to properly licenced individuals, until the relevant provisions of Bill C-71 come into force. For an individual owner to be eligible for grandfathering certain requirements must be met by June 30, 2018. Now, before one might think that the language about the bill's coming into force possibly concedes the need for parliamentary approval, let me continue reading: The proposed changes to classification status for CZ/SA firearms listed in Bill C-71 will come into force on a date to be determined by the Governor in Council. This date is yet to be determined. It is my respectful submission that any conditional language one might read or infer in that document is left, in the mind of the reader, to be, therefore, a matter of cabinet discretion, not Parliament's. Turning to a second document, entitled “How does Bill C- 71 affect individuals?”, we see additional presumptuous language. A lot of it mirrors what I quoted from “Special Business Bulletin No. 93”.Other passages, however, include: If your SA firearm was listed in Bill C-71, it will be classified as a prohibited firearm. It says, “was listed”, as if Bill C-71 was a document from the past, not a bill currently before a parliamentary committee.Later we read: To qualify for grandfathering of your currently non-restricted or restricted CZ/SA firearm, the following criteria must be met.... There follows a list of details for firearms owners to meet, which, just coincidentally, happens to be laid out in clause 3 of Bill C-71, yet there is no indication that these are proposals before Parliament, let alone in need of parliamentary sanction to be enforced. A leading ruling on the presumption of parliamentary decision-making concerning legislation is the ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser, on October 10, 1989, at page 4457 of the Debates, in respect of the implementation of the goods and services tax.The impugned advertisements in that case contained similarly unequivocal language, such as “Canada's Federal Sales Tax System will change. Please save this notice”, and, the GST “will replace the existing federal sales tax”. In this instance, Mr. Speaker Fraser did not find the prima facie case of contempt. However, he could not have been more clear when he stated, and I quote: I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous. This is a case which, in my opinion, should never recur. I expect the Department of Finance and other departments to study this ruling carefully and remind everyone within the Public Service that we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.... A vote on this issue might not support the very important message which your Speaker wishes to convey and which I hope will be well considered in the future by governments, departmental officials and advertisement agencies retained by them. This advertisement may not be a contempt of the House in the narrow confines of a procedural definition, but it is, in my opinion, ill-conceived and it does a great disservice to the great traditions of this place. If we do not preserve these great traditions, our freedoms are at peril and our conventions become a mockery. I insist, and I believe I am supported by the majority of moderate and responsible members on both sides of this House, that this ad is objectionable and should never be repeated. Subsequent rulings have distinguished other factual scenarios from the 1989 ruling, and, I submit, are distinguishable from the circumstances I am rising on today. On March 13, 1997, at page 8988 of the Debates, Speaker Parent held that a policy-promotion campaign concerning anti-tobacco legislation did not give rise to a prima facie contempt, but the Chair added the following advice, and I quote: ...where the government issues communications to the public containing allusions to measures before the House, it would be advisable to choose words and terms that leave no doubt as to the disposition of these measures. That advice was put into practice by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in its promotional materials respecting Bill C-50, leading to the 2008 ruling by Mr. Speaker Milliken, which I cited in my opening comments, that there was no prima facie contempt. More recently, your immediate predecessor ruled, on September 28, 2011, at page 1576 of the Debates, that a procurement solicitation for advisory services for the implications of certain scenarios for the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly was “part of a planning process that might be expected in contemplating the possibility of the repeal of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.” Last year, Mr. Speaker, you ruled on May 29, 2017, at page 11560 of the Debates, that advertisements to hire the leadership of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, then a matter before the House as part of a budget implementation bill, was not a contempt, because some, but not all, of the government's job postings conceded that parliamentary approval was required. In the ruling, the Chair said: I was looking for any suggestion that parliamentary approval was being publicized as either unnecessary or irrelevant, or in fact already obtained. Otherwise put, I was looking for any indication of an offence against or disrespect of the authority or dignity of the House and its members. As it turns out, I think the most relevant ruling in respect of the facts before us today is that of Mr. Speaker Stockwell, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, given on January 22, 1997, in respect of a government pamphlet explaining municipal reform legislation, not unlike the purpose of the RCMP' s internet guidance. In finding a prima facie contempt, Mr. Speaker Stockwell held: ...I am very concerned by the Ministry pamphlet, which is worded more definitively than the commercial and the press release. To name but a few examples, the brochure claims that “new city wards will be created”, that “work on building the new city will start in 1997”, and that “[t]he new City of Toronto will reduce the number of municipal politicians. How is one to interpret such unqualified claims? In my opinion, they convey the impression that the passage of the requisite legislation was not necessary or was a foregone conclusion, or that the assembly and the Legislature had no pro forma tangential, even inferior role in the legislative and lawmaking process, and in doing so, they appear to diminish the respect that is due to this House. I would not have come to this view had these claims or proposals—and that is all they are—been qualified by a statement that they would only become law if and when the Legislature gave its stamp of approval to them. In the RCMP documents, we are not talking about standing up a crown corporation, or hiring a government consultant, or even promoting an anti-smoking campaign, nor are we talking about new tax rules or changes to local government. We are talking about a publication that gives advice on how to avoid becoming a criminal. How much more serious can one get than that? This is not hyperbole.One of the passages I referred to earlier said, “They explain the grandfathering requirements and how to avoid being in illegal possession of a firearm.” Another was, “lf your SA firearm was listed in Bill C-71, it will be classified as a prohibited firearm.” The unlawful possession of a firearm can lead to a jail sentence of up to five years. That is pretty serious stuff. Conservatives have been clear and on the record about their concerns about the RCMP arbitrarily reclassifying firearms. That is why the previous government gave the Governor in Council an oversight role. Basically, what happens is that law-abiding owners who follow all the rules and regulations with respect to their firearms are suddenly, because of one meeting of some bureaucrats, declared criminals for possession of an illegal weapon, when they have owned and used that weapon for sport shooting or hunting for many years. Suddenly, with one blanket move, what dozens or hundreds of thousands of people already possess is somehow deemed illegal. We have seen this disrespect for law-abiding Canadians from the RCMP before. The RCMP has acted in contempt of Parliament several times before. There is an institutional history of it, as a matter of fact. On February 16, 1965, Mr. Speaker Macnaughton found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP's arrest of an opposition member of Parliament. On September 4, 1973, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP interrogation of an opposition member. On March 21, 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP's electronic surveillance—spying, in other words—of an opposition MP. On December 6, 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP misleading a former minister concerning the information he provided to opposition parliamentarians. On December 1, 2004, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP blocking MPs' access to Parliament Hill. On April 10, 2008, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege following the false and misleading evidence given to the public accounts committee by the RCMP's then deputy commissioner. On March 15, 2012, your immediate predecessor, Mr. Speaker, found a prima facie case of privilege when the RCMP denied MPs access to Centre Block. On September 25, 2014, another prima facie case of privilege was established related to the RCMP's denial of access to Parliament Hill. On May 12, 2015, two incidents of MPs being denied access to Centre Block by the RCMP led to yet another prima facie case of privilege. Mr. Speaker, you have also needed to deal with these issues. On April 6 and 11, 2017, you found prima facie cases of privilege flowing out of MPs' access being denied by the Parliamentary Protective Service, an organization that, of course, has a clear legal relationship with the RCMP. Even on the Senate side, the RCMP was found to have committed a prima facie case of contempt by Mr. Speaker Kinsella, on May 8, 2013, following its efforts to thwart parliamentary task force members from appearing as witnesses before a committee. It goes without saying that it comes as absolutely no surprise that our national police force would snub its nose at Parliament yet again. Even more distressing is that the minister responsible for the RCMP, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is one of the most experienced members of the House and a former House leader. The minister should be urging respect for Parliament by his officials. The RCMP is not above the law and not above the House of Commons.Mr. Speaker, if you agree there is a prima facie case of contempt here, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion.

Mr. Speaker, this is national Victims and Survivors of Crime Week. This year's theme is “Transforming the Culture Together”.Let me point out that the ombudsperson for victims of crime position has been vacant for over seven months. The government did, however, fill the correctional investigator position on January 2, so maybe it does not think victims need the help.Why are the Liberals not giving victims of crime a strong voice by appointing an independent ombudsperson to protect them, as I proposed in my bill?

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the Prime Minister has tasked me and our government to ensure that we defend Canada's next federal election against cyber-threats. It is also important that we ensure we look for new ways to deal with data and digital breaches. That is why in Bill C-76 we have a provision against the malicious use of computers. I look forward to working with colleagues in the House to do what is necessary, as these new technologies evolve, to ensure the integrity of our elections.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, our government is committed to ensuring that the criminal justice system provides for safe communities, ensures and respects victims of crime, and holds offenders to account. Our government is committed to a renewed approach, as we have said, in terms of the appointments process, based on openness, transparency, and merit. The process for the appointment of the new federal ombudsman for victims of crime is presently ongoing and remains a high priority for me. The position will be filled as soon as possible at the conclusion of this process.

Mr. Speaker, on March 1, 2018, a tragedy occurred in my riding, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, when a young woman named Athena Gervais died after drinking a sugary, high-alcohol drink. My question is for the Minister of Health.Can she inform the House of the measures Health Canada plans to take to ensure that such a terrible tragedy never happens again?

Mr. Speaker, who did the government hire? Who did the Prime Minister hire to advise him on supply management? Simon Beauchemin, a senior adviser who strongly opposes supply management. He has an unwavering vision: he believes that supply management is a regressive means of protecting our producers. Our leader and the official opposition definitely stand with producers and support supply management.Will the Minister of Agriculture rise and assure us that he will not negotiate away one litre of milk, one egg, or one chicken to the Americans?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Auditor General for his report, and we accept his recommendations. Today's report is a reminder for Canadians of the realities of 10 years under the Harper Conservatives. After we asked the Auditor General to examine Phoenix, he published two reports, and the government commissioned two reports from a third party, in addition to a study under way in a parliamentary committee. We know exactly how the Harper Conservatives set the system up for failure.

Mr. Speaker, the sheer audacity of the member opposite—

Mr. Speaker, to stop oil spills and protect jobs, the BC Chamber of Commerce on Saturday endorsed the same abandoned vessels solutions that I brought to the House. Thirty-six thousand businesses joined hundreds of coastal communities that urged the transport minister to include solutions in his fix, like vessel turn in and recycling. Despite years of coastal advocacy, the Liberals' Bill C-64 still does not include coastal solutions to deal with thousands of wrecks off our coast. They have dragged anchor on resuming the debate.Why is the government leaving abandoned vessels on our coast for another season?

Mr. Speaker, we are buying the assets of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline that are currently there, and the opportunity to expand that pipeline. These assets create value. We are buying assets that create value. What we are going to do is to create more value by ensuring that the project gets done. These advantages are going to help our natural resources sector. They are also going to help our broader economy and create jobs across the country.We know it is the right thing to do. We will get this project done.

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about one thing. This $4.5 billion handout of taxpayers' money will not build one inch of new pipeline. In fact, every penny will go into the pockets of a Texas oil company, which it will then take to build pipelines outside of Canada in competition with our industry. How did we go from that company wanting to invest $7 billion in Canada to sending $4 billion of taxpayers' money out of this country?

Mr. Speaker, we decided it was very important to invest in the Trans Mountain project. We know that with a $4.5-billion investment, we can protect its value and add value for Canadians. This project is in the national interest, and there is no doubt that our investment will help grow the Canadian economy.

Mr. Speaker, let us evaluate where we are today. For months, the members opposite were complaining that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion was not happening. Today, we announced we are moving forward to ensure the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. What do we have? Are they upset that we are going to be able to get our resources to international markets and create value for Canadians, or are they upset about the fact that we are going to be able to create more jobs for Canadians? It is one of the two, or perhaps both, but it does not matter because our resolve is to get this project done, because it is in Canada's best interest.

Mr. Speaker, I note the audacity of the member opposite in talking about not getting a pipeline to market, which is what he and his party were unable to do. We have stepped forward and said that we are going to take the decision to put a project in the national interest forward so that we can create the economic advantage we are seeking. The economic advantage for Canada is $15 billion of advantage to our economy, and 15,000 jobs. We are moving forward in the national interest, for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, we are working with the provinces and the United States to plan for potential fluctuations. The task force on irregular migration will hold its 10th meeting tomorrow. While the Conservatives keep fearmongering, we are taking concrete action to manage the situation.

Mr. Speaker, let us evaluate what the member opposite just said. In the decade before 2015, not one pipeline to tidewater was built. We know this is a fact. We know the project is going to ensure that we create an advantage for Canadians, an economic advantage that goes along with our overall plan to ensure that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. This is in our national interest. It is creating jobs in Alberta, British Columbia, and across our country.

Mr. Speaker, our government supports and is committed to maintaining supply management. This has been a clear position throughout the NAFTA negotiations. Every member of our government fully supports the Prime Minister and this government's policies.This position is the opposite of the Conservative Party's, whose innovation critic, appointed by the Leader of the Opposition, is opposed to supply management. He even detailed the reasons why in a book that the Leader of the Opposition would not allow in public.On this side of the House, we all support supply management.

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we have purchased the assets, and it is our intent that this project move forward in a commercial fashion. We will be seeking the approach that makes the most sense, which will include honouring contracts that have already been moved forward. What we will seek to do is then move toward consideration of a private sector solution at the appropriate time, creating the value that we want to create for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely sad day for Canadian taxpayers. The Prime Minister is forcing them to fix his failure on Canada's energy sector. It did not have to be this way. Kinder Morgan was never asking for a handout. All it wanted was a clear path to get this project built, which is what the Prime Minister has failed to do. Now taxpayers are on the hook for the Liberals' mess.Could the Prime Minister give a guarantee that these costs will exceed no more than $4.5 billion?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals allowed Canadians to believe Cambridge Analytica whistle-blower Christopher Wylie, working in the Liberal leader's office in 2009, was terminated because his electoral data manipulation was too invasive. In testimony to the ethics committee today, Mr. Wylie said that was not why his contract ended. In a 2016 email to the U.K.'s leave movement in the Brexit referendum, Wylie said that the outcome could be influenced with psychographic micro-targeting and that he was working on a similar project for a major Canadian political party.Who is telling the truth?

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure one can get any clearer than the Auditor General. The report calls the Phoenix fiasco “an incomprehensible failure of project management and oversight.” There was no oversight in the decision to implement Phoenix by the Liberals, even though they knew it had significant problems. Executives were more focused on meeting the budget and the timeline than actually delivering a working pay system. Following the devastating report, will the government finally compensate all workers and implement a public inquiry to ensure that this never happens again?

Mr. Speaker, we need to call it fiction when fiction happens. This is what did not happen under the last government: There were no pipelines bringing resources to international markets. The reality is that we accept a lower price for our natural resources in this country—

Mr. Speaker, before the 2015 election, pipelines in this country were built without taxpayers' money. They were applied for, they were approved, and they were completed without a cent of taxpayers' dollars. The only thing that has changed between then and now is that we have a Liberal government. Why is it that every time elements of our energy sector get nationalized is when there is a Trudeau in the Prime Minister's Office?

Mr. Speaker, as you may have heard, the government announced today that it would buy the Trans Mountain pipeline. Far be it from the CCF to question nationalization. Could the minister confirm that the new federal crown corporation will honour the existing contract to buy 75% of the project's steel from Regina and make every effort to procure the remaining 25% from Canadian mills?

Mr. Speaker, we are buying assets, assets that have value. These assets, of course, will enable us to ensure that we get this pipeline expansion built. We know this is important for Canadians. We know it is important for Canadians from the member's part of the country, because we are going to create jobs. We are also going to create economic wealth for our entire country.When we are working in the national interest, we are going to move forward with an approach that absolutely deals with uncertainties so we can get this back into the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, every Canadian knows that buying an airline ticket entitles the purchaser to a certain level of treatment. That is why we are very proud of bringing in air passenger rights.They were announced in Bill C-49 and we also announced that we were going to consult Canadians. Some 13 million Canadians travel by plane. It is the right thing to do and the Canadian Transportation Agency initiated the process yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, experience is always an advantage. What we can say is that it is very important to consider our experience under the Harper government. The Conservatives did nothing. That is what we know from experience. At this time, we have decided that it is very important to have the courage to invest in a project that is in the national interest. It is clear that we need to invest now so that, in the future, the private sector can participate in a project that will benefit Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking the government to speculate hypothetically on what a court may or may not say. We could look retrospectively at what courts have said. Even very recently the Supreme Court has spoken about consultation and actually has sided with the proponent. However, it is not a good idea for us to speculate on what a future court might say on a case that has nothing to do with the ones that have been decided already. We do know that through this process, there was unprecedented consultation with indigenous people. Forty-three communities signed on to benefit agreements, 33 in—

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to take any lessons from the former Harper government on labour relations. Let me just remind the member opposite what experts had to say about how the previous government handled labour disputes: “highly unusual”, “a double-edged sword for employers”, “wholesale departure from the roles of collective bargaining”, “destabilizing”, “abuse of the provisions in the Canada Labour Code”, and “they did not understand how the system works.”We support a fair and balanced process. This is what is right for the Canadian economy, for workers, and for employers.

Mr. Speaker, it is great that we have at least one Alberta member of Parliament who is supporting Albertans.What I know is that the member for Edmonton Centre and the other members of the Liberal Party support this project, because we recognize that what we are bringing to Albertans are huge advantages, advantages in terms of their economy—

Mr. Speaker, our position on this issue is very clear: we have always defended this system and we do so at every opportunity, including during the NAFTA negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is entitled to her opinions, but not to her own facts. The facts are that we have created 600,000 jobs in the last couple of years in this country. Canadians are doing significantly better because of the policies of this government. We know that we now need to move forward on a project that is advantageous for the country, but also for Alberta and British Columbia. In standing up for this project, we are ensuring that we will get a fair price for our resources, and we are doing it in a way that is respecting our approach to ensuring the environment is protected while we get proper prices for our resources.

Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. We are talking about $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money going to a company in Texas. Not even J. R. Ewing would have dreamed of this, and yet that is what the Liberal government is doing.What is the Liberal government's track record when it comes to investments? Since those folks have been in power, American investment in Canada has dropped by 50%, while Canadian investments in the U.S. have increased by 66%.Seriously, how can the Minister of Finance claim to be an authority on investments?

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada apparently just bought a pipeline from Kinder Morgan for $4.5 billion, which it bought for $550 million. There are 15 different court cases right now: indigenous rights cases, environmental group cases, and municipal cases. When the Federal Court of Appeal rules, if the court rules that the permits are invalid, what is the government's plan? Will it restart the environmental assessment process and restart consultations?

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that we think it is critically important that we ensure that a project that has been federally and provincially approved can move forward. We have decided to purchase these assets because we know this is the way to ensure that this project actually happens and that we deal with the squabbles between provinces. We will move forward, reducing the risk of this project so we can ensure that the economic advantages we are seeking are achieved for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, we want to be very clear. We found a fair price for the assets of Trans Mountain. At the same time, we have ensured that there is no subsidy in this deal.We are trying to ensure that we can move forward in an economically prudent way to protect jobs and create economic advantages for our country. We know this is in our best interest. We are going to continue to work to ensure that our natural resources can be brought to international markets.

Mr. Speaker, what is clear in the minister's response is that we are the ones talking about energy and the environment and they are the ones abandoning the environment for the economy.The government is going to invest $4.5 billion in a pipeline. In comparison, in 2016, only $3 billion of public and private money was invested in clean energy. Countries that take the impact of climate change seriously do not build themselves pipelines. Reconciling the environment and energy means investing in clean energy.Why are the Liberals bent on investing in fossil fuels?

We know that the investment in the Trans Mountain expansion is very important to the national interest and to the future of our economy. It will help our economy by fostering economic growth. At the same time, we can also create jobs across the country, in British Columbia, Alberta, and in the other provinces. It truly is in the national interest. That is why we are clearly stating that this project is important for our future.

Mr. Speaker, not that long ago, about two and a half years ago, this country had a government that was unable to get things done. We have shown with our government that when we find obstacles, when we find issues around provincial jurisdiction, the federal government is willing to step forward in the national interest to make things happen. We have decided that a $4.5-billion investment, a fair value for these assets, is the right approach for us to make sure this happens. We will work toward looking for a private sector solution as we de-risk the project.

Mr. Speaker, last year we launched Canada's new tourism vision. Budget 2017 stabilized Destination Canada's budget at $95.5 million per year. We announced $8.6 million to grow Canada's indigenous tourism industry. We are enhancing tourism data collection by providing Statistics Canada $13.5 million over five years. The year 2017 was the best ever for the tourism industry, with over 20 million international visitors spending $21 billion across our great country. Together with the member for Long Range Mountains, and I hope all members and all Canadians, we will build on this success, because our investments are working.

Mr. Speaker, we are extremely proud of Bill C-64, which addresses a long-standing issue that has not been taken care of by previous governments; that is the question of abandoned and derelict vessels. We have come up with an excellent bill. In fact, it has been through the committee in which my colleague had the chance to participate. We are very proud of this bill and we hope the NDP and the Harper Conservatives will support the bill as we move it through report stage, third reading, and then quickly on to the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Trans Mountain project is very important to the Canadian economy. It is in the national interest. That is why we invested in the project, which will create 15,000 jobs in Alberta and British Columbia. It will also improve our national economy.

Mr. Speaker, fundamental to what we are doing is actually buying assets that were owned by someone else, so that we can actually make sure this project happens.Of course, we want to make sure that we get the appropriate value for Canadians, and so there is commercially sensitive information. As we look towards how we might move this project into the private sector, we need to recognize that it is commercially sensitive. Canadians will have a full understanding and transparency with regard to this project, and what it will do is create advantages for our economy and for jobs across the country.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected our government in part because of our commitment to help strengthen and grow our economy, to help the middle class, and to create well-paying jobs for Canadians.Can the Minister of Finance share with this House how today's decision to purchase the Trans Mountain pipeline and related assets will help to uphold this commitment?

Mr. Speaker, as of today the parties continue to negotiate at the table in order to get a deal. I have spoken with the employer. I have spoken with both labour unions. They continue to have those conversations. We are there. The federal mediation service is with them. We encourage them to continue to work toward a deal.

Mr. Speaker, our position on supply management has been and remains clear. We have always defended supply management, and that includes during NAFTA talks. The system works extremely well for Canadians. Protecting supply management is important for Canadian consumers, our industries, and all of us. We will always defend it.

Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Labour. We know that a CP Rail strike may be happening this evening. We know as well that VIA Rail has already cancelled passenger service because of the operational uncertainty. We know as well that commuting services in Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto could be affected.In the past, an agreement had been sought and adhered to with respect to the provision of these services by the Teamsters and CP Rail. Could the minister tell me if she actually got her job done and secured these agreements so people can get to work tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker, we are making an investment in Canada's future. We know that investing a fair amount of money into the assets of the Trans Mountain pipeline and the expansion will create economic advantage for our country. We are creating 9,000 jobs in British Columbia and jobs across the country that are going to make a real difference for Canadian families. At the same time, we are adding up to $15 billion to our economy annually. We know this is important for our country.

Mr. Speaker, we approved this pipeline federally back in November 2016 after a robust environmental assessment. The B.C. government approved this pipeline. We know that to get investments made in this country we need to have the rule of law. We cannot have a situation where provinces delay, create uncertainty, and make it so that investors do not actually want to invest in our country. We are moving forward to ensure this project moves forward. We know that eventually it can move to the private sector, which is what we will aspire to do following this decision today.

Mr. Speaker, what today's announcement is about is our decision to step forward and ensure that we can actually get a project in the national interest done in this country. We know that the previous government was just unable to do that. Therefore, we have stepped forward with an approach that would ensure that this happens, by de-risking the project. It is in the national interest. We know it will create 15,000 jobs. We know it will create significant advantage for our economy. That is why we are moving forward to make sure that this project happens.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his question and for his work on this file.As he pointed out, even one tragedy is one too many. As soon as I heard about the incident, I immediately issued a proposal for consultation on restricting the amount of alcohol in single-serve, sugary, high-alcohol beverages. The consultation period just ended, and we are looking closely at the recommendations. I want to thank everyone who took part in the consultation as well as the Standing Committee on Health for its hard work on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, we will always defend supply management. In fact, with the exception of certain members of the official opposition, including the member for Beauce, everyone in the House believes—

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. In 2017, investments in Canada grew by 8%. That is a fact. However, we know that it is very important to have a strong resource sector for the future. That is why we decided to invest in the Trans Mountain project. It is very important for our future and for growing our economy. We are talking about $15 billion every year. That is what Canadians living in British Columbia, Alberta, and across the country stand to gain.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege about online publications of the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, respecting Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms. These documents, found on the RCMP website, were brought to my attention yesterday, which is why I am rising today, the earliest opportunity after I became aware of the documents.On another question of privilege concerning advertising, Speaker Milliken ruled, on May 29, 2008, at page 6276 of the Debates: In this case, as in others, it is not so much that the event or issue complained of took place at a given time, but rather that the members bringing the matter to the attention of the House did so as soon as practicable after they became aware of the situation. Turning back to today's question of privilege, I am rising because these online government publications—

Mr. Speaker, this week is Tourism Week in Canada. It is a chance to highlight the incredible work and phenomenal success of our tourism industry. From coast to coast to coast, our industry is world class. It has created over 26,000 jobs just since 2015. Culinary tourism in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador is some of the best in the country, as we have seen from chef Ross Larkin's recent win on Top Chef Canada.Could the Minister of Small Business and Tourism please tell the House what our government is doing to make 2018 the best year for Canadian tourism?

Mr. Speaker, we are staying the course and investing in our future. We know that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. It is very important. We have invested in clean energy, but in the meantime we know that it is necessary to invest in this project to protect the benefits that it offers our economy in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Harper Conservatives a question.Yesterday, the member for Milton said that 600 people had crossed the border illegally. I would like to know where she got that information, because I do not have the same numbers. It is wrong to tell untruths in the House. I would like to know where she got that number.

Mr. Speaker, on March 1, 2018, a tragedy occurred in my riding, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, when a young woman named Athena Gervais died after drinking a sugary, high-alcohol drink. My question is for the Minister of Health.Can she inform the House of the measures Health Canada plans to take to ensure that such a terrible tragedy never happens again?

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely sad day for Canadian taxpayers. The Prime Minister is forcing them to fix his failure on Canada's energy sector. It did not have to be this way. Kinder Morgan was never asking for a handout. All it wanted was a clear path to get this project built, which is what the Prime Minister has failed to do. Now taxpayers are on the hook for the Liberals' mess.Could the Prime Minister give a guarantee that these costs will exceed no more than $4.5 billion?

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. Illegal migrants are coming from all over the world.The Liberals could have cut the budget, and that is what they did, in fact. The Liberals cut the Canada Border Services Agency's budget by $302 million. They reduced the number of border guards. They also cut $30 million from the budget of those responsible for stopping illegal immigration.If the Liberals are serious about this, when will they deal with this problem and put a stop to this wave of illegal immigration at the border?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals cancelled the northern gateway pipeline. They dithered on the Keystone XL pipeline. They killed the energy east pipeline. They have talked down our world-class energy regulator and have told audiences, both foreign and domestic, that they want to phase out the energy sector and the jobs that go with it. They botched the Trans Mountain project so badly that they have turned a multi-billion dollar private sector investment into a multi-billion dollar bill for Canadian taxpayers. Why should Canadians be forced to pay billions to Kinder Morgan to cover for the Prime Minister's embarrassing incompetence?

Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. We are talking about $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money going to a company in Texas. Not even J. R. Ewing would have dreamed of this, and yet that is what the Liberal government is doing.What is the Liberal government's track record when it comes to investments? Since those folks have been in power, American investment in Canada has dropped by 50%, while Canadian investments in the U.S. have increased by 66%.Seriously, how can the Minister of Finance claim to be an authority on investments?

Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Labour. We know that a CP Rail strike may be happening this evening. We know as well that VIA Rail has already cancelled passenger service because of the operational uncertainty. We know as well that commuting services in Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto could be affected.In the past, an agreement had been sought and adhered to with respect to the provision of these services by the Teamsters and CP Rail. Could the minister tell me if she actually got her job done and secured these agreements so people can get to work tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker, it is not the Liberals, but rather private companies, that create jobs.They left the Trans Mountain project to languish for months, and now they announce that they are buying the pipeline using taxpayers' money. What is even worse is that Kinder Morgan never asked for money and never asked to be purchased. The Prime Minister has failed again.My question for the minister is simple. How much is this folly going to cost Canadian taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' track record on energy matters is nothing short of disastrous. Since they took office, the energy sector has lost 125,000 jobs and over $60 billion in investment.What is the Liberal government's miracle solution? Take money from taxpayers and buy a Texas company for $4.5 billion. That is the Liberal solution.My question for my friend, the Minister of Finance, is very simple. A fat lot of good Bay Street experience does us. Why is he making such bad decisions?

Mr. Speaker, today the Liberals bought Kinder Morgan out of Canada. It is a loss of nearly $8 billion that will be invested in other countries, and $4.5 billion is just the beginning of the costs to taxpayers. For a year and a half, the Liberals failed to assert federal jurisdiction and to enforce the rule of law. Today, the Liberals are forcing Canadians to pay for their failures. Trans Mountain's opponents will keep fighting to stop it and to kill pipelines in Canada. It is a catastrophic indictment on the Prime Minister. When will he finally admit that today's announcement is really Kinder Morgan divesting from Canada, and Canadians paying for it?

Mr. Speaker, like her Liberal Prime Minister, the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie is saying that illegal migrants are welcome, but the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is saying that they are not. Who is telling the truth? What is the government going to do with these illegal migrants?Meanwhile, businesses in Sainte-Justine, Sainte-Claire, and Saint-Anselme have been waiting a long time for the arrival of legal immigrants.When will the Liberal government stop the wave of illegal immigration at the border?

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure one can get any clearer than the Auditor General. The report calls the Phoenix fiasco “an incomprehensible failure of project management and oversight.” There was no oversight in the decision to implement Phoenix by the Liberals, even though they knew it had significant problems. Executives were more focused on meeting the budget and the timeline than actually delivering a working pay system. Following the devastating report, will the government finally compensate all workers and implement a public inquiry to ensure that this never happens again?

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about where the advantage on this deal is going. The Prime Minister is now cutting a cheque of taxpayers' money, $4.5 billion, which is going to shareholders in a Texas-based company. This is in addition to the hundreds of billions of dollars that have already left Canada's energy sector. The Prime Minister claims he wants to attract investment into Canada. How much of the $4.5 billion that is being sent to Kinder Morgan will be spent and invested in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, who did the government hire? Who did the Prime Minister hire to advise him on supply management? Simon Beauchemin, a senior adviser who strongly opposes supply management. He has an unwavering vision: he believes that supply management is a regressive means of protecting our producers. Our leader and the official opposition definitely stand with producers and support supply management.Will the Minister of Agriculture rise and assure us that he will not negotiate away one litre of milk, one egg, or one chicken to the Americans?

Mr. Speaker, two and a half years ago, this country saw pipelines being built without a cent of taxpayer dollars going into a socialized, nationalized energy program. Kinder Morgan was prepared to invest billions into the Canadian economy, and that has gone because the Prime Minister politically destabilized the investment climate in Canada. We have no idea how much it is going to cost to build this pipeline, or how it is going to be built by a man who has not successfully managed to do much of anything. Why should Canadians pay for his failures?

Mr. Speaker, I note the audacity of the member opposite in talking about not getting a pipeline to market, which is what he and his party were unable to do. We have stepped forward and said that we are going to take the decision to put a project in the national interest forward so that we can create the economic advantage we are seeking. The economic advantage for Canada is $15 billion of advantage to our economy, and 15,000 jobs. We are moving forward in the national interest, for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, not long ago, Kinder Morgan, a private company, was a proud owner of a pipeline with plans to expand. Today, Kinder Morgan is divesting its Canadian assets to the taxpayer for $4.5 billion. The Liberals have screwed up this deal so badly that the only solution is to throw billions of taxpayer dollars at the project, and they still have not told us what it will actually cost to build the expansion. Will the finance minister tell Canadians the total cost of this Liberal failure?

Mr. Speaker, apparently a close friend and advisor of the Prime Minister once advocated for the elimination of our supply management system. The really bad news is that this advisor is now playing an important role in renegotiating NAFTA on behalf of the Liberal government. That is disturbing—scary, even. I see shades of the Conservative Party.The government says it wants to defend our supply management system, but it hires people like that who want to eliminate it. That makes no sense. I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.Will he swear by all he holds dear that he will defend our supply management system in its entirety?

Mr. Speaker, the sheer audacity of the member opposite—

Mr. Speaker, before the 2015 election, pipelines in this country were built without taxpayers' money. They were applied for, they were approved, and they were completed without a cent of taxpayers' dollars. The only thing that has changed between then and now is that we have a Liberal government. Why is it that every time elements of our energy sector get nationalized is when there is a Trudeau in the Prime Minister's Office?

Mr. Speaker, we approved this pipeline federally back in November 2016 after a robust environmental assessment. The B.C. government approved this pipeline. We know that to get investments made in this country we need to have the rule of law. We cannot have a situation where provinces delay, create uncertainty, and make it so that investors do not actually want to invest in our country. We are moving forward to ensure this project moves forward. We know that eventually it can move to the private sector, which is what we will aspire to do following this decision today.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected our government in part because of our commitment to help strengthen and grow our economy, to help the middle class, and to create well-paying jobs for Canadians.Can the Minister of Finance share with this House how today's decision to purchase the Trans Mountain pipeline and related assets will help to uphold this commitment?

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Harper Conservatives, who gutted our immigration system, we are investing $173 million to strengthen security at the Canada-U.S. border—

Mr. Speaker, as of today the parties continue to negotiate at the table in order to get a deal. I have spoken with the employer. I have spoken with both labour unions. They continue to have those conversations. We are there. The federal mediation service is with them. We encourage them to continue to work toward a deal.

Mr. Speaker, to stop oil spills and protect jobs, the BC Chamber of Commerce on Saturday endorsed the same abandoned vessels solutions that I brought to the House. Thirty-six thousand businesses joined hundreds of coastal communities that urged the transport minister to include solutions in his fix, like vessel turn in and recycling. Despite years of coastal advocacy, the Liberals' Bill C-64 still does not include coastal solutions to deal with thousands of wrecks off our coast. They have dragged anchor on resuming the debate.Why is the government leaving abandoned vessels on our coast for another season?

Mr. Speaker, the government is going to spend $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money to nationalize a pipeline, $4.5 billion of public money to assume all the risk. This from a government that promised to get rid of subsidies for the oil and gas industry.Why are the Liberals insisting on investing so much in fossil fuels and so little in renewable energy?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Auditor General for his report, and we accept his recommendations. Today's report is a reminder for Canadians of the realities of 10 years under the Harper Conservatives. After we asked the Auditor General to examine Phoenix, he published two reports, and the government commissioned two reports from a third party, in addition to a study under way in a parliamentary committee. We know exactly how the Harper Conservatives set the system up for failure.

Mr. Speaker, what he did was spend over $4 billion on a pipeline that Canadians have had for over 60 years. We get absolutely nothing new with this, except a lot of financial risk, and $7 billion that was going to be invested by a private sector company has now vanished into thin air.I have a very simple question: How much will it cost taxpayers to actually build the expansion, or is this all just a pipe dream?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals allowed Canadians to believe Cambridge Analytica whistle-blower Christopher Wylie, working in the Liberal leader's office in 2009, was terminated because his electoral data manipulation was too invasive. In testimony to the ethics committee today, Mr. Wylie said that was not why his contract ended. In a 2016 email to the U.K.'s leave movement in the Brexit referendum, Wylie said that the outcome could be influenced with psychographic micro-targeting and that he was working on a similar project for a major Canadian political party.Who is telling the truth?

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals have failed to appoint a victims' ombudsman after six months, when the prisoners' ombudsman position became vacant, they filled it immediately. When it comes to filling a position to protect the rights of criminals, the Liberals could not move fast enough. However, when it comes to filling a position to protect the rights of victims, the Liberals are AWOL. Why do the Liberals always put the rights of criminals ahead of victims?

Mr. Speaker, the government is preparing to buy the Trans Mountain expansion, a project that Kinder Morgan is backing away from due to its high risk. It is a project that poses a constant threat to the environment and is opposed by British Columbians and indigenous nations. Quebec is also not interested in assuming the economic, environmental, and social risks.Will the government reimburse Quebeckers for their share of the $4.5 billion it is going to spend to finance its irresponsible action so that Quebeckers can instead invest in renewable energy?

Mr. Speaker, we need to call it fiction when fiction happens. This is what did not happen under the last government: There were no pipelines bringing resources to international markets. The reality is that we accept a lower price for our natural resources in this country—

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Auditor General for his report. We are accepting all of his recommendations.This is one of the most studied government projects in the history of the Government of Canada. We called in the Auditor General and had two reports performed, third party reports. We know very clearly what happened. The former government treated this as a cost-cutting measure, instead of the government-wide initiative that it so clearly was. The Conservatives set this project up to fail, and now they are paying the consequences publicly. Shame on all of them.

Mr. Speaker, what today's announcement is about is our decision to step forward and ensure that we can actually get a project in the national interest done in this country. We know that the previous government was just unable to do that. Therefore, we have stepped forward with an approach that would ensure that this happens, by de-risking the project. It is in the national interest. We know it will create 15,000 jobs. We know it will create significant advantage for our economy. That is why we are moving forward to make sure that this project happens.

Mr. Speaker, let us evaluate what the member opposite just said. In the decade before 2015, not one pipeline to tidewater was built. We know this is a fact. We know the project is going to ensure that we create an advantage for Canadians, an economic advantage that goes along with our overall plan to ensure that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. This is in our national interest. It is creating jobs in Alberta, British Columbia, and across our country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking the government to speculate hypothetically on what a court may or may not say. We could look retrospectively at what courts have said. Even very recently the Supreme Court has spoken about consultation and actually has sided with the proponent. However, it is not a good idea for us to speculate on what a future court might say on a case that has nothing to do with the ones that have been decided already. We do know that through this process, there was unprecedented consultation with indigenous people. Forty-three communities signed on to benefit agreements, 33 in—

Mr. Speaker, we now have reports of two of Canada's largest banks saying that hackers have breached the private information of up to 90,000 Canadian consumers. This is just months after the data breaches at Uber, Equifax, and Bell Canada, which affected tens of thousands of Canadians and their private information.The European Union took action and implemented new data protection last week. What did the Liberal government do? Absolutely nothing. In fact, this government has not even followed through on basic recommendations. When will the Liberals take action to protect Canadian consumers with a digital bill of rights and stop letting these companies off the hook?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the government that this week is Victims and Survivors of Crime Week. I know that the Liberals have made it clear that victims have not been a priority of theirs in the last two and a half years, and of course the latest example is Bill C-75, which would reduce the penalties for many serious crimes, including the abduction of a child under 14 years of age, forced marriage, participation in terrorist groups and criminal organizations, and many others.Is there any hope that the government can change its philosophy before the next election and start putting victims first? Can it do that?

Mr. Speaker, they are not buying assets. They are nationalizing a private pipeline. Yesterday, there were protesters willing to stop this project. Yesterday, the B.C. government was in court fighting against this pipeline. Yesterday, there were Liberal MPs from B.C. opposed to this project. Today, nothing has changed, except taxpayers are $4.5 billion poorer. Will nationalizing the pipeline actually get Liberal members of Parliament from B.C. to back it?

Mr. Speaker, turning back to today's question of privilege, I am rising because these online government publications presume the adoption of Bill C-71 by Parliament. There is no caveat given by the RCMP that the legislation is subject to parliamentary approval, and there is no acknowledgement of the parliamentary process at all, in fact. This, in my view, is nothing but a contempt of Parliament.Page 14 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, explains contempt as follows: As in the case of a Superior Court, when by some act or word a person disobeys or is openly disrespectful of the authority of the House of Commons or Senate or of their lawful commands, that person is subject to being held in contempt of the House of Commons or Senate as the case may be; therefore it will be seen that the Senate and House of Commons have the power or right to punish actions that, while not appearing to be breaches of any specific privilege, are offences against their authority or dignity. Page 81 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, adds: The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly. Let me read a sampling of the content found in “Special Business Bulletin No. 93”. To begin with, we see: Because not all CZ firearms will be impacted by changes in their classification, business will need to determine if their firearm( s) will be affected by these changes. Bill C-71 also lists a number of specific Swiss Arms (SA) firearm that will also become prohibited. If you own CZ/SA firearms, the steps below can help you identify whether your inventory of firearms is affected by Bill C-71. They explain the grandfathering requirements and how to avoid being in illegal possession of a firearm. That language is quite clear. It is “will be impacted”, “will...become prohibited”, and “is affected”, not “could be”, “may become”, or “might be affected”. Later in the bulletin, we read: Business owners will continue to be authorized to transfer any and all impacted CZ or SA firearms in their inventory to properly licenced individuals, until the relevant provisions of Bill C-71 come into force. For an individual owner to be eligible for grandfathering certain requirements must be met by June 30, 2018. Now, before one might think that the language about the bill's coming into force possibly concedes the need for parliamentary approval, let me continue reading: The proposed changes to classification status for CZ/SA firearms listed in Bill C-71 will come into force on a date to be determined by the Governor in Council. This date is yet to be determined. It is my respectful submission that any conditional language one might read or infer in that document is left, in the mind of the reader, to be, therefore, a matter of cabinet discretion, not Parliament's. Turning to a second document, entitled “How does Bill C- 71 affect individuals?”, we see additional presumptuous language. A lot of it mirrors what I quoted from “Special Business Bulletin No. 93”.Other passages, however, include: If your SA firearm was listed in Bill C-71, it will be classified as a prohibited firearm. It says, “was listed”, as if Bill C-71 was a document from the past, not a bill currently before a parliamentary committee.Later we read: To qualify for grandfathering of your currently non-restricted or restricted CZ/SA firearm, the following criteria must be met.... There follows a list of details for firearms owners to meet, which, just coincidentally, happens to be laid out in clause 3 of Bill C-71, yet there is no indication that these are proposals before Parliament, let alone in need of parliamentary sanction to be enforced. A leading ruling on the presumption of parliamentary decision-making concerning legislation is the ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser, on October 10, 1989, at page 4457 of the Debates, in respect of the implementation of the goods and services tax.The impugned advertisements in that case contained similarly unequivocal language, such as “Canada's Federal Sales Tax System will change. Please save this notice”, and, the GST “will replace the existing federal sales tax”. In this instance, Mr. Speaker Fraser did not find the prima facie case of contempt. However, he could not have been more clear when he stated, and I quote: I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous. This is a case which, in my opinion, should never recur. I expect the Department of Finance and other departments to study this ruling carefully and remind everyone within the Public Service that we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.... A vote on this issue might not support the very important message which your Speaker wishes to convey and which I hope will be well considered in the future by governments, departmental officials and advertisement agencies retained by them. This advertisement may not be a contempt of the House in the narrow confines of a procedural definition, but it is, in my opinion, ill-conceived and it does a great disservice to the great traditions of this place. If we do not preserve these great traditions, our freedoms are at peril and our conventions become a mockery. I insist, and I believe I am supported by the majority of moderate and responsible members on both sides of this House, that this ad is objectionable and should never be repeated. Subsequent rulings have distinguished other factual scenarios from the 1989 ruling, and, I submit, are distinguishable from the circumstances I am rising on today. On March 13, 1997, at page 8988 of the Debates, Speaker Parent held that a policy-promotion campaign concerning anti-tobacco legislation did not give rise to a prima facie contempt, but the Chair added the following advice, and I quote: ...where the government issues communications to the public containing allusions to measures before the House, it would be advisable to choose words and terms that leave no doubt as to the disposition of these measures. That advice was put into practice by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in its promotional materials respecting Bill C-50, leading to the 2008 ruling by Mr. Speaker Milliken, which I cited in my opening comments, that there was no prima facie contempt. More recently, your immediate predecessor ruled, on September 28, 2011, at page 1576 of the Debates, that a procurement solicitation for advisory services for the implications of certain scenarios for the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly was “part of a planning process that might be expected in contemplating the possibility of the repeal of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.” Last year, Mr. Speaker, you ruled on May 29, 2017, at page 11560 of the Debates, that advertisements to hire the leadership of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, then a matter before the House as part of a budget implementation bill, was not a contempt, because some, but not all, of the government's job postings conceded that parliamentary approval was required. In the ruling, the Chair said: I was looking for any suggestion that parliamentary approval was being publicized as either unnecessary or irrelevant, or in fact already obtained. Otherwise put, I was looking for any indication of an offence against or disrespect of the authority or dignity of the House and its members. As it turns out, I think the most relevant ruling in respect of the facts before us today is that of Mr. Speaker Stockwell, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, given on January 22, 1997, in respect of a government pamphlet explaining municipal reform legislation, not unlike the purpose of the RCMP' s internet guidance. In finding a prima facie contempt, Mr. Speaker Stockwell held: ...I am very concerned by the Ministry pamphlet, which is worded more definitively than the commercial and the press release. To name but a few examples, the brochure claims that “new city wards will be created”, that “work on building the new city will start in 1997”, and that “[t]he new City of Toronto will reduce the number of municipal politicians. How is one to interpret such unqualified claims? In my opinion, they convey the impression that the passage of the requisite legislation was not necessary or was a foregone conclusion, or that the assembly and the Legislature had no pro forma tangential, even inferior role in the legislative and lawmaking process, and in doing so, they appear to diminish the respect that is due to this House. I would not have come to this view had these claims or proposals—and that is all they are—been qualified by a statement that they would only become law if and when the Legislature gave its stamp of approval to them. In the RCMP documents, we are not talking about standing up a crown corporation, or hiring a government consultant, or even promoting an anti-smoking campaign, nor are we talking about new tax rules or changes to local government. We are talking about a publication that gives advice on how to avoid becoming a criminal. How much more serious can one get than that? This is not hyperbole.One of the passages I referred to earlier said, “They explain the grandfathering requirements and how to avoid being in illegal possession of a firearm.” Another was, “lf your SA firearm was listed in Bill C-71, it will be classified as a prohibited firearm.” The unlawful possession of a firearm can lead to a jail sentence of up to five years. That is pretty serious stuff. Conservatives have been clear and on the record about their concerns about the RCMP arbitrarily reclassifying firearms. That is why the previous government gave the Governor in Council an oversight role. Basically, what happens is that law-abiding owners who follow all the rules and regulations with respect to their firearms are suddenly, because of one meeting of some bureaucrats, declared criminals for possession of an illegal weapon, when they have owned and used that weapon for sport shooting or hunting for many years. Suddenly, with one blanket move, what dozens or hundreds of thousands of people already possess is somehow deemed illegal. We have seen this disrespect for law-abiding Canadians from the RCMP before. The RCMP has acted in contempt of Parliament several times before. There is an institutional history of it, as a matter of fact. On February 16, 1965, Mr. Speaker Macnaughton found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP's arrest of an opposition member of Parliament. On September 4, 1973, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP interrogation of an opposition member. On March 21, 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP's electronic surveillance—spying, in other words—of an opposition MP. On December 6, 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP misleading a former minister concerning the information he provided to opposition parliamentarians. On December 1, 2004, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP blocking MPs' access to Parliament Hill. On April 10, 2008, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege following the false and misleading evidence given to the public accounts committee by the RCMP's then deputy commissioner. On March 15, 2012, your immediate predecessor, Mr. Speaker, found a prima facie case of privilege when the RCMP denied MPs access to Centre Block. On September 25, 2014, another prima facie case of privilege was established related to the RCMP's denial of access to Parliament Hill. On May 12, 2015, two incidents of MPs being denied access to Centre Block by the RCMP led to yet another prima facie case of privilege. Mr. Speaker, you have also needed to deal with these issues. On April 6 and 11, 2017, you found prima facie cases of privilege flowing out of MPs' access being denied by the Parliamentary Protective Service, an organization that, of course, has a clear legal relationship with the RCMP. Even on the Senate side, the RCMP was found to have committed a prima facie case of contempt by Mr. Speaker Kinsella, on May 8, 2013, following its efforts to thwart parliamentary task force members from appearing as witnesses before a committee. It goes without saying that it comes as absolutely no surprise that our national police force would snub its nose at Parliament yet again. Even more distressing is that the minister responsible for the RCMP, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is one of the most experienced members of the House and a former House leader. The minister should be urging respect for Parliament by his officials. The RCMP is not above the law and not above the House of Commons.Mr. Speaker, if you agree there is a prima facie case of contempt here, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a real air passengers' bill of rights, a U.S. firm told us that Canadian travellers are being gouged to the tune of $65 million a year.We are familiar with the strategy. When the Minister of Transport cannot make a decision, he launches consultations.Why bother with a consultation when the European charter is leading the way and the minister has already taken a position by rejecting the amendments proposed in the House and in the Senate? Does the minister take travellers for fools?

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about one thing. This $4.5 billion handout of taxpayers' money will not build one inch of new pipeline. In fact, every penny will go into the pockets of a Texas oil company, which it will then take to build pipelines outside of Canada in competition with our industry. How did we go from that company wanting to invest $7 billion in Canada to sending $4 billion of taxpayers' money out of this country?

Mr. Speaker, we are working with the provinces and the United States to plan for potential fluctuations. The task force on irregular migration will hold its 10th meeting tomorrow. While the Conservatives keep fearmongering, we are taking concrete action to manage the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege about online publications of the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, respecting Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms. These documents, found on the RCMP website, were brought to my attention yesterday, which is why I am rising today, the earliest opportunity after I became aware of the documents.On another question of privilege concerning advertising, Speaker Milliken ruled, on May 29, 2008, at page 6276 of the Debates: In this case, as in others, it is not so much that the event or issue complained of took place at a given time, but rather that the members bringing the matter to the attention of the House did so as soon as practicable after they became aware of the situation. Turning back to today's question of privilege, I am rising because these online government publications—

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his question and for his work on this file.As he pointed out, even one tragedy is one too many. As soon as I heard about the incident, I immediately issued a proposal for consultation on restricting the amount of alcohol in single-serve, sugary, high-alcohol beverages. The consultation period just ended, and we are looking closely at the recommendations. I want to thank everyone who took part in the consultation as well as the Standing Committee on Health for its hard work on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, not that long ago, about two and a half years ago, this country had a government that was unable to get things done. We have shown with our government that when we find obstacles, when we find issues around provincial jurisdiction, the federal government is willing to step forward in the national interest to make things happen. We have decided that a $4.5-billion investment, a fair value for these assets, is the right approach for us to make sure this happens. We will work toward looking for a private sector solution as we de-risk the project.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General was clear: the implementation and management of the Phoenix pay system was an incomprehensible failure.Those responsible chose to operate within their budgets and deadlines instead of implementing a working system.The warnings were everywhere, but officials ignored them. What happened? Workers are still living with the consequences of this disaster.When will the government launch a public inquiry to get to the bottom of what really happened?

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada apparently just bought a pipeline from Kinder Morgan for $4.5 billion, which it bought for $550 million. There are 15 different court cases right now: indigenous rights cases, environmental group cases, and municipal cases. When the Federal Court of Appeal rules, if the court rules that the permits are invalid, what is the government's plan? Will it restart the environmental assessment process and restart consultations?

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the Prime Minister has tasked me and our government to ensure that we defend Canada's next federal election against cyber-threats. It is also important that we ensure we look for new ways to deal with data and digital breaches. That is why in Bill C-76 we have a provision against the malicious use of computers. I look forward to working with colleagues in the House to do what is necessary, as these new technologies evolve, to ensure the integrity of our elections.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, our government is committed to ensuring that the criminal justice system provides for safe communities, ensures and respects victims of crime, and holds offenders to account. Our government is committed to a renewed approach, as we have said, in terms of the appointments process, based on openness, transparency, and merit. The process for the appointment of the new federal ombudsman for victims of crime is presently ongoing and remains a high priority for me. The position will be filled as soon as possible at the conclusion of this process.

Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that we brought changes to the regulations to update PIPEDA, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. These regulatory changes are very important, because if any private entity, a bank or otherwise, suffers lost or stolen data, they must report it immediately to the individual and to the Privacy Commissioner. Failure to do so will lead to an infraction and a fine of $100,000 per data breach. That is a significant cost per data breach. It is an important signal that we are sending to protect the privacy of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that more than $100 billion in energy investment has left and hundreds of thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs under the Liberals. Meanwhile, oil and gas are thriving around the world, especially in the U.S., Canada's biggest competitor. The Prime Minister is destroying future private sector energy opportunities, driving investment out of Canada into other countries, and sacrificing Canada's best interests. Now that the Liberals have chased away yet another private sector energy investor, how can Canadians possibly trust them to rebuild confidence in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, as you may have heard, the government announced today that it would buy the Trans Mountain pipeline. Far be it from the CCF to question nationalization. Could the minister confirm that the new federal crown corporation will honour the existing contract to buy 75% of the project's steel from Regina and make every effort to procure the remaining 25% from Canadian mills?

We know that the investment in the Trans Mountain expansion is very important to the national interest and to the future of our economy. It will help our economy by fostering economic growth. At the same time, we can also create jobs across the country, in British Columbia, Alberta, and in the other provinces. It truly is in the national interest. That is why we are clearly stating that this project is important for our future.

Mr. Speaker, our position on supply management has been and remains clear. We have always defended supply management, and that includes during NAFTA talks. The system works extremely well for Canadians. Protecting supply management is important for Canadian consumers, our industries, and all of us. We will always defend it.

Mr. Speaker, our position on this issue is very clear: we have always defended this system and we do so at every opportunity, including during the NAFTA negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak about Bill C-75, which will address delays and efficiencies in the criminal justice system. The member opposite spoke about the reclassification provisions in terms of the reforms that were proposed. It is simply untrue that we are changing the sentencing regime. We are hybridizing offences, but providing prosecutors with additional tools. I would like to ask my friend across the way what he feels about the provisions in terms of intimate partner violence, where we are supporting those victims of sexual assault and domestic violence in this bill. Does he not support that?

Mr. Speaker, certainly we are taking a broad approach to a review of the criminal justice system, a balanced approach that supports victims of crime, that ensures the offenders are held to account, and that promotes public safety. We are committed to appointing a new federal ombudsperson for victims of crime. We are presently undertaking a review and identifying a potential candidate. This is a priority for our government. We will move forward at the nearest and closest time with the most appropriate and skilled individual.

Mr. Speaker, with no business experience, I understand the member opposite might not understand what we are talking about. We are talking about a $4.5-billion investment in the assets of Kinder Morgan, creating long-term value for our country. We know that is the right thing to do for our country.

Mr. Speaker, what is clear in the minister's response is that we are the ones talking about energy and the environment and they are the ones abandoning the environment for the economy.The government is going to invest $4.5 billion in a pipeline. In comparison, in 2016, only $3 billion of public and private money was invested in clean energy. Countries that take the impact of climate change seriously do not build themselves pipelines. Reconciling the environment and energy means investing in clean energy.Why are the Liberals bent on investing in fossil fuels?

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that we think it is critically important that we ensure that a project that has been federally and provincially approved can move forward. We have decided to purchase these assets because we know this is the way to ensure that this project actually happens and that we deal with the squabbles between provinces. We will move forward, reducing the risk of this project so we can ensure that the economic advantages we are seeking are achieved for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about a fictional story from the opposite side of the House. The Conservatives' fictional story is that they got pipelines done. The reality is that there was not one pipeline to international markets. We know this to be true. The reason for the discount on Canadian resources is lack of access to international markets. That is why the Trans Mountain expansion is so important. It is why we are moving forward to invest in those assets. It is why we are de-risking the project, to make sure it gets done for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, we will always defend supply management. In fact, with the exception of certain members of the official opposition, including the member for Beauce, everyone in the House believes—

Mr. Speaker, does anyone want to buy a 65-year-old leaky pipeline? No? Wait, it is located next to schools and parks, and literally crosses hundreds of rivers.The Liberals do, and they somehow decided that paying $4.5 billion to buy an old pipeline, and not telling us how much it is going to cost to build some illusory new pipeline, is somehow a good “investment”.When did the Liberals decide that trampling over the rights of indigenous peoples and putting our coasts further at risk was somehow in the public interest?

Mr. Speaker, we are staying the course and investing in our future. We know that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. It is very important. We have invested in clean energy, but in the meantime we know that it is necessary to invest in this project to protect the benefits that it offers our economy in the future.

Mr. Speaker, our government supports and is committed to maintaining supply management. This has been a clear position throughout the NAFTA negotiations. Every member of our government fully supports the Prime Minister and this government's policies.This position is the opposite of the Conservative Party's, whose innovation critic, appointed by the Leader of the Opposition, is opposed to supply management. He even detailed the reasons why in a book that the Leader of the Opposition would not allow in public.On this side of the House, we all support supply management.

Mr. Speaker, considering how the government and the Minister of Finance are managing public finances, we have good reason to be worried about mounting deficits year after year.Now the Liberals have decided to pretend that they know how to build a pipeline using taxpayers' money. It is completely unacceptable. This is just one more failure on the part of this government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance, now that he is in on it.My question, then, is simple. How much is this spending spree going to cost Canadian taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to take any lessons from the former Harper government on labour relations. Let me just remind the member opposite what experts had to say about how the previous government handled labour disputes: “highly unusual”, “a double-edged sword for employers”, “wholesale departure from the roles of collective bargaining”, “destabilizing”, “abuse of the provisions in the Canada Labour Code”, and “they did not understand how the system works.”We support a fair and balanced process. This is what is right for the Canadian economy, for workers, and for employers.

Mr. Speaker, we are buying assets, assets that have value. These assets, of course, will enable us to ensure that we get this pipeline expansion built. We know this is important for Canadians. We know it is important for Canadians from the member's part of the country, because we are going to create jobs. We are also going to create economic wealth for our entire country.When we are working in the national interest, we are going to move forward with an approach that absolutely deals with uncertainties so we can get this back into the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, CP Rail workers can go on strike legally as soon as tonight, and those workers, like all Canadian workers, have the right to free and fair collective bargaining. The minister has addressed this issue before in the House, but she has not clearly stated that her government will not use back-to-work legislation to unilaterally end the strike, so I am giving her that opportunity now.Will the minister commit to those workers today, on the record, that she will not use back-to-work legislation to end the strike?

Mr. Speaker, it is great that we have at least one Alberta member of Parliament who is supporting Albertans.What I know is that the member for Edmonton Centre and the other members of the Liberal Party support this project, because we recognize that what we are bringing to Albertans are huge advantages, advantages in terms of their economy—

Mr. Speaker, we are making an investment in Canada's future. We know that investing a fair amount of money into the assets of the Trans Mountain pipeline and the expansion will create economic advantage for our country. We are creating 9,000 jobs in British Columbia and jobs across the country that are going to make a real difference for Canadian families. At the same time, we are adding up to $15 billion to our economy annually. We know this is important for our country.

Mr. Speaker, this is national Victims and Survivors of Crime Week. This year's theme is “Transforming the Culture Together”.Let me point out that the ombudsperson for victims of crime position has been vacant for over seven months. The government did, however, fill the correctional investigator position on January 2, so maybe it does not think victims need the help.Why are the Liberals not giving victims of crime a strong voice by appointing an independent ombudsperson to protect them, as I proposed in my bill?

Mr. Speaker, we are buying the assets of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline that are currently there, and the opportunity to expand that pipeline. These assets create value. We are buying assets that create value. What we are going to do is to create more value by ensuring that the project gets done. These advantages are going to help our natural resources sector. They are also going to help our broader economy and create jobs across the country.We know it is the right thing to do. We will get this project done.

Mr. Speaker, fundamental to what we are doing is actually buying assets that were owned by someone else, so that we can actually make sure this project happens.Of course, we want to make sure that we get the appropriate value for Canadians, and so there is commercially sensitive information. As we look towards how we might move this project into the private sector, we need to recognize that it is commercially sensitive. Canadians will have a full understanding and transparency with regard to this project, and what it will do is create advantages for our economy and for jobs across the country.

Mr. Speaker, experience is always an advantage. What we can say is that it is very important to consider our experience under the Harper government. The Conservatives did nothing. That is what we know from experience. At this time, we have decided that it is very important to have the courage to invest in a project that is in the national interest. It is clear that we need to invest now so that, in the future, the private sector can participate in a project that will benefit Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, it would be $3.2 billion to provide safe drinking water for every kid living on reserve in this country; it is $4.5 billion to buy a 65-year-old pipeline. We have to ask ourselves what kind of priorities the Liberals actually have. When a Texas oil company shows up and needs a bailout, the Liberals cannot find a shovel big enough to pitch in. It will not stop first nations in court and it will not stop people in the street. When exactly did the Liberals decide to trump first nations' rights and title, and protecting our coast, all in favour of some Texas oil company they want to help out?

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. In 2017, investments in Canada grew by 8%. That is a fact. However, we know that it is very important to have a strong resource sector for the future. That is why we decided to invest in the Trans Mountain project. It is very important for our future and for growing our economy. We are talking about $15 billion every year. That is what Canadians living in British Columbia, Alberta, and across the country stand to gain.

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we have purchased the assets, and it is our intent that this project move forward in a commercial fashion. We will be seeking the approach that makes the most sense, which will include honouring contracts that have already been moved forward. What we will seek to do is then move toward consideration of a private sector solution at the appropriate time, creating the value that we want to create for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is entitled to her opinions, but not to her own facts. The facts are that we have created 600,000 jobs in the last couple of years in this country. Canadians are doing significantly better because of the policies of this government. We know that we now need to move forward on a project that is advantageous for the country, but also for Alberta and British Columbia. In standing up for this project, we are ensuring that we will get a fair price for our resources, and we are doing it in a way that is respecting our approach to ensuring the environment is protected while we get proper prices for our resources.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Trans Mountain project is very important to the Canadian economy. It is in the national interest. That is why we invested in the project, which will create 15,000 jobs in Alberta and British Columbia. It will also improve our national economy.

Mr. Speaker, we want to be very clear. We found a fair price for the assets of Trans Mountain. At the same time, we have ensured that there is no subsidy in this deal.We are trying to ensure that we can move forward in an economically prudent way to protect jobs and create economic advantages for our country. We know this is in our best interest. We are going to continue to work to ensure that our natural resources can be brought to international markets.

Mr. Speaker, last year we launched Canada's new tourism vision. Budget 2017 stabilized Destination Canada's budget at $95.5 million per year. We announced $8.6 million to grow Canada's indigenous tourism industry. We are enhancing tourism data collection by providing Statistics Canada $13.5 million over five years. The year 2017 was the best ever for the tourism industry, with over 20 million international visitors spending $21 billion across our great country. Together with the member for Long Range Mountains, and I hope all members and all Canadians, we will build on this success, because our investments are working.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals give us a lot of rhetoric, but the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food refuses to promise that there will not be any new concessions on supply management as part of the NAFTA renegotiations with the Americans. I asked this question a number of times in committee yesterday, and every time he abdicated his position and his role as an advocate for milk, egg, and poultry producers.I am giving him one more chance to be honest with producers and to be transparent. What part of the market under supply management do the Liberals plan on handing over to the Americans as part of the NAFTA negotiations?

Mr. Speaker, let us evaluate where we are today. For months, the members opposite were complaining that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion was not happening. Today, we announced we are moving forward to ensure the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. What do we have? Are they upset that we are going to be able to get our resources to international markets and create value for Canadians, or are they upset about the fact that we are going to be able to create more jobs for Canadians? It is one of the two, or perhaps both, but it does not matter because our resolve is to get this project done, because it is in Canada's best interest.

Mr. Speaker, this week is Tourism Week in Canada. It is a chance to highlight the incredible work and phenomenal success of our tourism industry. From coast to coast to coast, our industry is world class. It has created over 26,000 jobs just since 2015. Culinary tourism in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador is some of the best in the country, as we have seen from chef Ross Larkin's recent win on Top Chef Canada.Could the Minister of Small Business and Tourism please tell the House what our government is doing to make 2018 the best year for Canadian tourism?

Mr. Speaker, we are extremely proud of Bill C-64, which addresses a long-standing issue that has not been taken care of by previous governments; that is the question of abandoned and derelict vessels. We have come up with an excellent bill. In fact, it has been through the committee in which my colleague had the chance to participate. We are very proud of this bill and we hope the NDP and the Harper Conservatives will support the bill as we move it through report stage, third reading, and then quickly on to the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, every Canadian knows that buying an airline ticket entitles the purchaser to a certain level of treatment. That is why we are very proud of bringing in air passenger rights.They were announced in Bill C-49 and we also announced that we were going to consult Canadians. Some 13 million Canadians travel by plane. It is the right thing to do and the Canadian Transportation Agency initiated the process yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, we decided it was very important to invest in the Trans Mountain project. We know that with a $4.5-billion investment, we can protect its value and add value for Canadians. This project is in the national interest, and there is no doubt that our investment will help grow the Canadian economy.

Mr. Speaker, we decided it was very important to invest in the Trans Mountain project. We know that with a $4.5-billion investment, we can protect its value and add value for Canadians. This project is in the national interest, and there is no doubt that our investment will help grow the Canadian economy.

Mr. Speaker, every Canadian knows that buying an airline ticket entitles the purchaser to a certain level of treatment. That is why we are very proud of bringing in air passenger rights.They were announced in Bill C-49 and we also announced that we were going to consult Canadians. Some 13 million Canadians travel by plane. It is the right thing to do and the Canadian Transportation Agency initiated the process yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, we are extremely proud of Bill C-64, which addresses a long-standing issue that has not been taken care of by previous governments; that is the question of abandoned and derelict vessels. We have come up with an excellent bill. In fact, it has been through the committee in which my colleague had the chance to participate. We are very proud of this bill and we hope the NDP and the Harper Conservatives will support the bill as we move it through report stage, third reading, and then quickly on to the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, this week is Tourism Week in Canada. It is a chance to highlight the incredible work and phenomenal success of our tourism industry. From coast to coast to coast, our industry is world class. It has created over 26,000 jobs just since 2015. Culinary tourism in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador is some of the best in the country, as we have seen from chef Ross Larkin's recent win on Top Chef Canada.Could the Minister of Small Business and Tourism please tell the House what our government is doing to make 2018 the best year for Canadian tourism?

Mr. Speaker, let us evaluate where we are today. For months, the members opposite were complaining that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion was not happening. Today, we announced we are moving forward to ensure the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. What do we have? Are they upset that we are going to be able to get our resources to international markets and create value for Canadians, or are they upset about the fact that we are going to be able to create more jobs for Canadians? It is one of the two, or perhaps both, but it does not matter because our resolve is to get this project done, because it is in Canada's best interest.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals give us a lot of rhetoric, but the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food refuses to promise that there will not be any new concessions on supply management as part of the NAFTA renegotiations with the Americans. I asked this question a number of times in committee yesterday, and every time he abdicated his position and his role as an advocate for milk, egg, and poultry producers.I am giving him one more chance to be honest with producers and to be transparent. What part of the market under supply management do the Liberals plan on handing over to the Americans as part of the NAFTA negotiations?

Mr. Speaker, last year we launched Canada's new tourism vision. Budget 2017 stabilized Destination Canada's budget at $95.5 million per year. We announced $8.6 million to grow Canada's indigenous tourism industry. We are enhancing tourism data collection by providing Statistics Canada $13.5 million over five years. The year 2017 was the best ever for the tourism industry, with over 20 million international visitors spending $21 billion across our great country. Together with the member for Long Range Mountains, and I hope all members and all Canadians, we will build on this success, because our investments are working.

Mr. Speaker, we want to be very clear. We found a fair price for the assets of Trans Mountain. At the same time, we have ensured that there is no subsidy in this deal.We are trying to ensure that we can move forward in an economically prudent way to protect jobs and create economic advantages for our country. We know this is in our best interest. We are going to continue to work to ensure that our natural resources can be brought to international markets.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Trans Mountain project is very important to the Canadian economy. It is in the national interest. That is why we invested in the project, which will create 15,000 jobs in Alberta and British Columbia. It will also improve our national economy.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is entitled to her opinions, but not to her own facts. The facts are that we have created 600,000 jobs in the last couple of years in this country. Canadians are doing significantly better because of the policies of this government. We know that we now need to move forward on a project that is advantageous for the country, but also for Alberta and British Columbia. In standing up for this project, we are ensuring that we will get a fair price for our resources, and we are doing it in a way that is respecting our approach to ensuring the environment is protected while we get proper prices for our resources.

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we have purchased the assets, and it is our intent that this project move forward in a commercial fashion. We will be seeking the approach that makes the most sense, which will include honouring contracts that have already been moved forward. What we will seek to do is then move toward consideration of a private sector solution at the appropriate time, creating the value that we want to create for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. In 2017, investments in Canada grew by 8%. That is a fact. However, we know that it is very important to have a strong resource sector for the future. That is why we decided to invest in the Trans Mountain project. It is very important for our future and for growing our economy. We are talking about $15 billion every year. That is what Canadians living in British Columbia, Alberta, and across the country stand to gain.

Mr. Speaker, it would be $3.2 billion to provide safe drinking water for every kid living on reserve in this country; it is $4.5 billion to buy a 65-year-old pipeline. We have to ask ourselves what kind of priorities the Liberals actually have. When a Texas oil company shows up and needs a bailout, the Liberals cannot find a shovel big enough to pitch in. It will not stop first nations in court and it will not stop people in the street. When exactly did the Liberals decide to trump first nations' rights and title, and protecting our coast, all in favour of some Texas oil company they want to help out?

Mr. Speaker, experience is always an advantage. What we can say is that it is very important to consider our experience under the Harper government. The Conservatives did nothing. That is what we know from experience. At this time, we have decided that it is very important to have the courage to invest in a project that is in the national interest. It is clear that we need to invest now so that, in the future, the private sector can participate in a project that will benefit Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, fundamental to what we are doing is actually buying assets that were owned by someone else, so that we can actually make sure this project happens.Of course, we want to make sure that we get the appropriate value for Canadians, and so there is commercially sensitive information. As we look towards how we might move this project into the private sector, we need to recognize that it is commercially sensitive. Canadians will have a full understanding and transparency with regard to this project, and what it will do is create advantages for our economy and for jobs across the country.

Mr. Speaker, we are buying the assets of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline that are currently there, and the opportunity to expand that pipeline. These assets create value. We are buying assets that create value. What we are going to do is to create more value by ensuring that the project gets done. These advantages are going to help our natural resources sector. They are also going to help our broader economy and create jobs across the country.We know it is the right thing to do. We will get this project done.

Mr. Speaker, this is national Victims and Survivors of Crime Week. This year's theme is “Transforming the Culture Together”.Let me point out that the ombudsperson for victims of crime position has been vacant for over seven months. The government did, however, fill the correctional investigator position on January 2, so maybe it does not think victims need the help.Why are the Liberals not giving victims of crime a strong voice by appointing an independent ombudsperson to protect them, as I proposed in my bill?

Mr. Speaker, we are making an investment in Canada's future. We know that investing a fair amount of money into the assets of the Trans Mountain pipeline and the expansion will create economic advantage for our country. We are creating 9,000 jobs in British Columbia and jobs across the country that are going to make a real difference for Canadian families. At the same time, we are adding up to $15 billion to our economy annually. We know this is important for our country.

Mr. Speaker, it is great that we have at least one Alberta member of Parliament who is supporting Albertans.What I know is that the member for Edmonton Centre and the other members of the Liberal Party support this project, because we recognize that what we are bringing to Albertans are huge advantages, advantages in terms of their economy—

Mr. Speaker, CP Rail workers can go on strike legally as soon as tonight, and those workers, like all Canadian workers, have the right to free and fair collective bargaining. The minister has addressed this issue before in the House, but she has not clearly stated that her government will not use back-to-work legislation to unilaterally end the strike, so I am giving her that opportunity now.Will the minister commit to those workers today, on the record, that she will not use back-to-work legislation to end the strike?

Mr. Speaker, we are buying assets, assets that have value. These assets, of course, will enable us to ensure that we get this pipeline expansion built. We know this is important for Canadians. We know it is important for Canadians from the member's part of the country, because we are going to create jobs. We are also going to create economic wealth for our entire country.When we are working in the national interest, we are going to move forward with an approach that absolutely deals with uncertainties so we can get this back into the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to take any lessons from the former Harper government on labour relations. Let me just remind the member opposite what experts had to say about how the previous government handled labour disputes: “highly unusual”, “a double-edged sword for employers”, “wholesale departure from the roles of collective bargaining”, “destabilizing”, “abuse of the provisions in the Canada Labour Code”, and “they did not understand how the system works.”We support a fair and balanced process. This is what is right for the Canadian economy, for workers, and for employers.

Mr. Speaker, considering how the government and the Minister of Finance are managing public finances, we have good reason to be worried about mounting deficits year after year.Now the Liberals have decided to pretend that they know how to build a pipeline using taxpayers' money. It is completely unacceptable. This is just one more failure on the part of this government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance, now that he is in on it.My question, then, is simple. How much is this spending spree going to cost Canadian taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker, our government supports and is committed to maintaining supply management. This has been a clear position throughout the NAFTA negotiations. Every member of our government fully supports the Prime Minister and this government's policies.This position is the opposite of the Conservative Party's, whose innovation critic, appointed by the Leader of the Opposition, is opposed to supply management. He even detailed the reasons why in a book that the Leader of the Opposition would not allow in public.On this side of the House, we all support supply management.

Mr. Speaker, we are staying the course and investing in our future. We know that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. It is very important. We have invested in clean energy, but in the meantime we know that it is necessary to invest in this project to protect the benefits that it offers our economy in the future.

Mr. Speaker, does anyone want to buy a 65-year-old leaky pipeline? No? Wait, it is located next to schools and parks, and literally crosses hundreds of rivers.The Liberals do, and they somehow decided that paying $4.5 billion to buy an old pipeline, and not telling us how much it is going to cost to build some illusory new pipeline, is somehow a good “investment”.When did the Liberals decide that trampling over the rights of indigenous peoples and putting our coasts further at risk was somehow in the public interest?

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, we will always defend supply management. In fact, with the exception of certain members of the official opposition, including the member for Beauce, everyone in the House believes—

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about a fictional story from the opposite side of the House. The Conservatives' fictional story is that they got pipelines done. The reality is that there was not one pipeline to international markets. We know this to be true. The reason for the discount on Canadian resources is lack of access to international markets. That is why the Trans Mountain expansion is so important. It is why we are moving forward to invest in those assets. It is why we are de-risking the project, to make sure it gets done for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that we think it is critically important that we ensure that a project that has been federally and provincially approved can move forward. We have decided to purchase these assets because we know this is the way to ensure that this project actually happens and that we deal with the squabbles between provinces. We will move forward, reducing the risk of this project so we can ensure that the economic advantages we are seeking are achieved for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, with no business experience, I understand the member opposite might not understand what we are talking about. We are talking about a $4.5-billion investment in the assets of Kinder Morgan, creating long-term value for our country. We know that is the right thing to do for our country.

Mr. Speaker, what is clear in the minister's response is that we are the ones talking about energy and the environment and they are the ones abandoning the environment for the economy.The government is going to invest $4.5 billion in a pipeline. In comparison, in 2016, only $3 billion of public and private money was invested in clean energy. Countries that take the impact of climate change seriously do not build themselves pipelines. Reconciling the environment and energy means investing in clean energy.Why are the Liberals bent on investing in fossil fuels?

Mr. Speaker, certainly we are taking a broad approach to a review of the criminal justice system, a balanced approach that supports victims of crime, that ensures the offenders are held to account, and that promotes public safety. We are committed to appointing a new federal ombudsperson for victims of crime. We are presently undertaking a review and identifying a potential candidate. This is a priority for our government. We will move forward at the nearest and closest time with the most appropriate and skilled individual.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak about Bill C-75, which will address delays and efficiencies in the criminal justice system. The member opposite spoke about the reclassification provisions in terms of the reforms that were proposed. It is simply untrue that we are changing the sentencing regime. We are hybridizing offences, but providing prosecutors with additional tools. I would like to ask my friend across the way what he feels about the provisions in terms of intimate partner violence, where we are supporting those victims of sexual assault and domestic violence in this bill. Does he not support that?

Mr. Speaker, our position on this issue is very clear: we have always defended this system and we do so at every opportunity, including during the NAFTA negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, our position on supply management has been and remains clear. We have always defended supply management, and that includes during NAFTA talks. The system works extremely well for Canadians. Protecting supply management is important for Canadian consumers, our industries, and all of us. We will always defend it.

We know that the investment in the Trans Mountain expansion is very important to the national interest and to the future of our economy. It will help our economy by fostering economic growth. At the same time, we can also create jobs across the country, in British Columbia, Alberta, and in the other provinces. It truly is in the national interest. That is why we are clearly stating that this project is important for our future.

Mr. Speaker, as you may have heard, the government announced today that it would buy the Trans Mountain pipeline. Far be it from the CCF to question nationalization. Could the minister confirm that the new federal crown corporation will honour the existing contract to buy 75% of the project's steel from Regina and make every effort to procure the remaining 25% from Canadian mills?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that more than $100 billion in energy investment has left and hundreds of thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs under the Liberals. Meanwhile, oil and gas are thriving around the world, especially in the U.S., Canada's biggest competitor. The Prime Minister is destroying future private sector energy opportunities, driving investment out of Canada into other countries, and sacrificing Canada's best interests. Now that the Liberals have chased away yet another private sector energy investor, how can Canadians possibly trust them to rebuild confidence in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that we brought changes to the regulations to update PIPEDA, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. These regulatory changes are very important, because if any private entity, a bank or otherwise, suffers lost or stolen data, they must report it immediately to the individual and to the Privacy Commissioner. Failure to do so will lead to an infraction and a fine of $100,000 per data breach. That is a significant cost per data breach. It is an important signal that we are sending to protect the privacy of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, our government is committed to ensuring that the criminal justice system provides for safe communities, ensures and respects victims of crime, and holds offenders to account. Our government is committed to a renewed approach, as we have said, in terms of the appointments process, based on openness, transparency, and merit. The process for the appointment of the new federal ombudsman for victims of crime is presently ongoing and remains a high priority for me. The position will be filled as soon as possible at the conclusion of this process.

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the Prime Minister has tasked me and our government to ensure that we defend Canada's next federal election against cyber-threats. It is also important that we ensure we look for new ways to deal with data and digital breaches. That is why in Bill C-76 we have a provision against the malicious use of computers. I look forward to working with colleagues in the House to do what is necessary, as these new technologies evolve, to ensure the integrity of our elections.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada apparently just bought a pipeline from Kinder Morgan for $4.5 billion, which it bought for $550 million. There are 15 different court cases right now: indigenous rights cases, environmental group cases, and municipal cases. When the Federal Court of Appeal rules, if the court rules that the permits are invalid, what is the government's plan? Will it restart the environmental assessment process and restart consultations?

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General was clear: the implementation and management of the Phoenix pay system was an incomprehensible failure.Those responsible chose to operate within their budgets and deadlines instead of implementing a working system.The warnings were everywhere, but officials ignored them. What happened? Workers are still living with the consequences of this disaster.When will the government launch a public inquiry to get to the bottom of what really happened?

Mr. Speaker, not that long ago, about two and a half years ago, this country had a government that was unable to get things done. We have shown with our government that when we find obstacles, when we find issues around provincial jurisdiction, the federal government is willing to step forward in the national interest to make things happen. We have decided that a $4.5-billion investment, a fair value for these assets, is the right approach for us to make sure this happens. We will work toward looking for a private sector solution as we de-risk the project.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his question and for his work on this file.As he pointed out, even one tragedy is one too many. As soon as I heard about the incident, I immediately issued a proposal for consultation on restricting the amount of alcohol in single-serve, sugary, high-alcohol beverages. The consultation period just ended, and we are looking closely at the recommendations. I want to thank everyone who took part in the consultation as well as the Standing Committee on Health for its hard work on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege about online publications of the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, respecting Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms. These documents, found on the RCMP website, were brought to my attention yesterday, which is why I am rising today, the earliest opportunity after I became aware of the documents.On another question of privilege concerning advertising, Speaker Milliken ruled, on May 29, 2008, at page 6276 of the Debates: In this case, as in others, it is not so much that the event or issue complained of took place at a given time, but rather that the members bringing the matter to the attention of the House did so as soon as practicable after they became aware of the situation. Turning back to today's question of privilege, I am rising because these online government publications—

Mr. Speaker, we are working with the provinces and the United States to plan for potential fluctuations. The task force on irregular migration will hold its 10th meeting tomorrow. While the Conservatives keep fearmongering, we are taking concrete action to manage the situation.

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about one thing. This $4.5 billion handout of taxpayers' money will not build one inch of new pipeline. In fact, every penny will go into the pockets of a Texas oil company, which it will then take to build pipelines outside of Canada in competition with our industry. How did we go from that company wanting to invest $7 billion in Canada to sending $4 billion of taxpayers' money out of this country?

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a real air passengers' bill of rights, a U.S. firm told us that Canadian travellers are being gouged to the tune of $65 million a year.We are familiar with the strategy. When the Minister of Transport cannot make a decision, he launches consultations.Why bother with a consultation when the European charter is leading the way and the minister has already taken a position by rejecting the amendments proposed in the House and in the Senate? Does the minister take travellers for fools?

Mr. Speaker, turning back to today's question of privilege, I am rising because these online government publications presume the adoption of Bill C-71 by Parliament. There is no caveat given by the RCMP that the legislation is subject to parliamentary approval, and there is no acknowledgement of the parliamentary process at all, in fact. This, in my view, is nothing but a contempt of Parliament.Page 14 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, explains contempt as follows: As in the case of a Superior Court, when by some act or word a person disobeys or is openly disrespectful of the authority of the House of Commons or Senate or of their lawful commands, that person is subject to being held in contempt of the House of Commons or Senate as the case may be; therefore it will be seen that the Senate and House of Commons have the power or right to punish actions that, while not appearing to be breaches of any specific privilege, are offences against their authority or dignity. Page 81 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, adds: The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly. Let me read a sampling of the content found in “Special Business Bulletin No. 93”. To begin with, we see: Because not all CZ firearms will be impacted by changes in their classification, business will need to determine if their firearm( s) will be affected by these changes. Bill C-71 also lists a number of specific Swiss Arms (SA) firearm that will also become prohibited. If you own CZ/SA firearms, the steps below can help you identify whether your inventory of firearms is affected by Bill C-71. They explain the grandfathering requirements and how to avoid being in illegal possession of a firearm. That language is quite clear. It is “will be impacted”, “will...become prohibited”, and “is affected”, not “could be”, “may become”, or “might be affected”. Later in the bulletin, we read: Business owners will continue to be authorized to transfer any and all impacted CZ or SA firearms in their inventory to properly licenced individuals, until the relevant provisions of Bill C-71 come into force. For an individual owner to be eligible for grandfathering certain requirements must be met by June 30, 2018. Now, before one might think that the language about the bill's coming into force possibly concedes the need for parliamentary approval, let me continue reading: The proposed changes to classification status for CZ/SA firearms listed in Bill C-71 will come into force on a date to be determined by the Governor in Council. This date is yet to be determined. It is my respectful submission that any conditional language one might read or infer in that document is left, in the mind of the reader, to be, therefore, a matter of cabinet discretion, not Parliament's. Turning to a second document, entitled “How does Bill C- 71 affect individuals?”, we see additional presumptuous language. A lot of it mirrors what I quoted from “Special Business Bulletin No. 93”.Other passages, however, include: If your SA firearm was listed in Bill C-71, it will be classified as a prohibited firearm. It says, “was listed”, as if Bill C-71 was a document from the past, not a bill currently before a parliamentary committee.Later we read: To qualify for grandfathering of your currently non-restricted or restricted CZ/SA firearm, the following criteria must be met.... There follows a list of details for firearms owners to meet, which, just coincidentally, happens to be laid out in clause 3 of Bill C-71, yet there is no indication that these are proposals before Parliament, let alone in need of parliamentary sanction to be enforced. A leading ruling on the presumption of parliamentary decision-making concerning legislation is the ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser, on October 10, 1989, at page 4457 of the Debates, in respect of the implementation of the goods and services tax.The impugned advertisements in that case contained similarly unequivocal language, such as “Canada's Federal Sales Tax System will change. Please save this notice”, and, the GST “will replace the existing federal sales tax”. In this instance, Mr. Speaker Fraser did not find the prima facie case of contempt. However, he could not have been more clear when he stated, and I quote: I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous. This is a case which, in my opinion, should never recur. I expect the Department of Finance and other departments to study this ruling carefully and remind everyone within the Public Service that we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.... A vote on this issue might not support the very important message which your Speaker wishes to convey and which I hope will be well considered in the future by governments, departmental officials and advertisement agencies retained by them. This advertisement may not be a contempt of the House in the narrow confines of a procedural definition, but it is, in my opinion, ill-conceived and it does a great disservice to the great traditions of this place. If we do not preserve these great traditions, our freedoms are at peril and our conventions become a mockery. I insist, and I believe I am supported by the majority of moderate and responsible members on both sides of this House, that this ad is objectionable and should never be repeated. Subsequent rulings have distinguished other factual scenarios from the 1989 ruling, and, I submit, are distinguishable from the circumstances I am rising on today. On March 13, 1997, at page 8988 of the Debates, Speaker Parent held that a policy-promotion campaign concerning anti-tobacco legislation did not give rise to a prima facie contempt, but the Chair added the following advice, and I quote: ...where the government issues communications to the public containing allusions to measures before the House, it would be advisable to choose words and terms that leave no doubt as to the disposition of these measures. That advice was put into practice by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in its promotional materials respecting Bill C-50, leading to the 2008 ruling by Mr. Speaker Milliken, which I cited in my opening comments, that there was no prima facie contempt. More recently, your immediate predecessor ruled, on September 28, 2011, at page 1576 of the Debates, that a procurement solicitation for advisory services for the implications of certain scenarios for the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly was “part of a planning process that might be expected in contemplating the possibility of the repeal of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.” Last year, Mr. Speaker, you ruled on May 29, 2017, at page 11560 of the Debates, that advertisements to hire the leadership of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, then a matter before the House as part of a budget implementation bill, was not a contempt, because some, but not all, of the government's job postings conceded that parliamentary approval was required. In the ruling, the Chair said: I was looking for any suggestion that parliamentary approval was being publicized as either unnecessary or irrelevant, or in fact already obtained. Otherwise put, I was looking for any indication of an offence against or disrespect of the authority or dignity of the House and its members. As it turns out, I think the most relevant ruling in respect of the facts before us today is that of Mr. Speaker Stockwell, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, given on January 22, 1997, in respect of a government pamphlet explaining municipal reform legislation, not unlike the purpose of the RCMP' s internet guidance. In finding a prima facie contempt, Mr. Speaker Stockwell held: ...I am very concerned by the Ministry pamphlet, which is worded more definitively than the commercial and the press release. To name but a few examples, the brochure claims that “new city wards will be created”, that “work on building the new city will start in 1997”, and that “[t]he new City of Toronto will reduce the number of municipal politicians. How is one to interpret such unqualified claims? In my opinion, they convey the impression that the passage of the requisite legislation was not necessary or was a foregone conclusion, or that the assembly and the Legislature had no pro forma tangential, even inferior role in the legislative and lawmaking process, and in doing so, they appear to diminish the respect that is due to this House. I would not have come to this view had these claims or proposals—and that is all they are—been qualified by a statement that they would only become law if and when the Legislature gave its stamp of approval to them. In the RCMP documents, we are not talking about standing up a crown corporation, or hiring a government consultant, or even promoting an anti-smoking campaign, nor are we talking about new tax rules or changes to local government. We are talking about a publication that gives advice on how to avoid becoming a criminal. How much more serious can one get than that? This is not hyperbole.One of the passages I referred to earlier said, “They explain the grandfathering requirements and how to avoid being in illegal possession of a firearm.” Another was, “lf your SA firearm was listed in Bill C-71, it will be classified as a prohibited firearm.” The unlawful possession of a firearm can lead to a jail sentence of up to five years. That is pretty serious stuff. Conservatives have been clear and on the record about their concerns about the RCMP arbitrarily reclassifying firearms. That is why the previous government gave the Governor in Council an oversight role. Basically, what happens is that law-abiding owners who follow all the rules and regulations with respect to their firearms are suddenly, because of one meeting of some bureaucrats, declared criminals for possession of an illegal weapon, when they have owned and used that weapon for sport shooting or hunting for many years. Suddenly, with one blanket move, what dozens or hundreds of thousands of people already possess is somehow deemed illegal. We have seen this disrespect for law-abiding Canadians from the RCMP before. The RCMP has acted in contempt of Parliament several times before. There is an institutional history of it, as a matter of fact. On February 16, 1965, Mr. Speaker Macnaughton found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP's arrest of an opposition member of Parliament. On September 4, 1973, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP interrogation of an opposition member. On March 21, 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP's electronic surveillance—spying, in other words—of an opposition MP. On December 6, 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP misleading a former minister concerning the information he provided to opposition parliamentarians. On December 1, 2004, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP blocking MPs' access to Parliament Hill. On April 10, 2008, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege following the false and misleading evidence given to the public accounts committee by the RCMP's then deputy commissioner. On March 15, 2012, your immediate predecessor, Mr. Speaker, found a prima facie case of privilege when the RCMP denied MPs access to Centre Block. On September 25, 2014, another prima facie case of privilege was established related to the RCMP's denial of access to Parliament Hill. On May 12, 2015, two incidents of MPs being denied access to Centre Block by the RCMP led to yet another prima facie case of privilege. Mr. Speaker, you have also needed to deal with these issues. On April 6 and 11, 2017, you found prima facie cases of privilege flowing out of MPs' access being denied by the Parliamentary Protective Service, an organization that, of course, has a clear legal relationship with the RCMP. Even on the Senate side, the RCMP was found to have committed a prima facie case of contempt by Mr. Speaker Kinsella, on May 8, 2013, following its efforts to thwart parliamentary task force members from appearing as witnesses before a committee. It goes without saying that it comes as absolutely no surprise that our national police force would snub its nose at Parliament yet again. Even more distressing is that the minister responsible for the RCMP, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is one of the most experienced members of the House and a former House leader. The minister should be urging respect for Parliament by his officials. The RCMP is not above the law and not above the House of Commons.Mr. Speaker, if you agree there is a prima facie case of contempt here, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion.

Mr. Speaker, they are not buying assets. They are nationalizing a private pipeline. Yesterday, there were protesters willing to stop this project. Yesterday, the B.C. government was in court fighting against this pipeline. Yesterday, there were Liberal MPs from B.C. opposed to this project. Today, nothing has changed, except taxpayers are $4.5 billion poorer. Will nationalizing the pipeline actually get Liberal members of Parliament from B.C. to back it?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the government that this week is Victims and Survivors of Crime Week. I know that the Liberals have made it clear that victims have not been a priority of theirs in the last two and a half years, and of course the latest example is Bill C-75, which would reduce the penalties for many serious crimes, including the abduction of a child under 14 years of age, forced marriage, participation in terrorist groups and criminal organizations, and many others.Is there any hope that the government can change its philosophy before the next election and start putting victims first? Can it do that?

Mr. Speaker, we now have reports of two of Canada's largest banks saying that hackers have breached the private information of up to 90,000 Canadian consumers. This is just months after the data breaches at Uber, Equifax, and Bell Canada, which affected tens of thousands of Canadians and their private information.The European Union took action and implemented new data protection last week. What did the Liberal government do? Absolutely nothing. In fact, this government has not even followed through on basic recommendations. When will the Liberals take action to protect Canadian consumers with a digital bill of rights and stop letting these companies off the hook?

Mr. Speaker, let us evaluate what the member opposite just said. In the decade before 2015, not one pipeline to tidewater was built. We know this is a fact. We know the project is going to ensure that we create an advantage for Canadians, an economic advantage that goes along with our overall plan to ensure that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. This is in our national interest. It is creating jobs in Alberta, British Columbia, and across our country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking the government to speculate hypothetically on what a court may or may not say. We could look retrospectively at what courts have said. Even very recently the Supreme Court has spoken about consultation and actually has sided with the proponent. However, it is not a good idea for us to speculate on what a future court might say on a case that has nothing to do with the ones that have been decided already. We do know that through this process, there was unprecedented consultation with indigenous people. Forty-three communities signed on to benefit agreements, 33 in—

Mr. Speaker, what today's announcement is about is our decision to step forward and ensure that we can actually get a project in the national interest done in this country. We know that the previous government was just unable to do that. Therefore, we have stepped forward with an approach that would ensure that this happens, by de-risking the project. It is in the national interest. We know it will create 15,000 jobs. We know it will create significant advantage for our economy. That is why we are moving forward to make sure that this project happens.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Auditor General for his report. We are accepting all of his recommendations.This is one of the most studied government projects in the history of the Government of Canada. We called in the Auditor General and had two reports performed, third party reports. We know very clearly what happened. The former government treated this as a cost-cutting measure, instead of the government-wide initiative that it so clearly was. The Conservatives set this project up to fail, and now they are paying the consequences publicly. Shame on all of them.

Mr. Speaker, we need to call it fiction when fiction happens. This is what did not happen under the last government: There were no pipelines bringing resources to international markets. The reality is that we accept a lower price for our natural resources in this country—

Mr. Speaker, the government is preparing to buy the Trans Mountain expansion, a project that Kinder Morgan is backing away from due to its high risk. It is a project that poses a constant threat to the environment and is opposed by British Columbians and indigenous nations. Quebec is also not interested in assuming the economic, environmental, and social risks.Will the government reimburse Quebeckers for their share of the $4.5 billion it is going to spend to finance its irresponsible action so that Quebeckers can instead invest in renewable energy?

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals have failed to appoint a victims' ombudsman after six months, when the prisoners' ombudsman position became vacant, they filled it immediately. When it comes to filling a position to protect the rights of criminals, the Liberals could not move fast enough. However, when it comes to filling a position to protect the rights of victims, the Liberals are AWOL. Why do the Liberals always put the rights of criminals ahead of victims?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals allowed Canadians to believe Cambridge Analytica whistle-blower Christopher Wylie, working in the Liberal leader's office in 2009, was terminated because his electoral data manipulation was too invasive. In testimony to the ethics committee today, Mr. Wylie said that was not why his contract ended. In a 2016 email to the U.K.'s leave movement in the Brexit referendum, Wylie said that the outcome could be influenced with psychographic micro-targeting and that he was working on a similar project for a major Canadian political party.Who is telling the truth?

Mr. Speaker, what he did was spend over $4 billion on a pipeline that Canadians have had for over 60 years. We get absolutely nothing new with this, except a lot of financial risk, and $7 billion that was going to be invested by a private sector company has now vanished into thin air.I have a very simple question: How much will it cost taxpayers to actually build the expansion, or is this all just a pipe dream?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Auditor General for his report, and we accept his recommendations. Today's report is a reminder for Canadians of the realities of 10 years under the Harper Conservatives. After we asked the Auditor General to examine Phoenix, he published two reports, and the government commissioned two reports from a third party, in addition to a study under way in a parliamentary committee. We know exactly how the Harper Conservatives set the system up for failure.

Mr. Speaker, the government is going to spend $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money to nationalize a pipeline, $4.5 billion of public money to assume all the risk. This from a government that promised to get rid of subsidies for the oil and gas industry.Why are the Liberals insisting on investing so much in fossil fuels and so little in renewable energy?

Mr. Speaker, the sheer audacity of the member opposite—

Mr. Speaker, before the 2015 election, pipelines in this country were built without taxpayers' money. They were applied for, they were approved, and they were completed without a cent of taxpayers' dollars. The only thing that has changed between then and now is that we have a Liberal government. Why is it that every time elements of our energy sector get nationalized is when there is a Trudeau in the Prime Minister's Office?

Mr. Speaker, we approved this pipeline federally back in November 2016 after a robust environmental assessment. The B.C. government approved this pipeline. We know that to get investments made in this country we need to have the rule of law. We cannot have a situation where provinces delay, create uncertainty, and make it so that investors do not actually want to invest in our country. We are moving forward to ensure this project moves forward. We know that eventually it can move to the private sector, which is what we will aspire to do following this decision today.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected our government in part because of our commitment to help strengthen and grow our economy, to help the middle class, and to create well-paying jobs for Canadians.Can the Minister of Finance share with this House how today's decision to purchase the Trans Mountain pipeline and related assets will help to uphold this commitment?

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Harper Conservatives, who gutted our immigration system, we are investing $173 million to strengthen security at the Canada-U.S. border—

Mr. Speaker, as of today the parties continue to negotiate at the table in order to get a deal. I have spoken with the employer. I have spoken with both labour unions. They continue to have those conversations. We are there. The federal mediation service is with them. We encourage them to continue to work toward a deal.

Mr. Speaker, to stop oil spills and protect jobs, the BC Chamber of Commerce on Saturday endorsed the same abandoned vessels solutions that I brought to the House. Thirty-six thousand businesses joined hundreds of coastal communities that urged the transport minister to include solutions in his fix, like vessel turn in and recycling. Despite years of coastal advocacy, the Liberals' Bill C-64 still does not include coastal solutions to deal with thousands of wrecks off our coast. They have dragged anchor on resuming the debate.Why is the government leaving abandoned vessels on our coast for another season?

Mr. Speaker, apparently a close friend and advisor of the Prime Minister once advocated for the elimination of our supply management system. The really bad news is that this advisor is now playing an important role in renegotiating NAFTA on behalf of the Liberal government. That is disturbing—scary, even. I see shades of the Conservative Party.The government says it wants to defend our supply management system, but it hires people like that who want to eliminate it. That makes no sense. I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.Will he swear by all he holds dear that he will defend our supply management system in its entirety?

Mr. Speaker, not long ago, Kinder Morgan, a private company, was a proud owner of a pipeline with plans to expand. Today, Kinder Morgan is divesting its Canadian assets to the taxpayer for $4.5 billion. The Liberals have screwed up this deal so badly that the only solution is to throw billions of taxpayer dollars at the project, and they still have not told us what it will actually cost to build the expansion. Will the finance minister tell Canadians the total cost of this Liberal failure?

Mr. Speaker, I note the audacity of the member opposite in talking about not getting a pipeline to market, which is what he and his party were unable to do. We have stepped forward and said that we are going to take the decision to put a project in the national interest forward so that we can create the economic advantage we are seeking. The economic advantage for Canada is $15 billion of advantage to our economy, and 15,000 jobs. We are moving forward in the national interest, for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, two and a half years ago, this country saw pipelines being built without a cent of taxpayer dollars going into a socialized, nationalized energy program. Kinder Morgan was prepared to invest billions into the Canadian economy, and that has gone because the Prime Minister politically destabilized the investment climate in Canada. We have no idea how much it is going to cost to build this pipeline, or how it is going to be built by a man who has not successfully managed to do much of anything. Why should Canadians pay for his failures?

Mr. Speaker, who did the government hire? Who did the Prime Minister hire to advise him on supply management? Simon Beauchemin, a senior adviser who strongly opposes supply management. He has an unwavering vision: he believes that supply management is a regressive means of protecting our producers. Our leader and the official opposition definitely stand with producers and support supply management.Will the Minister of Agriculture rise and assure us that he will not negotiate away one litre of milk, one egg, or one chicken to the Americans?

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about where the advantage on this deal is going. The Prime Minister is now cutting a cheque of taxpayers' money, $4.5 billion, which is going to shareholders in a Texas-based company. This is in addition to the hundreds of billions of dollars that have already left Canada's energy sector. The Prime Minister claims he wants to attract investment into Canada. How much of the $4.5 billion that is being sent to Kinder Morgan will be spent and invested in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure one can get any clearer than the Auditor General. The report calls the Phoenix fiasco “an incomprehensible failure of project management and oversight.” There was no oversight in the decision to implement Phoenix by the Liberals, even though they knew it had significant problems. Executives were more focused on meeting the budget and the timeline than actually delivering a working pay system. Following the devastating report, will the government finally compensate all workers and implement a public inquiry to ensure that this never happens again?

Mr. Speaker, like her Liberal Prime Minister, the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie is saying that illegal migrants are welcome, but the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is saying that they are not. Who is telling the truth? What is the government going to do with these illegal migrants?Meanwhile, businesses in Sainte-Justine, Sainte-Claire, and Saint-Anselme have been waiting a long time for the arrival of legal immigrants.When will the Liberal government stop the wave of illegal immigration at the border?

Mr. Speaker, today the Liberals bought Kinder Morgan out of Canada. It is a loss of nearly $8 billion that will be invested in other countries, and $4.5 billion is just the beginning of the costs to taxpayers. For a year and a half, the Liberals failed to assert federal jurisdiction and to enforce the rule of law. Today, the Liberals are forcing Canadians to pay for their failures. Trans Mountain's opponents will keep fighting to stop it and to kill pipelines in Canada. It is a catastrophic indictment on the Prime Minister. When will he finally admit that today's announcement is really Kinder Morgan divesting from Canada, and Canadians paying for it?

Mr. Speaker, it is not the Liberals, but rather private companies, that create jobs.They left the Trans Mountain project to languish for months, and now they announce that they are buying the pipeline using taxpayers' money. What is even worse is that Kinder Morgan never asked for money and never asked to be purchased. The Prime Minister has failed again.My question for the minister is simple. How much is this folly going to cost Canadian taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' track record on energy matters is nothing short of disastrous. Since they took office, the energy sector has lost 125,000 jobs and over $60 billion in investment.What is the Liberal government's miracle solution? Take money from taxpayers and buy a Texas company for $4.5 billion. That is the Liberal solution.My question for my friend, the Minister of Finance, is very simple. A fat lot of good Bay Street experience does us. Why is he making such bad decisions?

Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. We are talking about $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money going to a company in Texas. Not even J. R. Ewing would have dreamed of this, and yet that is what the Liberal government is doing.What is the Liberal government's track record when it comes to investments? Since those folks have been in power, American investment in Canada has dropped by 50%, while Canadian investments in the U.S. have increased by 66%.Seriously, how can the Minister of Finance claim to be an authority on investments?

Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Labour. We know that a CP Rail strike may be happening this evening. We know as well that VIA Rail has already cancelled passenger service because of the operational uncertainty. We know as well that commuting services in Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto could be affected.In the past, an agreement had been sought and adhered to with respect to the provision of these services by the Teamsters and CP Rail. Could the minister tell me if she actually got her job done and secured these agreements so people can get to work tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals cancelled the northern gateway pipeline. They dithered on the Keystone XL pipeline. They killed the energy east pipeline. They have talked down our world-class energy regulator and have told audiences, both foreign and domestic, that they want to phase out the energy sector and the jobs that go with it. They botched the Trans Mountain project so badly that they have turned a multi-billion dollar private sector investment into a multi-billion dollar bill for Canadian taxpayers. Why should Canadians be forced to pay billions to Kinder Morgan to cover for the Prime Minister's embarrassing incompetence?

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. Illegal migrants are coming from all over the world.The Liberals could have cut the budget, and that is what they did, in fact. The Liberals cut the Canada Border Services Agency's budget by $302 million. They reduced the number of border guards. They also cut $30 million from the budget of those responsible for stopping illegal immigration.If the Liberals are serious about this, when will they deal with this problem and put a stop to this wave of illegal immigration at the border?

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely sad day for Canadian taxpayers. The Prime Minister is forcing them to fix his failure on Canada's energy sector. It did not have to be this way. Kinder Morgan was never asking for a handout. All it wanted was a clear path to get this project built, which is what the Prime Minister has failed to do. Now taxpayers are on the hook for the Liberals' mess.Could the Prime Minister give a guarantee that these costs will exceed no more than $4.5 billion?

Mr. Speaker, on March 1, 2018, a tragedy occurred in my riding, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, when a young woman named Athena Gervais died after drinking a sugary, high-alcohol drink. My question is for the Minister of Health.Can she inform the House of the measures Health Canada plans to take to ensure that such a terrible tragedy never happens again?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Harper Conservatives a question.Yesterday, the member for Milton said that 600 people had crossed the border illegally. I would like to know where she got that information, because I do not have the same numbers. It is wrong to tell untruths in the House. I would like to know where she got that number.