Most toxic speeches
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Prime Minister cares about ISIS terrorists, but on this side of the House, we condemn their terrible acts and take the threat they pose seriously.Like rats fleeing a sinking ship, these traitors are returning to Canada and trying to make us believe that they are victims.Will the Prime Minister put an end to this circus and take meaningful action against these cowards to ensure that they face the full force of the law if they return to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for this. When it comes to asking Web giants to pay their fair share, it seems that common sense and tax fairness go out the window. The Minister of Finance expects an international consensus. I have news for him. We are the only idiots in the G7 who are not taxing Netflix. Worse still, France is going to make Netflix pay taxes, collect sales tax and guarantee 30% local content. Meanwhile, in Canada, everything is cool for Netflix and Google. There are no taxes, no sales tax, no quotas. Nothing.The Minister of Canadian Heritage could take a lesson from the Robert Charlebois song: Between two joints, you could do something.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that Canadians want to know that their government will protect them and put their safety first. However, the reality is the Liberals have given $10.5 million to a terrorist, and they proactively welcome and facilitate terrorists coming back to Canada. That is a fact. Canadians actually want to know that terrorists will end up in jail, not walking on our streets and living in our communities. Can the Liberals assure Canadians that terrorists will end up behind bars if the Liberals bring them back to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. We need to draw the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable. The murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is the last, blood-soaked straw. By selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Canada is supporting this murderous regime and selling its soul.Will the government suspend its contracts with Saudi Arabia or will it remain complicit?
Mr. Speaker, the contrast is that terrorists have been emboldened by the government. Canadians are rightly concerned when they hear about ISIS terrorists returning to Canada and that they may live in their neighbourhoods. Any persons who join a terrorist organization to fight against Canada and its allies are criminals and threats to our safety. When will the government get serious about keeping terrorists out of Canada and ensure that those returning will face the full extent of the law?
Mr. Speaker, a report commissioned by the Liberals calls for a complete overhaul of the EI system. What a surprise. The Liberals and Conservatives ransacked the EI program, leaving holes in the social safety net for people who are unemployed or sick. Now that their own report has confirmed what we have been saying for years, when will the minister finally do a complete overhaul of the EI program?
Mr. Speaker, this government, which is all about promoting peace and love and singing Kumbaya, is quick to abandon its grand principles of universal peace and love when it comes to taking action against tyranny. There will not be any sanctions against Saudi Arabia for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, no sir. The government is looking the other way. I do not call that diplomacy. I call that complicity.Is the Prime Minister aware that, by selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, he is complicit with this murderous regime?
Mr. Speaker, sadly, I get the impression that the Liberals and the Conservatives are cut from the same cloth. Stephen Harper stood before the G20 and announced with a straight face that Canada had no history of colonialism. Now, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism claims that there is no racism in Canada. Good grief.Does he realize how many people he just insulted?Allow me to give the minister an opportunity to admit he was wrong, to admit he made a mistake, that he screwed up, and say I'm sorry.
Mr. Speaker, the reported murder of Jamal Khashoggi is the latest in a series of horrible acts by Saudi Arabia. The war in Yemen is bringing famine to millions and is rife with war crimes. Attacks on journalism, democracy and basic human rights should trigger consequences, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs this morning said that honouring Canada's arms deal with Saudi Arabia was more important than honouring human rights.Does the minister really think that is what Canadians want?
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the cornerstone of the Canadian economy. However, a recent World Economic Forum competitiveness report found that Canadian businesses already faced a heavy regulatory burden and inefficient bureaucracy. What the Liberals therefore did, besides increasing the regulatory burden, was they brought in onerous new small business tax rules, a carbon tax on everything and payroll tax hikes, and the Prime Minister calls them wealthy tax cheats. Why do the Liberals continue to attack our hard-working local small business owners?
Mr. Speaker, an estimated 500,000 Canadians have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis, which is now a perfectly legal substance. The Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday that a disproportionate number of marginalized people lived with the stigma of a criminal record, and pledged that those records would not follow them for the rest of their lives. However, they will. A pardon is like a band-aid covering a wound; it does not make it disappear.When will the government finally understand that the best solution, the only solution, is expungement?
Mr. Speaker, by all accounts, it seems that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed at the behest of Saudi Arabia at its consulate in Istanbul. The details being reported in Turkish newspapers are appallingly grisly.We hope there will be a UN investigation into this in order to identify those who are really responsible for this atrocity.When those responsible are identified, will the government be prepared to enforce the Magnitsky law?
Mr. Speaker, those who have abandoned Canadian democracy to travel to a war zone and engage with vicious terrorists need to take the full responsibility for their criminal conduct. Our intelligence, security and police agencies will investigate terrorists by all possible means with the absolute goal to charge and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Thus far, under our government, we have charged four, convicted two. Two are outstanding. Under the previous government, there were no such charges.
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my first answer, we will investigate through our police and security agencies by all possible means, with the absolute determination to lay charges and to prosecute in every case. In fact, in the cases that have been dealt with so far, there have been four charges laid by this government, two convictions obtained, and two others are in the process. By contrast, under the previous government, with respect to these terrorist returnees, not a single charge was laid by the Harper government.
Mr. Speaker, for the third time, I will say to the House and say to all Canadians, those who have left the comfortable confines of Canadian democracy to travel overseas and associate themselves with a terrorist cause will be pursued by Canadian justice. We will investigate by every means possible, in concert with our allies in the Five Eyes and the G7, to lay charges and to prosecute. We have already done that in four cases. We will continue to do it in every possible case, whereas they did nothing.
Mr. Speaker, like most Liberals, the minister has always accused the previous government of cutting the budget. However, they could take back $10 million from Omar Khadr and reinvest it so they could deal with the others over there.The Prime Minister knows full well that leaving Canada to participate in terrorist activities is a Criminal Code offence. Some men and women want to return to Canada after fighting against our allies, and the Liberals are doing nothing to prevent them from returning. I am asking this question today in the name of Quebeckers and Canadians who are fed up with the government's answers. When will the Prime Minister do something to resolve the situation?
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely ridiculous because the Prime Minister publicly stated that Vice-Admiral Norman would likely be charged. How did he come to that conclusion? It is as if he knew something before the RCMP investigation was complete. The Prime Minister is playing a very dangerous game with Vice-Admiral Norman's life and that is precisely why it is important for the vice-admiral's defence team to see the evidence the Prime Minister is covering up. What is the Prime Minister hiding and who is he protecting?
Mr. Speaker, it does not do the job. The Liberals are making things up as they go.Yesterday, the government had nothing prepared, but it still called in the media for a series of press conferences to announce some possible future legislation. In Canada, 500,000 people, including a disproportionate number of racialized and indigenous people, have a criminal record for simple possession of 30 grams or less of cannabis.What does the government have to say to the tens of thousands of Canadians who are wondering why it does not want to expunge their criminal records, which, in our opinion, is the easiest and only option?
Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege.In response to our question yesterday, the Prime Minister misled the House by providing incorrect information. The interim leader of the Bloc Québécois asked him why the rush to legalize cannabis by October 17, and the Prime Minister replied: The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks. However, Quebec asked to push cannabis legislation back to July 1, 2019. The Quebec National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion to that effect on November 16, 2017. It reads: THAT the National Assembly ask the Federal Government to defer the cannabis legalization currently scheduled to come into force on 1 July 2018 until at least 1 July 2019. The Prime Minister's statement was misleading.In addition, after the National Assembly adopted this motion, it also unanimously agreed to send this motion to the Prime Minister and to all Liberal members of Parliament from Quebec.The Prime Minister therefore had knowledge of the resolution adopted by the Quebec National Assembly. The Prime Minister therefore knew when he was making that statement that it was incorrect.Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and that the Prime Minister made a statement that he knew to be incorrect, it seems clear to us that the Prime Minister intended to mislead the House. Just this morning we received the selected decisions from May 7, 2012, of the Speaker who preceded you. On page 31, it states: It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a Member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House. Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and incorrectas we have demonstratedand given that he knew, when he was making the statement, that it was misleading and incorrectas we have demonstratedwhat other intention could he have had apart from misleading the House by saying these falsehoods?I repeat the Prime Minister's reply: The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks. I would like to clarify that I raised my question of privilege at the earliest opportunity because the most recent information was obtained during yesterday's question period.Finally, should you consider it to be a prima facie question of privilege, I intend to move the following motion: That the House acknowledge that the Prime Minister misled the House and ask him to correct the answer to the question posed October 17, 2018, by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, and to apologize to the House.Thank you for your attention to this matter, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in the past couple of days, Canadians have emitted a great deal of cannabis smoke. However, that is nothing compared to the emissions from energy-intensive cannabis production. U.S. cannabis production emits as much carbon as three million cars.Has the government estimated the carbon footprint of Canadian cannabis production and what steps has the government taken to limit those emissions as it lights up this new industry?
Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. This prosecution is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which is a body that is independent from the Office of the Attorney General.As this matter is before the courts, we will not, it is not appropriate to, comment further.
Mr. Speaker, today all the ministers responsible for status of women meet in Yukon. Tuesday, I called again for Liberals to walk the talk, finally end violence against women and remove barriers to economic justice. Whether it is pay equity, child care or a national action plan, the Liberals have promised so much and delivered so little. Women fought in court to be called persons. They still fight in court for equality because the government will not legislate it.The time is up. When will the Liberals lock in equality?
Mr. Speaker, we know from Ontario and the gas plant scandal that when Liberals get into trouble, the first thing they do is destroy the evidence. In fact, Ontario Liberals in former premier Kathleen Wynne's office have been convicted and are going to jail for destroying records that implicated their government.Could the Prime Minister assure us that no one in his office or any other ministers' office has destroyed any records, recordings or other evidence related to the Mark Norman case?
Mr. Speaker, the minister of labour seems to have no idea how much she upset entrepreneurs, elected officials in Quebec City and Canadians when she made a mockery of my question on the labour shortage and the crisis we are in.Throughout BeauportLimoilou, Quebec and Canada, SMEs, economists and other stakeholders are pointing out that the labour shortage is a serious crisis. No one thinks this is good news. No one is laughing; quite the contrary. It is time for action.Does the Prime Minister plan to laugh about the labour shortage, or does he plan to do something about it?
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General.In her mandate letter, the Prime Minister asked her to ensure that the rights of Canadians are protected. One of the core rights of Canadians is the right to make full answer and defence in a criminal proceeding through the disclosure of evidence to the accused. The Liberals are denying Admiral Mark Norman his due process rights, as articulated in the charter and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.Will the minister, as our top justice official, commit her government to living up to the charter and release all evidence?
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, as a long-standing member of the House, the government does not comment or speculate on matters that are related to ongoing criminal trials. That is the long-standing convention of the House. It is important that the judicial system be free to conduct itself completely in an independent fashion. That is important for the prosecution. That is important for the defence.We will not comment on ongoing processes.
Mr. Speaker, we share the concern about disproportionate impacts. That is why we are advancing a no wait, no fee pardon system to remove the stigma of those impacts. The expungement argument the hon. gentleman makes by contrast, expungement has been used exclusively and only to deal with those cases where the law itself was inherently discriminatory and a fundamental violation of human rights, as for example when the Criminal Code attacked people simply for being gay.
Mr. Speaker, of course I do not think that is what Canadians want and that is why I said no such thing. Canada's position on human rights in general, very much including Saudi Arabia, is clear and firm. We took a clear and firm position in August, and I think that is something that Canadians can be proud of.When it comes to the case of Jamal Khashoggi, we led a G7 foreign ministers' statement, which came out on Tuesday, saying that those responsible must be held to account.
Mr. Speaker, on March 25 of this year, Mia and Liam Tarabichi went on what was supposed to be just a quick trip with their father to Seattle. Instead, he abducted them and fled to Beirut. He is now wanted on an international arrest warrant. The children's mother, Shelley Beyak, has tried to contact the Prime Minister and has received no answer. The Prime Minister can intervene and help bring these children home to their mom, but he refuses. Why?
Mr. Speaker, I was delighted today to announce that by December 31, we will have that ban on asbestos. This has been a long time coming. It is extremely important. We are committed to the health of Canadians and tackling pollution of all kinds, from pollution that causes climate change to pollution that is causing cancers like asbestos.I would like to quote the head of the Canadian Labour Congress, Hassan Yussuff: We're extremely happy that it meets our expectations in terms of what we wanted to see in the regulations.... especially [for] families who have lost their loved ones over the last many decades in this country to asbestos.
Mr. Speaker, we are obviously deeply concerned about the disproportionate impacts of Canada's old cannabis laws. That is why we have repealed them and we have replaced them with a new legal regime and strict regulations to better keep cannabis away from our kids and illegal profits away from organized crime. We are also advancing a new and far more effective pardon system for simple possession, with no waiting period before eligibility and no fee for the expressed purpose of getting rid of the stigma.
Mr. Speaker, it has become a habit for the Liberal government to govern not for all Canadians, but for Liberal cronies and certain interest groups.If sunny ways, as they liked to say, mean a cabinet that obstructs the courts in order to hide the real sacrificial lamb in this story, then the House of Commons has to hold cabinet to account.What is the government hiding?
Mr. Speaker, the government has agreed to discriminatory provisions under its new trade agreement, the USMCA. Private couriers delivering goods across the border receive a duty exemption that our Crown corporation, Canada Post, does not. This provision punishes rural areas, where Canada Post is the only game in town for delivering goods. Why did the government agree to this, and why are the Liberals undermining our Crown corporation and public services?
Mr. Speaker, again, the fact remains that we are taking real action to grow the economy. The Conservatives had 10 years and they had the worst growth since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, we have some of the lowest unemployment rates in 40 years. It is no surprise that as we are cutting taxes for small businesses, for Canadians, for families and stopping to send cheques to millionaires, our economy is one of the best in the G7. With a failed record like that, no wonder the Conservatives do not understand what success looks like.
Mr. Speaker, two years ago the government announced a ban on asbestos via four different ministers. They know who they are, yet today one of those four ministers is announcing watered down regulations that fly in the face of science, and the science is crystal clear. There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. Asbestos is the greatest industrial killer of all time, so why has the government chosen to leave Canadian workers and their families exposed to it?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that diversity is our strength. While we have much to celebrate, we know that there are still real challenges for many people in this country. Throughout our history, there have been people and communities, particularly indigenous peoples, who have experienced systemic racism, oppression and discrimination that has prevented them from fully participating in society. We know these experiences are a reality for many, and we can and must do better. This is why our government is engaging communities and experts to modernize our approach and to take action on this really important issue.
Mr. Speaker, we want every trial in Canada to be a fair trial and that is assured by the very system we have, where the prosecution is in the hands of the independent Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which is not directed by the government, and the defence is obviously in the hands of very capable defence counsel. They have the law before them. They have an independent court procedure before them. Canadians can be assured that justice will be done and it will be seen to be done.
Mr. Speaker, we have not offered to repatriate anyone. In fact, there is no deal with the Kurdish region at the present time, and there has not been. The fact of the matter is, we will pursue criminal prosecutions in every possible way we can. We have demonstrated that by actually doing it, where the previous government, while it talks a good game, failed to lay a single charge.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect high-quality services delivered in a timely and efficient way. Our government is committed to modernizing the Canada Revenue Agency's services to better reflect Canadians' expectations.Would the Minister of National Revenue update us on the measures she has taken to provide innovative digital services to taxpayers?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals love to take credit for things that they were forced to do. They know full well that was a flip-flop and they were only forced to return to that tax cut, which the Conservatives put in place and they tried to take away. Small businesses continue to struggle because of the Liberal government. The Liberals cut an advisory committee that ensured that each new regulation on small businesses would be offset by the removal of another piece of regulation. The Liberals simply continue to pile on new regulatory burdens. How can the Liberals say that they are easing burdens on small businesses when they are continuing to add more taxes and more red tape?
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago an American company decided to establish a large quarry in Nova Scotia. The quarry project was turned down by the federal and provincial governments because of environmental concerns. Then the American company sued the Canadian government for $500 million under the investor-state dispute settlement clause in the old NAFTA.Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us if the new USMCA will stop those frivolous lawsuits against Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, a body that acts independently of my role. As this matter is currently before the court, as the member opposite should know, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.
Mr. Speaker, the prosecution in this case is handled completely independently by the Public Prosecution Service. The defence is obviously in very capable hands of learned counsel who will, no doubt, pursue the appropriate laws and rules of court. I would add this: It is deemed improper for a Member, in posing a question, or a Minister in responding to a question, to comment on any matter that is sub judice. Those again are the words of the hon. Peter Peter van Loan, May 11, 2015.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals confused Canadians yesterday when they said they were moving forward with lowering interchange fees for small businesses, because their so-called agreement with Visa and Mastercard is entirely voluntary, and still only reduces rates by 0.1%. Small businesses in Canada were expecting more and are calling the Liberal plan extremely underwhelming.The NDP is calling for the government to cap merchant fees at 1% to help small businesses save up to $1 billion a year. Will the Liberals cap merchant fees at 1%, or will they continue to side with the big banks?
Mr. Speaker, we know we need to take action on climate change. We know we need to reduce emissions. We are committed to doing that across all sectors. We have a price on pollution. We are phasing out coal. We are making historic investments in public transportation. We are investing in clean technology companies. We will continue taking the actions that Canadians expect to protect our environment and grow our economy.
Mr. Speaker, we are just asking for the schedule of the President of the Treasury Board. Here is the inconvenient truth. I can tell the President of the Treasury Board that he has met with Irving 16 times since he became minister, and those are just the publicly disclosed meetings. It does not include emails, texts, or instant messaging. That is information that Vice-Admiral Norman needs to build his defence. Why will the Liberals not release this information? What are they trying to hide and who are they trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, I can say that I have a very clear understanding of the importance of the independence of the judicial system.As I have stated, this prosecution of Vice-Admiral Norman is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, a body that is independent from my office, the Office of the Attorney General. It would be entirely inappropriate to comment on this matter, because it is before the courts.
Mr. Speaker, we support our women and men in uniform in whatever they are sent to do. The Liberals told Canadians that they were sent to Mali on a peacekeeping mission, without debate, without a vote and where there was no peace to keep. The head of the UN has said that the situation in Mali has sharply deteriorated.How can Canadians be assured that our soldiers have the equipment and the manpower to defend themselves when the Liberals play politics with procurement?
Mr. Speaker, the safety of our women and men in uniform is our government's top priority. We always try to mitigate as best as possible the level of risk our people face while on operations. We will always ensure our troops have the right training and the right equipment to carry out the missions we send them on.
Mr. Speaker, for too long, our country's trade with the United States through the Detroit-Windsor corridor has been limited by a lack of capacity. With only one bridge, which is privately owned, the flow of people and goods has not been as efficient as it could and should be. My constituents and all southern Ontarians know this first-hand. Can the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities please update this House on the steps the government has taken to change this?
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Shelley Beyak's children were abducted by their father and taken to Beirut. On September 14, the Prime Minister received a petition of over 930 names of Canadians, adding their voices to that of Shelley Beyak, imploring the Prime Minister to personally intervene and bring these children home. If you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent to table this document.
Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see the opposition members applaud our success as a government. We have ensured that we have the lowest rate of unemployment. Since the 1970s, we have added over 600,000 jobs. In fact, small and medium-sized businesses have added 600,000 jobs to our economy. Now we have a new problem of people who are looking for employees. That is why we are working so hard to make sure that every Canadian has that first shot at success, whether it is small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec, or in Ontario, or in Alberta or any of the other provinces or territories, so they have an opportunity to develop the skills they need to take advantage of that work.
Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to, but I want to start by thanking the member for CumberlandColchester for his wisdom and the outstanding advice he gave me personally during the negotiations, especially on chapter 19.He asks an excellent question. ISDS is now removed from the new trade agreement between Canada and the United States. That will save Canada from frivolous lawsuits like the one the member mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say this prosecution is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which operates independently from my office. As this matter is currently before the court, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment further.
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of taxation, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have been very clear. However, we also know that the Broadcasting Act has not been reviewed since before the Internet came into our homes. The Conservatives did nothing for 10 long years, so we have taken action. We have appointed a panel of experts to help us modernize this act, and our starting point is clear. All players that participate in the system must contribute to the system. There will be no free rides.
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking for any questioning of the independent system. What we are asking for is for the government, whose responsibility it is, to provide the documents to be able to have the evidence filed. The prosecution of Vice-Admiral Norman has been politically motivated from the start. The Prime Minister is hiding evidence and refuses to release it, jeopardizing his right to a fair trial. The evidence will reveal the truth.Who is the Prime Minister protecting? What is he hiding? If he has nothing to hide, why will he not release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, since taking office, our government has worked exclusively on making sure EI was more accessible, more fair and delivered to people in a timely way so that their benefits were received to support them as they moved between jobs. We have been working on EI reform, as I said, to make sure that we have more generous benefits as well to make sure that seasonal gaps for people in seasonal industries are taken care of and to make sure that maternity leave and sick leave are also addressed. EI reform continues to be one of our priorities. We continue to move forward on this. We received the report and will be reporting back on further developments as they are developed.
Mr. Speaker, Vice-Admiral Norman cannot defend himself since the Prime Minister refuses to give him access to evidence for his defence. This is amateur theatre hour.In Canada, justice is not a one-way street. Every Canadian has rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Mr. Norman has the right to a fair trial.Can the Prime Minister guarantee that Vice-Admiral Norman will be able to defend himself and that he will release all the necessary evidence to the defence?
Mr. Speaker, the independent judicial system requires evidence. It is the government that is responsible for producing that evidence.The Prime Minister promised Canadians a transparent, accountable and open government, but that is not what the Liberals have delivered. Instead, the Liberals are using political games to hide the truth. In the case of Vice-Admiral Norman, the Liberals are refusing to release critical evidence central to his defence.Can the Prime Minister honour his commitment to be open and transparent, honour our judicial system and the rule of law, and release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking the minister anything about the case. We are asking about the activities within the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices. It is very troubling that the minister refuses to answer whether the government has destroyed any records relevant to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's case. Maybe he was not expecting my question, so I will ask him again. This is not about the case. This is about evidence, recordings and data that the Prime Minister's Office and other ministers have access to. Could we be assured none of it has been destroyed?
Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition is inviting a commentary upon a judicial proceeding which is outstanding. That kind of commentary on the floor of the House of Commons is not permitted. It is obviously within the purview of the official opposition to try to politicize this process if it wishes, but the fact of the matter is that the rules of the House of Commons, as expressed in the House of Commons Compendium of Procedure, urges all members to guard against that by not violating the sub judice principle.
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the Prime Minister is the first prime minister to have broken the law with respect to certain regulations. This is serious. Vice-Admiral Mark Norman served Canada with unwavering commitment. Now he has been charged and is going to trial. All Canadians have a right to a fair defence. This requires access to all evidence. The Prime Minister has evidence pertaining to this case.Does he want the vice-admiral to have a fair trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House and the laws of Canada need to be applied with complete impartiality and to the appropriate conclusions that are determined not by politics, but by an independent judicial process. The Public Prosecution Service is in charge of the prosecution. Eminent legal counsel is in charge of the defence. They undoubtedly will make sure that justice is done.
Mr. Speaker, it is just the contrary. It is our government that is actually delivering for small businesses and entrepreneurs across the country. We have actually lowered the small business tax rate from 11% going 9%. We have not just talked about it, we are doing it. Because of that, over the last six quarters we have seen investment in business in Canada grow by 8%. That is because the actions we are taking are real. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.I want to point out once again that the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi is very troubling. Canada has made that very clear. That is the message that I sent to the Saudi Arabian foreign minister. I also initiated a discussion on the subject with my counterparts in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States.We join our partners in calling for a thorough investigation to identify those responsible.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has spoken out very clearly about human rights and everyone knows it. That definitely includes Saudi Arabia, as everyone saw this summer.With regard to Jamal Khashoggi, we are working closely with our G7 allies. We all spoke on Tuesday and we are all saying that a thorough and transparent investigation is needed to bring those responsible to justice.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.As we told our G7 partners on Tuesday, we are very concerned about the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. As we told our partners in the G7, of which Canada currently holds the presidency, all those responsible for this situation must be held to account. It is very important. We support the calls for a thorough and transparent investigation into these serious allegations.
Mr. Speaker, years ago, a Canadian prime minister acted with the dignity befitting his position, and the minister knows him quite well. In 2004, the Right Hon. Paul Martin, a Liberal prime minister, released evidence connected to the sponsorship scandal. Why did he do this? He did it because it was in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.Will the Prime Minister rise in the House to clearly state that he will act with the dignity befitting his position and release the evidence pertaining to the trial of a Canadian vice-admiral?
Mr. Speaker, every member of the House can be assured that this government follows the law meticulously.
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of our economy. That is why our government has worked with credit card companies so that they would lower the rates for small businesses.We are very proud of the work we have been doing. This is going to save small businesses $7,500 a year. We will always work hard for small businesses, and we will keep doing that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for London North Centre for his great question and his good work on behalf of all southern Ontarians.After many years of discussion and planning, our government is proud to have officially broken ground on the Gordie Howe International Bridge project. With 30% of all Canada-U.S. trade flowing across this corridor each and every single day, it is vital to have two crossings and to finally have highway-to-highway connectivity.The Gordie Howe International Bridge will be a great achievement for Canada and something all members of this House should be very proud of.
Mr. Speaker, let me refer to a document called The House of Commons Compendium of Procedure, which is in fact prepared by the distinguished Table Officers immediately before us. That compendium says this, Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters actively before the courts or under judicial consideration in order to guard those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry from any undue influence. Those are the rules of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, we know that when we invest in women, we strengthen the economy for everyone. That is why we are making Status of Women Canada a full department; why we have invested $40 billion in a national housing strategy, 25% of which will go toward women and their families; dedicated $7.5 billion for child care; created a new parental sharing benefit; and are supporting women entrepreneurs and women in the trades. Investing in gender equality is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote: Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters before the courts, or under judicial consideration, in order to protect those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry against any undue influence through the discussion of the case. This practice is referred to as the sub judice convention and it applies to debate, statements and Question Period. Those are the words of the hon. Peter Van Loan, May 11, 2015.
Mr. Speaker, the conclusion of the modernized NAFTA was a major accomplishment for Canada, a major accomplishment for Canadian businesses and for Canadian workers. One of the great achievements in this agreement was to keep de minimis levels low. That is something Canadian small businesses asked us to do. That is something we achieved, and we are glad we were able to do so.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-83, on administrative segregation. This debate will continue tomorrow.Next Monday, October 22, shall be an allotted day. Also, priority will be given to report stage and third reading debate of Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, as soon as it is reported back to the House. Finally, I would like to remind everybody that next Thursday, pursuant to the order made earlier this week, the House will have Wednesday sitting hours to allow for the address in the House at 10:30 a.m. by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister to comment on the details of the case. I am not asking the minister to comment on the contents of the document. It is shocking that our top justice official will not commit to just releasing the documents. All we are asking is for an affirmation from Canada's top justice official that she will ensure that Admiral Mark Norman's charter rights to be able to defend himself are respected by their releasing the documents, not what is in them.Will she release the documents, or what is she hiding?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from BrossardSaint-Lambert for her excellent question. Our government committed to ensuring that Canadians have access to secure and convenient online electronic tax filing services, and that is exactly what we are doing.I am proud to announce that the Canada Revenue Agency and Tax-Filer Empowerment Canada have signed a joint digital services collaboration plan. The plan will enable us to improve our services, especially for people in remote regions, by providing innovative digital services that are easier to use.
Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of that situation. Our hearts go out to the mother and her children. We are providing consular services. Of course we are bound by the Privacy Act, so I am not permitted to say anything further.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the opposition members in their political enthusiasm are obviously inviting the government and ministers of the government to comment on matters that are presently before the courts. They may try to camouflage that reality, but that is in fact the case, and we have the procedural documents produced by the table officers of the House, as well as former distinguished members of the House like Mr. Van Loan, saying that is improper and outside the rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to answer questions about Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's case 24 times. The Prime Minister refused to explain why he is obstructing justice and he refuses to hand over the evidence that Vice-Admiral Norman needs to defend himself.On Tuesday, the President of the Treasury Board said that his only contact with Irving was to have been copied on a letter. Will the President of the Treasury Board tell the House how many times he has met with representatives from Irving?
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government, and I hope the answer is better than the ones we got in question period.Can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tell us what the government has planned for the rest of this week and next week?
Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental tenets of democracy and a fair justice system is access to the truth. The Prime Minister and his cabinet are refusing to release evidence to Vice-Admiral Norman's defence team. As a result, the House must act and hold cabinet and the Prime Minister to account for this cover-up.The Prime Minister claims he respects the court. If he does, why will he not release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, the confusion inherent in that question demonstrates exactly why this House has a rule and a convention that says that matters of this nature are dealt with through proper independent legal procedures and not through the political process in the House.That is why Minister Van Loan, at the time, was absolutely correct in saying a Minister in responding to a question shall not comment on any matter that is sub judice.
Mr. Speaker, in order for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman to get a fair trial, his defence team has requested and has the right to evidence relevant to his case. The evidence includes recordings of cabinet meetings where the shipbuilding contract was discussed. We know that cabinet meetings are recorded and we know that the Prime Minister has the full legal authority to release those recordings. Will he do so and if not, what is he hiding?
Mr. Speaker, there are judicial procedures quite independent of the House that deal with the matters that are referred to in that question. The point is, in the rules of the House and in the conventions of the House, members are expected not to ask questions and ministers are expected not to give answers that comment directly or indirectly on an outstanding legal procedure, and we will honour that convention.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Prime Minister cares about ISIS terrorists, but on this side of the House, we condemn their terrible acts and take the threat they pose seriously.Like rats fleeing a sinking ship, these traitors are returning to Canada and trying to make us believe that they are victims.Will the Prime Minister put an end to this circus and take meaningful action against these cowards to ensure that they face the full force of the law if they return to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for this. When it comes to asking Web giants to pay their fair share, it seems that common sense and tax fairness go out the window. The Minister of Finance expects an international consensus. I have news for him. We are the only idiots in the G7 who are not taxing Netflix. Worse still, France is going to make Netflix pay taxes, collect sales tax and guarantee 30% local content. Meanwhile, in Canada, everything is cool for Netflix and Google. There are no taxes, no sales tax, no quotas. Nothing.The Minister of Canadian Heritage could take a lesson from the Robert Charlebois song: Between two joints, you could do something.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that Canadians want to know that their government will protect them and put their safety first. However, the reality is the Liberals have given $10.5 million to a terrorist, and they proactively welcome and facilitate terrorists coming back to Canada. That is a fact. Canadians actually want to know that terrorists will end up in jail, not walking on our streets and living in our communities. Can the Liberals assure Canadians that terrorists will end up behind bars if the Liberals bring them back to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. We need to draw the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable. The murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is the last, blood-soaked straw. By selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Canada is supporting this murderous regime and selling its soul.Will the government suspend its contracts with Saudi Arabia or will it remain complicit?
Mr. Speaker, the contrast is that terrorists have been emboldened by the government. Canadians are rightly concerned when they hear about ISIS terrorists returning to Canada and that they may live in their neighbourhoods. Any persons who join a terrorist organization to fight against Canada and its allies are criminals and threats to our safety. When will the government get serious about keeping terrorists out of Canada and ensure that those returning will face the full extent of the law?
Mr. Speaker, a report commissioned by the Liberals calls for a complete overhaul of the EI system. What a surprise. The Liberals and Conservatives ransacked the EI program, leaving holes in the social safety net for people who are unemployed or sick. Now that their own report has confirmed what we have been saying for years, when will the minister finally do a complete overhaul of the EI program?
Mr. Speaker, this government, which is all about promoting peace and love and singing Kumbaya, is quick to abandon its grand principles of universal peace and love when it comes to taking action against tyranny. There will not be any sanctions against Saudi Arabia for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, no sir. The government is looking the other way. I do not call that diplomacy. I call that complicity.Is the Prime Minister aware that, by selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, he is complicit with this murderous regime?
Mr. Speaker, sadly, I get the impression that the Liberals and the Conservatives are cut from the same cloth. Stephen Harper stood before the G20 and announced with a straight face that Canada had no history of colonialism. Now, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism claims that there is no racism in Canada. Good grief.Does he realize how many people he just insulted?Allow me to give the minister an opportunity to admit he was wrong, to admit he made a mistake, that he screwed up, and say I'm sorry.
Mr. Speaker, the reported murder of Jamal Khashoggi is the latest in a series of horrible acts by Saudi Arabia. The war in Yemen is bringing famine to millions and is rife with war crimes. Attacks on journalism, democracy and basic human rights should trigger consequences, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs this morning said that honouring Canada's arms deal with Saudi Arabia was more important than honouring human rights.Does the minister really think that is what Canadians want?
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the cornerstone of the Canadian economy. However, a recent World Economic Forum competitiveness report found that Canadian businesses already faced a heavy regulatory burden and inefficient bureaucracy. What the Liberals therefore did, besides increasing the regulatory burden, was they brought in onerous new small business tax rules, a carbon tax on everything and payroll tax hikes, and the Prime Minister calls them wealthy tax cheats. Why do the Liberals continue to attack our hard-working local small business owners?
Mr. Speaker, an estimated 500,000 Canadians have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis, which is now a perfectly legal substance. The Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday that a disproportionate number of marginalized people lived with the stigma of a criminal record, and pledged that those records would not follow them for the rest of their lives. However, they will. A pardon is like a band-aid covering a wound; it does not make it disappear.When will the government finally understand that the best solution, the only solution, is expungement?
Mr. Speaker, by all accounts, it seems that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed at the behest of Saudi Arabia at its consulate in Istanbul. The details being reported in Turkish newspapers are appallingly grisly.We hope there will be a UN investigation into this in order to identify those who are really responsible for this atrocity.When those responsible are identified, will the government be prepared to enforce the Magnitsky law?
Mr. Speaker, those who have abandoned Canadian democracy to travel to a war zone and engage with vicious terrorists need to take the full responsibility for their criminal conduct. Our intelligence, security and police agencies will investigate terrorists by all possible means with the absolute goal to charge and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Thus far, under our government, we have charged four, convicted two. Two are outstanding. Under the previous government, there were no such charges.
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my first answer, we will investigate through our police and security agencies by all possible means, with the absolute determination to lay charges and to prosecute in every case. In fact, in the cases that have been dealt with so far, there have been four charges laid by this government, two convictions obtained, and two others are in the process. By contrast, under the previous government, with respect to these terrorist returnees, not a single charge was laid by the Harper government.
Mr. Speaker, for the third time, I will say to the House and say to all Canadians, those who have left the comfortable confines of Canadian democracy to travel overseas and associate themselves with a terrorist cause will be pursued by Canadian justice. We will investigate by every means possible, in concert with our allies in the Five Eyes and the G7, to lay charges and to prosecute. We have already done that in four cases. We will continue to do it in every possible case, whereas they did nothing.
Mr. Speaker, like most Liberals, the minister has always accused the previous government of cutting the budget. However, they could take back $10 million from Omar Khadr and reinvest it so they could deal with the others over there.The Prime Minister knows full well that leaving Canada to participate in terrorist activities is a Criminal Code offence. Some men and women want to return to Canada after fighting against our allies, and the Liberals are doing nothing to prevent them from returning. I am asking this question today in the name of Quebeckers and Canadians who are fed up with the government's answers. When will the Prime Minister do something to resolve the situation?
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely ridiculous because the Prime Minister publicly stated that Vice-Admiral Norman would likely be charged. How did he come to that conclusion? It is as if he knew something before the RCMP investigation was complete. The Prime Minister is playing a very dangerous game with Vice-Admiral Norman's life and that is precisely why it is important for the vice-admiral's defence team to see the evidence the Prime Minister is covering up. What is the Prime Minister hiding and who is he protecting?
Mr. Speaker, it does not do the job. The Liberals are making things up as they go.Yesterday, the government had nothing prepared, but it still called in the media for a series of press conferences to announce some possible future legislation. In Canada, 500,000 people, including a disproportionate number of racialized and indigenous people, have a criminal record for simple possession of 30 grams or less of cannabis.What does the government have to say to the tens of thousands of Canadians who are wondering why it does not want to expunge their criminal records, which, in our opinion, is the easiest and only option?
Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege.In response to our question yesterday, the Prime Minister misled the House by providing incorrect information. The interim leader of the Bloc Québécois asked him why the rush to legalize cannabis by October 17, and the Prime Minister replied: The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks. However, Quebec asked to push cannabis legislation back to July 1, 2019. The Quebec National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion to that effect on November 16, 2017. It reads: THAT the National Assembly ask the Federal Government to defer the cannabis legalization currently scheduled to come into force on 1 July 2018 until at least 1 July 2019. The Prime Minister's statement was misleading.In addition, after the National Assembly adopted this motion, it also unanimously agreed to send this motion to the Prime Minister and to all Liberal members of Parliament from Quebec.The Prime Minister therefore had knowledge of the resolution adopted by the Quebec National Assembly. The Prime Minister therefore knew when he was making that statement that it was incorrect.Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and that the Prime Minister made a statement that he knew to be incorrect, it seems clear to us that the Prime Minister intended to mislead the House. Just this morning we received the selected decisions from May 7, 2012, of the Speaker who preceded you. On page 31, it states: It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a Member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House. Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and incorrectas we have demonstratedand given that he knew, when he was making the statement, that it was misleading and incorrectas we have demonstratedwhat other intention could he have had apart from misleading the House by saying these falsehoods?I repeat the Prime Minister's reply: The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks. I would like to clarify that I raised my question of privilege at the earliest opportunity because the most recent information was obtained during yesterday's question period.Finally, should you consider it to be a prima facie question of privilege, I intend to move the following motion: That the House acknowledge that the Prime Minister misled the House and ask him to correct the answer to the question posed October 17, 2018, by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, and to apologize to the House.Thank you for your attention to this matter, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in the past couple of days, Canadians have emitted a great deal of cannabis smoke. However, that is nothing compared to the emissions from energy-intensive cannabis production. U.S. cannabis production emits as much carbon as three million cars.Has the government estimated the carbon footprint of Canadian cannabis production and what steps has the government taken to limit those emissions as it lights up this new industry?
Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. This prosecution is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which is a body that is independent from the Office of the Attorney General.As this matter is before the courts, we will not, it is not appropriate to, comment further.
Mr. Speaker, today all the ministers responsible for status of women meet in Yukon. Tuesday, I called again for Liberals to walk the talk, finally end violence against women and remove barriers to economic justice. Whether it is pay equity, child care or a national action plan, the Liberals have promised so much and delivered so little. Women fought in court to be called persons. They still fight in court for equality because the government will not legislate it.The time is up. When will the Liberals lock in equality?
Mr. Speaker, we know from Ontario and the gas plant scandal that when Liberals get into trouble, the first thing they do is destroy the evidence. In fact, Ontario Liberals in former premier Kathleen Wynne's office have been convicted and are going to jail for destroying records that implicated their government.Could the Prime Minister assure us that no one in his office or any other ministers' office has destroyed any records, recordings or other evidence related to the Mark Norman case?
Mr. Speaker, the minister of labour seems to have no idea how much she upset entrepreneurs, elected officials in Quebec City and Canadians when she made a mockery of my question on the labour shortage and the crisis we are in.Throughout BeauportLimoilou, Quebec and Canada, SMEs, economists and other stakeholders are pointing out that the labour shortage is a serious crisis. No one thinks this is good news. No one is laughing; quite the contrary. It is time for action.Does the Prime Minister plan to laugh about the labour shortage, or does he plan to do something about it?
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General.In her mandate letter, the Prime Minister asked her to ensure that the rights of Canadians are protected. One of the core rights of Canadians is the right to make full answer and defence in a criminal proceeding through the disclosure of evidence to the accused. The Liberals are denying Admiral Mark Norman his due process rights, as articulated in the charter and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.Will the minister, as our top justice official, commit her government to living up to the charter and release all evidence?
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, as a long-standing member of the House, the government does not comment or speculate on matters that are related to ongoing criminal trials. That is the long-standing convention of the House. It is important that the judicial system be free to conduct itself completely in an independent fashion. That is important for the prosecution. That is important for the defence.We will not comment on ongoing processes.
Mr. Speaker, we share the concern about disproportionate impacts. That is why we are advancing a no wait, no fee pardon system to remove the stigma of those impacts. The expungement argument the hon. gentleman makes by contrast, expungement has been used exclusively and only to deal with those cases where the law itself was inherently discriminatory and a fundamental violation of human rights, as for example when the Criminal Code attacked people simply for being gay.
Mr. Speaker, of course I do not think that is what Canadians want and that is why I said no such thing. Canada's position on human rights in general, very much including Saudi Arabia, is clear and firm. We took a clear and firm position in August, and I think that is something that Canadians can be proud of.When it comes to the case of Jamal Khashoggi, we led a G7 foreign ministers' statement, which came out on Tuesday, saying that those responsible must be held to account.
Mr. Speaker, on March 25 of this year, Mia and Liam Tarabichi went on what was supposed to be just a quick trip with their father to Seattle. Instead, he abducted them and fled to Beirut. He is now wanted on an international arrest warrant. The children's mother, Shelley Beyak, has tried to contact the Prime Minister and has received no answer. The Prime Minister can intervene and help bring these children home to their mom, but he refuses. Why?
Mr. Speaker, I was delighted today to announce that by December 31, we will have that ban on asbestos. This has been a long time coming. It is extremely important. We are committed to the health of Canadians and tackling pollution of all kinds, from pollution that causes climate change to pollution that is causing cancers like asbestos.I would like to quote the head of the Canadian Labour Congress, Hassan Yussuff: We're extremely happy that it meets our expectations in terms of what we wanted to see in the regulations.... especially [for] families who have lost their loved ones over the last many decades in this country to asbestos.
Mr. Speaker, we are obviously deeply concerned about the disproportionate impacts of Canada's old cannabis laws. That is why we have repealed them and we have replaced them with a new legal regime and strict regulations to better keep cannabis away from our kids and illegal profits away from organized crime. We are also advancing a new and far more effective pardon system for simple possession, with no waiting period before eligibility and no fee for the expressed purpose of getting rid of the stigma.
Mr. Speaker, it has become a habit for the Liberal government to govern not for all Canadians, but for Liberal cronies and certain interest groups.If sunny ways, as they liked to say, mean a cabinet that obstructs the courts in order to hide the real sacrificial lamb in this story, then the House of Commons has to hold cabinet to account.What is the government hiding?
Mr. Speaker, the government has agreed to discriminatory provisions under its new trade agreement, the USMCA. Private couriers delivering goods across the border receive a duty exemption that our Crown corporation, Canada Post, does not. This provision punishes rural areas, where Canada Post is the only game in town for delivering goods. Why did the government agree to this, and why are the Liberals undermining our Crown corporation and public services?
Mr. Speaker, again, the fact remains that we are taking real action to grow the economy. The Conservatives had 10 years and they had the worst growth since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, we have some of the lowest unemployment rates in 40 years. It is no surprise that as we are cutting taxes for small businesses, for Canadians, for families and stopping to send cheques to millionaires, our economy is one of the best in the G7. With a failed record like that, no wonder the Conservatives do not understand what success looks like.
Mr. Speaker, two years ago the government announced a ban on asbestos via four different ministers. They know who they are, yet today one of those four ministers is announcing watered down regulations that fly in the face of science, and the science is crystal clear. There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. Asbestos is the greatest industrial killer of all time, so why has the government chosen to leave Canadian workers and their families exposed to it?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that diversity is our strength. While we have much to celebrate, we know that there are still real challenges for many people in this country. Throughout our history, there have been people and communities, particularly indigenous peoples, who have experienced systemic racism, oppression and discrimination that has prevented them from fully participating in society. We know these experiences are a reality for many, and we can and must do better. This is why our government is engaging communities and experts to modernize our approach and to take action on this really important issue.
Mr. Speaker, we want every trial in Canada to be a fair trial and that is assured by the very system we have, where the prosecution is in the hands of the independent Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which is not directed by the government, and the defence is obviously in the hands of very capable defence counsel. They have the law before them. They have an independent court procedure before them. Canadians can be assured that justice will be done and it will be seen to be done.
Mr. Speaker, we have not offered to repatriate anyone. In fact, there is no deal with the Kurdish region at the present time, and there has not been. The fact of the matter is, we will pursue criminal prosecutions in every possible way we can. We have demonstrated that by actually doing it, where the previous government, while it talks a good game, failed to lay a single charge.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect high-quality services delivered in a timely and efficient way. Our government is committed to modernizing the Canada Revenue Agency's services to better reflect Canadians' expectations.Would the Minister of National Revenue update us on the measures she has taken to provide innovative digital services to taxpayers?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals love to take credit for things that they were forced to do. They know full well that was a flip-flop and they were only forced to return to that tax cut, which the Conservatives put in place and they tried to take away. Small businesses continue to struggle because of the Liberal government. The Liberals cut an advisory committee that ensured that each new regulation on small businesses would be offset by the removal of another piece of regulation. The Liberals simply continue to pile on new regulatory burdens. How can the Liberals say that they are easing burdens on small businesses when they are continuing to add more taxes and more red tape?
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago an American company decided to establish a large quarry in Nova Scotia. The quarry project was turned down by the federal and provincial governments because of environmental concerns. Then the American company sued the Canadian government for $500 million under the investor-state dispute settlement clause in the old NAFTA.Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us if the new USMCA will stop those frivolous lawsuits against Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, a body that acts independently of my role. As this matter is currently before the court, as the member opposite should know, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.
Mr. Speaker, the prosecution in this case is handled completely independently by the Public Prosecution Service. The defence is obviously in very capable hands of learned counsel who will, no doubt, pursue the appropriate laws and rules of court. I would add this: It is deemed improper for a Member, in posing a question, or a Minister in responding to a question, to comment on any matter that is sub judice. Those again are the words of the hon. Peter Peter van Loan, May 11, 2015.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals confused Canadians yesterday when they said they were moving forward with lowering interchange fees for small businesses, because their so-called agreement with Visa and Mastercard is entirely voluntary, and still only reduces rates by 0.1%. Small businesses in Canada were expecting more and are calling the Liberal plan extremely underwhelming.The NDP is calling for the government to cap merchant fees at 1% to help small businesses save up to $1 billion a year. Will the Liberals cap merchant fees at 1%, or will they continue to side with the big banks?
Mr. Speaker, we know we need to take action on climate change. We know we need to reduce emissions. We are committed to doing that across all sectors. We have a price on pollution. We are phasing out coal. We are making historic investments in public transportation. We are investing in clean technology companies. We will continue taking the actions that Canadians expect to protect our environment and grow our economy.
Mr. Speaker, we are just asking for the schedule of the President of the Treasury Board. Here is the inconvenient truth. I can tell the President of the Treasury Board that he has met with Irving 16 times since he became minister, and those are just the publicly disclosed meetings. It does not include emails, texts, or instant messaging. That is information that Vice-Admiral Norman needs to build his defence. Why will the Liberals not release this information? What are they trying to hide and who are they trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, I can say that I have a very clear understanding of the importance of the independence of the judicial system.As I have stated, this prosecution of Vice-Admiral Norman is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, a body that is independent from my office, the Office of the Attorney General. It would be entirely inappropriate to comment on this matter, because it is before the courts.
Mr. Speaker, we support our women and men in uniform in whatever they are sent to do. The Liberals told Canadians that they were sent to Mali on a peacekeeping mission, without debate, without a vote and where there was no peace to keep. The head of the UN has said that the situation in Mali has sharply deteriorated.How can Canadians be assured that our soldiers have the equipment and the manpower to defend themselves when the Liberals play politics with procurement?
Mr. Speaker, the safety of our women and men in uniform is our government's top priority. We always try to mitigate as best as possible the level of risk our people face while on operations. We will always ensure our troops have the right training and the right equipment to carry out the missions we send them on.
Mr. Speaker, for too long, our country's trade with the United States through the Detroit-Windsor corridor has been limited by a lack of capacity. With only one bridge, which is privately owned, the flow of people and goods has not been as efficient as it could and should be. My constituents and all southern Ontarians know this first-hand. Can the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities please update this House on the steps the government has taken to change this?
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Shelley Beyak's children were abducted by their father and taken to Beirut. On September 14, the Prime Minister received a petition of over 930 names of Canadians, adding their voices to that of Shelley Beyak, imploring the Prime Minister to personally intervene and bring these children home. If you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent to table this document.
Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see the opposition members applaud our success as a government. We have ensured that we have the lowest rate of unemployment. Since the 1970s, we have added over 600,000 jobs. In fact, small and medium-sized businesses have added 600,000 jobs to our economy. Now we have a new problem of people who are looking for employees. That is why we are working so hard to make sure that every Canadian has that first shot at success, whether it is small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec, or in Ontario, or in Alberta or any of the other provinces or territories, so they have an opportunity to develop the skills they need to take advantage of that work.
Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to, but I want to start by thanking the member for CumberlandColchester for his wisdom and the outstanding advice he gave me personally during the negotiations, especially on chapter 19.He asks an excellent question. ISDS is now removed from the new trade agreement between Canada and the United States. That will save Canada from frivolous lawsuits like the one the member mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say this prosecution is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which operates independently from my office. As this matter is currently before the court, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment further.
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of taxation, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have been very clear. However, we also know that the Broadcasting Act has not been reviewed since before the Internet came into our homes. The Conservatives did nothing for 10 long years, so we have taken action. We have appointed a panel of experts to help us modernize this act, and our starting point is clear. All players that participate in the system must contribute to the system. There will be no free rides.
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking for any questioning of the independent system. What we are asking for is for the government, whose responsibility it is, to provide the documents to be able to have the evidence filed. The prosecution of Vice-Admiral Norman has been politically motivated from the start. The Prime Minister is hiding evidence and refuses to release it, jeopardizing his right to a fair trial. The evidence will reveal the truth.Who is the Prime Minister protecting? What is he hiding? If he has nothing to hide, why will he not release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, since taking office, our government has worked exclusively on making sure EI was more accessible, more fair and delivered to people in a timely way so that their benefits were received to support them as they moved between jobs. We have been working on EI reform, as I said, to make sure that we have more generous benefits as well to make sure that seasonal gaps for people in seasonal industries are taken care of and to make sure that maternity leave and sick leave are also addressed. EI reform continues to be one of our priorities. We continue to move forward on this. We received the report and will be reporting back on further developments as they are developed.
Mr. Speaker, Vice-Admiral Norman cannot defend himself since the Prime Minister refuses to give him access to evidence for his defence. This is amateur theatre hour.In Canada, justice is not a one-way street. Every Canadian has rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Mr. Norman has the right to a fair trial.Can the Prime Minister guarantee that Vice-Admiral Norman will be able to defend himself and that he will release all the necessary evidence to the defence?
Mr. Speaker, the independent judicial system requires evidence. It is the government that is responsible for producing that evidence.The Prime Minister promised Canadians a transparent, accountable and open government, but that is not what the Liberals have delivered. Instead, the Liberals are using political games to hide the truth. In the case of Vice-Admiral Norman, the Liberals are refusing to release critical evidence central to his defence.Can the Prime Minister honour his commitment to be open and transparent, honour our judicial system and the rule of law, and release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking the minister anything about the case. We are asking about the activities within the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices. It is very troubling that the minister refuses to answer whether the government has destroyed any records relevant to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's case. Maybe he was not expecting my question, so I will ask him again. This is not about the case. This is about evidence, recordings and data that the Prime Minister's Office and other ministers have access to. Could we be assured none of it has been destroyed?
Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition is inviting a commentary upon a judicial proceeding which is outstanding. That kind of commentary on the floor of the House of Commons is not permitted. It is obviously within the purview of the official opposition to try to politicize this process if it wishes, but the fact of the matter is that the rules of the House of Commons, as expressed in the House of Commons Compendium of Procedure, urges all members to guard against that by not violating the sub judice principle.
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the Prime Minister is the first prime minister to have broken the law with respect to certain regulations. This is serious. Vice-Admiral Mark Norman served Canada with unwavering commitment. Now he has been charged and is going to trial. All Canadians have a right to a fair defence. This requires access to all evidence. The Prime Minister has evidence pertaining to this case.Does he want the vice-admiral to have a fair trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House and the laws of Canada need to be applied with complete impartiality and to the appropriate conclusions that are determined not by politics, but by an independent judicial process. The Public Prosecution Service is in charge of the prosecution. Eminent legal counsel is in charge of the defence. They undoubtedly will make sure that justice is done.
Mr. Speaker, it is just the contrary. It is our government that is actually delivering for small businesses and entrepreneurs across the country. We have actually lowered the small business tax rate from 11% going 9%. We have not just talked about it, we are doing it. Because of that, over the last six quarters we have seen investment in business in Canada grow by 8%. That is because the actions we are taking are real. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.I want to point out once again that the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi is very troubling. Canada has made that very clear. That is the message that I sent to the Saudi Arabian foreign minister. I also initiated a discussion on the subject with my counterparts in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States.We join our partners in calling for a thorough investigation to identify those responsible.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has spoken out very clearly about human rights and everyone knows it. That definitely includes Saudi Arabia, as everyone saw this summer.With regard to Jamal Khashoggi, we are working closely with our G7 allies. We all spoke on Tuesday and we are all saying that a thorough and transparent investigation is needed to bring those responsible to justice.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.As we told our G7 partners on Tuesday, we are very concerned about the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. As we told our partners in the G7, of which Canada currently holds the presidency, all those responsible for this situation must be held to account. It is very important. We support the calls for a thorough and transparent investigation into these serious allegations.
Mr. Speaker, years ago, a Canadian prime minister acted with the dignity befitting his position, and the minister knows him quite well. In 2004, the Right Hon. Paul Martin, a Liberal prime minister, released evidence connected to the sponsorship scandal. Why did he do this? He did it because it was in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.Will the Prime Minister rise in the House to clearly state that he will act with the dignity befitting his position and release the evidence pertaining to the trial of a Canadian vice-admiral?
Mr. Speaker, every member of the House can be assured that this government follows the law meticulously.
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of our economy. That is why our government has worked with credit card companies so that they would lower the rates for small businesses.We are very proud of the work we have been doing. This is going to save small businesses $7,500 a year. We will always work hard for small businesses, and we will keep doing that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for London North Centre for his great question and his good work on behalf of all southern Ontarians.After many years of discussion and planning, our government is proud to have officially broken ground on the Gordie Howe International Bridge project. With 30% of all Canada-U.S. trade flowing across this corridor each and every single day, it is vital to have two crossings and to finally have highway-to-highway connectivity.The Gordie Howe International Bridge will be a great achievement for Canada and something all members of this House should be very proud of.
Mr. Speaker, let me refer to a document called The House of Commons Compendium of Procedure, which is in fact prepared by the distinguished Table Officers immediately before us. That compendium says this, Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters actively before the courts or under judicial consideration in order to guard those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry from any undue influence. Those are the rules of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, we know that when we invest in women, we strengthen the economy for everyone. That is why we are making Status of Women Canada a full department; why we have invested $40 billion in a national housing strategy, 25% of which will go toward women and their families; dedicated $7.5 billion for child care; created a new parental sharing benefit; and are supporting women entrepreneurs and women in the trades. Investing in gender equality is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote: Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters before the courts, or under judicial consideration, in order to protect those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry against any undue influence through the discussion of the case. This practice is referred to as the sub judice convention and it applies to debate, statements and Question Period. Those are the words of the hon. Peter Van Loan, May 11, 2015.
Mr. Speaker, the conclusion of the modernized NAFTA was a major accomplishment for Canada, a major accomplishment for Canadian businesses and for Canadian workers. One of the great achievements in this agreement was to keep de minimis levels low. That is something Canadian small businesses asked us to do. That is something we achieved, and we are glad we were able to do so.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-83, on administrative segregation. This debate will continue tomorrow.Next Monday, October 22, shall be an allotted day. Also, priority will be given to report stage and third reading debate of Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, as soon as it is reported back to the House. Finally, I would like to remind everybody that next Thursday, pursuant to the order made earlier this week, the House will have Wednesday sitting hours to allow for the address in the House at 10:30 a.m. by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister to comment on the details of the case. I am not asking the minister to comment on the contents of the document. It is shocking that our top justice official will not commit to just releasing the documents. All we are asking is for an affirmation from Canada's top justice official that she will ensure that Admiral Mark Norman's charter rights to be able to defend himself are respected by their releasing the documents, not what is in them.Will she release the documents, or what is she hiding?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from BrossardSaint-Lambert for her excellent question. Our government committed to ensuring that Canadians have access to secure and convenient online electronic tax filing services, and that is exactly what we are doing.I am proud to announce that the Canada Revenue Agency and Tax-Filer Empowerment Canada have signed a joint digital services collaboration plan. The plan will enable us to improve our services, especially for people in remote regions, by providing innovative digital services that are easier to use.
Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of that situation. Our hearts go out to the mother and her children. We are providing consular services. Of course we are bound by the Privacy Act, so I am not permitted to say anything further.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the opposition members in their political enthusiasm are obviously inviting the government and ministers of the government to comment on matters that are presently before the courts. They may try to camouflage that reality, but that is in fact the case, and we have the procedural documents produced by the table officers of the House, as well as former distinguished members of the House like Mr. Van Loan, saying that is improper and outside the rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to answer questions about Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's case 24 times. The Prime Minister refused to explain why he is obstructing justice and he refuses to hand over the evidence that Vice-Admiral Norman needs to defend himself.On Tuesday, the President of the Treasury Board said that his only contact with Irving was to have been copied on a letter. Will the President of the Treasury Board tell the House how many times he has met with representatives from Irving?
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government, and I hope the answer is better than the ones we got in question period.Can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tell us what the government has planned for the rest of this week and next week?
Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental tenets of democracy and a fair justice system is access to the truth. The Prime Minister and his cabinet are refusing to release evidence to Vice-Admiral Norman's defence team. As a result, the House must act and hold cabinet and the Prime Minister to account for this cover-up.The Prime Minister claims he respects the court. If he does, why will he not release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, the confusion inherent in that question demonstrates exactly why this House has a rule and a convention that says that matters of this nature are dealt with through proper independent legal procedures and not through the political process in the House.That is why Minister Van Loan, at the time, was absolutely correct in saying a Minister in responding to a question shall not comment on any matter that is sub judice.
Mr. Speaker, in order for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman to get a fair trial, his defence team has requested and has the right to evidence relevant to his case. The evidence includes recordings of cabinet meetings where the shipbuilding contract was discussed. We know that cabinet meetings are recorded and we know that the Prime Minister has the full legal authority to release those recordings. Will he do so and if not, what is he hiding?
Mr. Speaker, there are judicial procedures quite independent of the House that deal with the matters that are referred to in that question. The point is, in the rules of the House and in the conventions of the House, members are expected not to ask questions and ministers are expected not to give answers that comment directly or indirectly on an outstanding legal procedure, and we will honour that convention.
Most negative speeches
Mr. Speaker, we are just asking for the schedule of the President of the Treasury Board. Here is the inconvenient truth. I can tell the President of the Treasury Board that he has met with Irving 16 times since he became minister, and those are just the publicly disclosed meetings. It does not include emails, texts, or instant messaging. That is information that Vice-Admiral Norman needs to build his defence. Why will the Liberals not release this information? What are they trying to hide and who are they trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, it does not do the job. The Liberals are making things up as they go.Yesterday, the government had nothing prepared, but it still called in the media for a series of press conferences to announce some possible future legislation. In Canada, 500,000 people, including a disproportionate number of racialized and indigenous people, have a criminal record for simple possession of 30 grams or less of cannabis.What does the government have to say to the tens of thousands of Canadians who are wondering why it does not want to expunge their criminal records, which, in our opinion, is the easiest and only option?
Mr. Speaker, we support our women and men in uniform in whatever they are sent to do. The Liberals told Canadians that they were sent to Mali on a peacekeeping mission, without debate, without a vote and where there was no peace to keep. The head of the UN has said that the situation in Mali has sharply deteriorated.How can Canadians be assured that our soldiers have the equipment and the manpower to defend themselves when the Liberals play politics with procurement?
Mr. Speaker, we know from Ontario and the gas plant scandal that when Liberals get into trouble, the first thing they do is destroy the evidence. In fact, Ontario Liberals in former premier Kathleen Wynne's office have been convicted and are going to jail for destroying records that implicated their government.Could the Prime Minister assure us that no one in his office or any other ministers' office has destroyed any records, recordings or other evidence related to the Mark Norman case?
Mr. Speaker, we have not offered to repatriate anyone. In fact, there is no deal with the Kurdish region at the present time, and there has not been. The fact of the matter is, we will pursue criminal prosecutions in every possible way we can. We have demonstrated that by actually doing it, where the previous government, while it talks a good game, failed to lay a single charge.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals confused Canadians yesterday when they said they were moving forward with lowering interchange fees for small businesses, because their so-called agreement with Visa and Mastercard is entirely voluntary, and still only reduces rates by 0.1%. Small businesses in Canada were expecting more and are calling the Liberal plan extremely underwhelming.The NDP is calling for the government to cap merchant fees at 1% to help small businesses save up to $1 billion a year. Will the Liberals cap merchant fees at 1%, or will they continue to side with the big banks?
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely ridiculous because the Prime Minister publicly stated that Vice-Admiral Norman would likely be charged. How did he come to that conclusion? It is as if he knew something before the RCMP investigation was complete. The Prime Minister is playing a very dangerous game with Vice-Admiral Norman's life and that is precisely why it is important for the vice-admiral's defence team to see the evidence the Prime Minister is covering up. What is the Prime Minister hiding and who is he protecting?
Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. This prosecution is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which is a body that is independent from the Office of the Attorney General.As this matter is before the courts, we will not, it is not appropriate to, comment further.
Mr. Speaker, like most Liberals, the minister has always accused the previous government of cutting the budget. However, they could take back $10 million from Omar Khadr and reinvest it so they could deal with the others over there.The Prime Minister knows full well that leaving Canada to participate in terrorist activities is a Criminal Code offence. Some men and women want to return to Canada after fighting against our allies, and the Liberals are doing nothing to prevent them from returning. I am asking this question today in the name of Quebeckers and Canadians who are fed up with the government's answers. When will the Prime Minister do something to resolve the situation?
Mr. Speaker, it is just the contrary. It is our government that is actually delivering for small businesses and entrepreneurs across the country. We have actually lowered the small business tax rate from 11% going 9%. We have not just talked about it, we are doing it. Because of that, over the last six quarters we have seen investment in business in Canada grow by 8%. That is because the actions we are taking are real. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that.
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of our economy. That is why our government has worked with credit card companies so that they would lower the rates for small businesses.We are very proud of the work we have been doing. This is going to save small businesses $7,500 a year. We will always work hard for small businesses, and we will keep doing that.
Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for this. When it comes to asking Web giants to pay their fair share, it seems that common sense and tax fairness go out the window. The Minister of Finance expects an international consensus. I have news for him. We are the only idiots in the G7 who are not taxing Netflix. Worse still, France is going to make Netflix pay taxes, collect sales tax and guarantee 30% local content. Meanwhile, in Canada, everything is cool for Netflix and Google. There are no taxes, no sales tax, no quotas. Nothing.The Minister of Canadian Heritage could take a lesson from the Robert Charlebois song: Between two joints, you could do something.
Mr. Speaker, those who have abandoned Canadian democracy to travel to a war zone and engage with vicious terrorists need to take the full responsibility for their criminal conduct. Our intelligence, security and police agencies will investigate terrorists by all possible means with the absolute goal to charge and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Thus far, under our government, we have charged four, convicted two. Two are outstanding. Under the previous government, there were no such charges.
Mr. Speaker, let me refer to a document called The House of Commons Compendium of Procedure, which is in fact prepared by the distinguished Table Officers immediately before us. That compendium says this, Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters actively before the courts or under judicial consideration in order to guard those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry from any undue influence. Those are the rules of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, the government has agreed to discriminatory provisions under its new trade agreement, the USMCA. Private couriers delivering goods across the border receive a duty exemption that our Crown corporation, Canada Post, does not. This provision punishes rural areas, where Canada Post is the only game in town for delivering goods. Why did the government agree to this, and why are the Liberals undermining our Crown corporation and public services?
Mr. Speaker, by all accounts, it seems that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed at the behest of Saudi Arabia at its consulate in Istanbul. The details being reported in Turkish newspapers are appallingly grisly.We hope there will be a UN investigation into this in order to identify those who are really responsible for this atrocity.When those responsible are identified, will the government be prepared to enforce the Magnitsky law?
Mr. Speaker, for too long, our country's trade with the United States through the Detroit-Windsor corridor has been limited by a lack of capacity. With only one bridge, which is privately owned, the flow of people and goods has not been as efficient as it could and should be. My constituents and all southern Ontarians know this first-hand. Can the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities please update this House on the steps the government has taken to change this?
Mr. Speaker, sadly, I get the impression that the Liberals and the Conservatives are cut from the same cloth. Stephen Harper stood before the G20 and announced with a straight face that Canada had no history of colonialism. Now, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism claims that there is no racism in Canada. Good grief.Does he realize how many people he just insulted?Allow me to give the minister an opportunity to admit he was wrong, to admit he made a mistake, that he screwed up, and say I'm sorry.
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the cornerstone of the Canadian economy. However, a recent World Economic Forum competitiveness report found that Canadian businesses already faced a heavy regulatory burden and inefficient bureaucracy. What the Liberals therefore did, besides increasing the regulatory burden, was they brought in onerous new small business tax rules, a carbon tax on everything and payroll tax hikes, and the Prime Minister calls them wealthy tax cheats. Why do the Liberals continue to attack our hard-working local small business owners?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Prime Minister cares about ISIS terrorists, but on this side of the House, we condemn their terrible acts and take the threat they pose seriously.Like rats fleeing a sinking ship, these traitors are returning to Canada and trying to make us believe that they are victims.Will the Prime Minister put an end to this circus and take meaningful action against these cowards to ensure that they face the full force of the law if they return to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, again, the fact remains that we are taking real action to grow the economy. The Conservatives had 10 years and they had the worst growth since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, we have some of the lowest unemployment rates in 40 years. It is no surprise that as we are cutting taxes for small businesses, for Canadians, for families and stopping to send cheques to millionaires, our economy is one of the best in the G7. With a failed record like that, no wonder the Conservatives do not understand what success looks like.
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago an American company decided to establish a large quarry in Nova Scotia. The quarry project was turned down by the federal and provincial governments because of environmental concerns. Then the American company sued the Canadian government for $500 million under the investor-state dispute settlement clause in the old NAFTA.Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us if the new USMCA will stop those frivolous lawsuits against Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, every member of the House can be assured that this government follows the law meticulously.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say this prosecution is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which operates independently from my office. As this matter is currently before the court, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment further.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote: Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters before the courts, or under judicial consideration, in order to protect those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry against any undue influence through the discussion of the case. This practice is referred to as the sub judice convention and it applies to debate, statements and Question Period. Those are the words of the hon. Peter Van Loan, May 11, 2015.
Mr. Speaker, the prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, a body that acts independently of my role. As this matter is currently before the court, as the member opposite should know, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the opposition members in their political enthusiasm are obviously inviting the government and ministers of the government to comment on matters that are presently before the courts. They may try to camouflage that reality, but that is in fact the case, and we have the procedural documents produced by the table officers of the House, as well as former distinguished members of the House like Mr. Van Loan, saying that is improper and outside the rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Shelley Beyak's children were abducted by their father and taken to Beirut. On September 14, the Prime Minister received a petition of over 930 names of Canadians, adding their voices to that of Shelley Beyak, imploring the Prime Minister to personally intervene and bring these children home. If you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent to table this document.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-83, on administrative segregation. This debate will continue tomorrow.Next Monday, October 22, shall be an allotted day. Also, priority will be given to report stage and third reading debate of Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, as soon as it is reported back to the House. Finally, I would like to remind everybody that next Thursday, pursuant to the order made earlier this week, the House will have Wednesday sitting hours to allow for the address in the House at 10:30 a.m. by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
Mr. Speaker, we share the concern about disproportionate impacts. That is why we are advancing a no wait, no fee pardon system to remove the stigma of those impacts. The expungement argument the hon. gentleman makes by contrast, expungement has been used exclusively and only to deal with those cases where the law itself was inherently discriminatory and a fundamental violation of human rights, as for example when the Criminal Code attacked people simply for being gay.
Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege.In response to our question yesterday, the Prime Minister misled the House by providing incorrect information. The interim leader of the Bloc Québécois asked him why the rush to legalize cannabis by October 17, and the Prime Minister replied: The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks. However, Quebec asked to push cannabis legislation back to July 1, 2019. The Quebec National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion to that effect on November 16, 2017. It reads: THAT the National Assembly ask the Federal Government to defer the cannabis legalization currently scheduled to come into force on 1 July 2018 until at least 1 July 2019. The Prime Minister's statement was misleading.In addition, after the National Assembly adopted this motion, it also unanimously agreed to send this motion to the Prime Minister and to all Liberal members of Parliament from Quebec.The Prime Minister therefore had knowledge of the resolution adopted by the Quebec National Assembly. The Prime Minister therefore knew when he was making that statement that it was incorrect.Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and that the Prime Minister made a statement that he knew to be incorrect, it seems clear to us that the Prime Minister intended to mislead the House. Just this morning we received the selected decisions from May 7, 2012, of the Speaker who preceded you. On page 31, it states: It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a Member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House. Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and incorrectas we have demonstratedand given that he knew, when he was making the statement, that it was misleading and incorrectas we have demonstratedwhat other intention could he have had apart from misleading the House by saying these falsehoods?I repeat the Prime Minister's reply: The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks. I would like to clarify that I raised my question of privilege at the earliest opportunity because the most recent information was obtained during yesterday's question period.Finally, should you consider it to be a prima facie question of privilege, I intend to move the following motion: That the House acknowledge that the Prime Minister misled the House and ask him to correct the answer to the question posed October 17, 2018, by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, and to apologize to the House.Thank you for your attention to this matter, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of taxation, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have been very clear. However, we also know that the Broadcasting Act has not been reviewed since before the Internet came into our homes. The Conservatives did nothing for 10 long years, so we have taken action. We have appointed a panel of experts to help us modernize this act, and our starting point is clear. All players that participate in the system must contribute to the system. There will be no free rides.
Mr. Speaker, the independent judicial system requires evidence. It is the government that is responsible for producing that evidence.The Prime Minister promised Canadians a transparent, accountable and open government, but that is not what the Liberals have delivered. Instead, the Liberals are using political games to hide the truth. In the case of Vice-Admiral Norman, the Liberals are refusing to release critical evidence central to his defence.Can the Prime Minister honour his commitment to be open and transparent, honour our judicial system and the rule of law, and release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, I can say that I have a very clear understanding of the importance of the independence of the judicial system.As I have stated, this prosecution of Vice-Admiral Norman is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, a body that is independent from my office, the Office of the Attorney General. It would be entirely inappropriate to comment on this matter, because it is before the courts.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.I want to point out once again that the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi is very troubling. Canada has made that very clear. That is the message that I sent to the Saudi Arabian foreign minister. I also initiated a discussion on the subject with my counterparts in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States.We join our partners in calling for a thorough investigation to identify those responsible.
Mr. Speaker, the reported murder of Jamal Khashoggi is the latest in a series of horrible acts by Saudi Arabia. The war in Yemen is bringing famine to millions and is rife with war crimes. Attacks on journalism, democracy and basic human rights should trigger consequences, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs this morning said that honouring Canada's arms deal with Saudi Arabia was more important than honouring human rights.Does the minister really think that is what Canadians want?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals love to take credit for things that they were forced to do. They know full well that was a flip-flop and they were only forced to return to that tax cut, which the Conservatives put in place and they tried to take away. Small businesses continue to struggle because of the Liberal government. The Liberals cut an advisory committee that ensured that each new regulation on small businesses would be offset by the removal of another piece of regulation. The Liberals simply continue to pile on new regulatory burdens. How can the Liberals say that they are easing burdens on small businesses when they are continuing to add more taxes and more red tape?
Mr. Speaker, an estimated 500,000 Canadians have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis, which is now a perfectly legal substance. The Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday that a disproportionate number of marginalized people lived with the stigma of a criminal record, and pledged that those records would not follow them for the rest of their lives. However, they will. A pardon is like a band-aid covering a wound; it does not make it disappear.When will the government finally understand that the best solution, the only solution, is expungement?
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. We need to draw the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable. The murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is the last, blood-soaked straw. By selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Canada is supporting this murderous regime and selling its soul.Will the government suspend its contracts with Saudi Arabia or will it remain complicit?
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my first answer, we will investigate through our police and security agencies by all possible means, with the absolute determination to lay charges and to prosecute in every case. In fact, in the cases that have been dealt with so far, there have been four charges laid by this government, two convictions obtained, and two others are in the process. By contrast, under the previous government, with respect to these terrorist returnees, not a single charge was laid by the Harper government.
Mr. Speaker, a report commissioned by the Liberals calls for a complete overhaul of the EI system. What a surprise. The Liberals and Conservatives ransacked the EI program, leaving holes in the social safety net for people who are unemployed or sick. Now that their own report has confirmed what we have been saying for years, when will the minister finally do a complete overhaul of the EI program?
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that Canadians want to know that their government will protect them and put their safety first. However, the reality is the Liberals have given $10.5 million to a terrorist, and they proactively welcome and facilitate terrorists coming back to Canada. That is a fact. Canadians actually want to know that terrorists will end up in jail, not walking on our streets and living in our communities. Can the Liberals assure Canadians that terrorists will end up behind bars if the Liberals bring them back to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, for the third time, I will say to the House and say to all Canadians, those who have left the comfortable confines of Canadian democracy to travel overseas and associate themselves with a terrorist cause will be pursued by Canadian justice. We will investigate by every means possible, in concert with our allies in the Five Eyes and the G7, to lay charges and to prosecute. We have already done that in four cases. We will continue to do it in every possible case, whereas they did nothing.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has spoken out very clearly about human rights and everyone knows it. That definitely includes Saudi Arabia, as everyone saw this summer.With regard to Jamal Khashoggi, we are working closely with our G7 allies. We all spoke on Tuesday and we are all saying that a thorough and transparent investigation is needed to bring those responsible to justice.
Mr. Speaker, today all the ministers responsible for status of women meet in Yukon. Tuesday, I called again for Liberals to walk the talk, finally end violence against women and remove barriers to economic justice. Whether it is pay equity, child care or a national action plan, the Liberals have promised so much and delivered so little. Women fought in court to be called persons. They still fight in court for equality because the government will not legislate it.The time is up. When will the Liberals lock in equality?
Mr. Speaker, of course I do not think that is what Canadians want and that is why I said no such thing. Canada's position on human rights in general, very much including Saudi Arabia, is clear and firm. We took a clear and firm position in August, and I think that is something that Canadians can be proud of.When it comes to the case of Jamal Khashoggi, we led a G7 foreign ministers' statement, which came out on Tuesday, saying that those responsible must be held to account.
Mr. Speaker, on March 25 of this year, Mia and Liam Tarabichi went on what was supposed to be just a quick trip with their father to Seattle. Instead, he abducted them and fled to Beirut. He is now wanted on an international arrest warrant. The children's mother, Shelley Beyak, has tried to contact the Prime Minister and has received no answer. The Prime Minister can intervene and help bring these children home to their mom, but he refuses. Why?
Mr. Speaker, there are judicial procedures quite independent of the House that deal with the matters that are referred to in that question. The point is, in the rules of the House and in the conventions of the House, members are expected not to ask questions and ministers are expected not to give answers that comment directly or indirectly on an outstanding legal procedure, and we will honour that convention.
Mr. Speaker, the confusion inherent in that question demonstrates exactly why this House has a rule and a convention that says that matters of this nature are dealt with through proper independent legal procedures and not through the political process in the House.That is why Minister Van Loan, at the time, was absolutely correct in saying a Minister in responding to a question shall not comment on any matter that is sub judice.
Mr. Speaker, the contrast is that terrorists have been emboldened by the government. Canadians are rightly concerned when they hear about ISIS terrorists returning to Canada and that they may live in their neighbourhoods. Any persons who join a terrorist organization to fight against Canada and its allies are criminals and threats to our safety. When will the government get serious about keeping terrorists out of Canada and ensure that those returning will face the full extent of the law?
Mr. Speaker, we know we need to take action on climate change. We know we need to reduce emissions. We are committed to doing that across all sectors. We have a price on pollution. We are phasing out coal. We are making historic investments in public transportation. We are investing in clean technology companies. We will continue taking the actions that Canadians expect to protect our environment and grow our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.As we told our G7 partners on Tuesday, we are very concerned about the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. As we told our partners in the G7, of which Canada currently holds the presidency, all those responsible for this situation must be held to account. It is very important. We support the calls for a thorough and transparent investigation into these serious allegations.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General.In her mandate letter, the Prime Minister asked her to ensure that the rights of Canadians are protected. One of the core rights of Canadians is the right to make full answer and defence in a criminal proceeding through the disclosure of evidence to the accused. The Liberals are denying Admiral Mark Norman his due process rights, as articulated in the charter and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.Will the minister, as our top justice official, commit her government to living up to the charter and release all evidence?
Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister to comment on the details of the case. I am not asking the minister to comment on the contents of the document. It is shocking that our top justice official will not commit to just releasing the documents. All we are asking is for an affirmation from Canada's top justice official that she will ensure that Admiral Mark Norman's charter rights to be able to defend himself are respected by their releasing the documents, not what is in them.Will she release the documents, or what is she hiding?
Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of that situation. Our hearts go out to the mother and her children. We are providing consular services. Of course we are bound by the Privacy Act, so I am not permitted to say anything further.
Mr. Speaker, the minister of labour seems to have no idea how much she upset entrepreneurs, elected officials in Quebec City and Canadians when she made a mockery of my question on the labour shortage and the crisis we are in.Throughout BeauportLimoilou, Quebec and Canada, SMEs, economists and other stakeholders are pointing out that the labour shortage is a serious crisis. No one thinks this is good news. No one is laughing; quite the contrary. It is time for action.Does the Prime Minister plan to laugh about the labour shortage, or does he plan to do something about it?
Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see the opposition members applaud our success as a government. We have ensured that we have the lowest rate of unemployment. Since the 1970s, we have added over 600,000 jobs. In fact, small and medium-sized businesses have added 600,000 jobs to our economy. Now we have a new problem of people who are looking for employees. That is why we are working so hard to make sure that every Canadian has that first shot at success, whether it is small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec, or in Ontario, or in Alberta or any of the other provinces or territories, so they have an opportunity to develop the skills they need to take advantage of that work.
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking the minister anything about the case. We are asking about the activities within the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices. It is very troubling that the minister refuses to answer whether the government has destroyed any records relevant to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's case. Maybe he was not expecting my question, so I will ask him again. This is not about the case. This is about evidence, recordings and data that the Prime Minister's Office and other ministers have access to. Could we be assured none of it has been destroyed?
Mr. Speaker, we are obviously deeply concerned about the disproportionate impacts of Canada's old cannabis laws. That is why we have repealed them and we have replaced them with a new legal regime and strict regulations to better keep cannabis away from our kids and illegal profits away from organized crime. We are also advancing a new and far more effective pardon system for simple possession, with no waiting period before eligibility and no fee for the expressed purpose of getting rid of the stigma.
Mr. Speaker, we want every trial in Canada to be a fair trial and that is assured by the very system we have, where the prosecution is in the hands of the independent Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which is not directed by the government, and the defence is obviously in the hands of very capable defence counsel. They have the law before them. They have an independent court procedure before them. Canadians can be assured that justice will be done and it will be seen to be done.
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, as a long-standing member of the House, the government does not comment or speculate on matters that are related to ongoing criminal trials. That is the long-standing convention of the House. It is important that the judicial system be free to conduct itself completely in an independent fashion. That is important for the prosecution. That is important for the defence.We will not comment on ongoing processes.
Mr. Speaker, it has become a habit for the Liberal government to govern not for all Canadians, but for Liberal cronies and certain interest groups.If sunny ways, as they liked to say, mean a cabinet that obstructs the courts in order to hide the real sacrificial lamb in this story, then the House of Commons has to hold cabinet to account.What is the government hiding?
Mr. Speaker, the prosecution in this case is handled completely independently by the Public Prosecution Service. The defence is obviously in very capable hands of learned counsel who will, no doubt, pursue the appropriate laws and rules of court. I would add this: It is deemed improper for a Member, in posing a question, or a Minister in responding to a question, to comment on any matter that is sub judice. Those again are the words of the hon. Peter Peter van Loan, May 11, 2015.
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the Prime Minister is the first prime minister to have broken the law with respect to certain regulations. This is serious. Vice-Admiral Mark Norman served Canada with unwavering commitment. Now he has been charged and is going to trial. All Canadians have a right to a fair defence. This requires access to all evidence. The Prime Minister has evidence pertaining to this case.Does he want the vice-admiral to have a fair trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, we know that when we invest in women, we strengthen the economy for everyone. That is why we are making Status of Women Canada a full department; why we have invested $40 billion in a national housing strategy, 25% of which will go toward women and their families; dedicated $7.5 billion for child care; created a new parental sharing benefit; and are supporting women entrepreneurs and women in the trades. Investing in gender equality is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House and the laws of Canada need to be applied with complete impartiality and to the appropriate conclusions that are determined not by politics, but by an independent judicial process. The Public Prosecution Service is in charge of the prosecution. Eminent legal counsel is in charge of the defence. They undoubtedly will make sure that justice is done.
Mr. Speaker, in the past couple of days, Canadians have emitted a great deal of cannabis smoke. However, that is nothing compared to the emissions from energy-intensive cannabis production. U.S. cannabis production emits as much carbon as three million cars.Has the government estimated the carbon footprint of Canadian cannabis production and what steps has the government taken to limit those emissions as it lights up this new industry?
Mr. Speaker, the conclusion of the modernized NAFTA was a major accomplishment for Canada, a major accomplishment for Canadian businesses and for Canadian workers. One of the great achievements in this agreement was to keep de minimis levels low. That is something Canadian small businesses asked us to do. That is something we achieved, and we are glad we were able to do so.
Mr. Speaker, Vice-Admiral Norman cannot defend himself since the Prime Minister refuses to give him access to evidence for his defence. This is amateur theatre hour.In Canada, justice is not a one-way street. Every Canadian has rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Mr. Norman has the right to a fair trial.Can the Prime Minister guarantee that Vice-Admiral Norman will be able to defend himself and that he will release all the necessary evidence to the defence?
Mr. Speaker, two years ago the government announced a ban on asbestos via four different ministers. They know who they are, yet today one of those four ministers is announcing watered down regulations that fly in the face of science, and the science is crystal clear. There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. Asbestos is the greatest industrial killer of all time, so why has the government chosen to leave Canadian workers and their families exposed to it?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to answer questions about Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's case 24 times. The Prime Minister refused to explain why he is obstructing justice and he refuses to hand over the evidence that Vice-Admiral Norman needs to defend himself.On Tuesday, the President of the Treasury Board said that his only contact with Irving was to have been copied on a letter. Will the President of the Treasury Board tell the House how many times he has met with representatives from Irving?
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government, and I hope the answer is better than the ones we got in question period.Can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tell us what the government has planned for the rest of this week and next week?
Mr. Speaker, this government, which is all about promoting peace and love and singing Kumbaya, is quick to abandon its grand principles of universal peace and love when it comes to taking action against tyranny. There will not be any sanctions against Saudi Arabia for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, no sir. The government is looking the other way. I do not call that diplomacy. I call that complicity.Is the Prime Minister aware that, by selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, he is complicit with this murderous regime?
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking for any questioning of the independent system. What we are asking for is for the government, whose responsibility it is, to provide the documents to be able to have the evidence filed. The prosecution of Vice-Admiral Norman has been politically motivated from the start. The Prime Minister is hiding evidence and refuses to release it, jeopardizing his right to a fair trial. The evidence will reveal the truth.Who is the Prime Minister protecting? What is he hiding? If he has nothing to hide, why will he not release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, since taking office, our government has worked exclusively on making sure EI was more accessible, more fair and delivered to people in a timely way so that their benefits were received to support them as they moved between jobs. We have been working on EI reform, as I said, to make sure that we have more generous benefits as well to make sure that seasonal gaps for people in seasonal industries are taken care of and to make sure that maternity leave and sick leave are also addressed. EI reform continues to be one of our priorities. We continue to move forward on this. We received the report and will be reporting back on further developments as they are developed.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from BrossardSaint-Lambert for her excellent question. Our government committed to ensuring that Canadians have access to secure and convenient online electronic tax filing services, and that is exactly what we are doing.I am proud to announce that the Canada Revenue Agency and Tax-Filer Empowerment Canada have signed a joint digital services collaboration plan. The plan will enable us to improve our services, especially for people in remote regions, by providing innovative digital services that are easier to use.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for London North Centre for his great question and his good work on behalf of all southern Ontarians.After many years of discussion and planning, our government is proud to have officially broken ground on the Gordie Howe International Bridge project. With 30% of all Canada-U.S. trade flowing across this corridor each and every single day, it is vital to have two crossings and to finally have highway-to-highway connectivity.The Gordie Howe International Bridge will be a great achievement for Canada and something all members of this House should be very proud of.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect high-quality services delivered in a timely and efficient way. Our government is committed to modernizing the Canada Revenue Agency's services to better reflect Canadians' expectations.Would the Minister of National Revenue update us on the measures she has taken to provide innovative digital services to taxpayers?
Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition is inviting a commentary upon a judicial proceeding which is outstanding. That kind of commentary on the floor of the House of Commons is not permitted. It is obviously within the purview of the official opposition to try to politicize this process if it wishes, but the fact of the matter is that the rules of the House of Commons, as expressed in the House of Commons Compendium of Procedure, urges all members to guard against that by not violating the sub judice principle.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that diversity is our strength. While we have much to celebrate, we know that there are still real challenges for many people in this country. Throughout our history, there have been people and communities, particularly indigenous peoples, who have experienced systemic racism, oppression and discrimination that has prevented them from fully participating in society. We know these experiences are a reality for many, and we can and must do better. This is why our government is engaging communities and experts to modernize our approach and to take action on this really important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I was delighted today to announce that by December 31, we will have that ban on asbestos. This has been a long time coming. It is extremely important. We are committed to the health of Canadians and tackling pollution of all kinds, from pollution that causes climate change to pollution that is causing cancers like asbestos.I would like to quote the head of the Canadian Labour Congress, Hassan Yussuff: We're extremely happy that it meets our expectations in terms of what we wanted to see in the regulations.... especially [for] families who have lost their loved ones over the last many decades in this country to asbestos.
Mr. Speaker, in order for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman to get a fair trial, his defence team has requested and has the right to evidence relevant to his case. The evidence includes recordings of cabinet meetings where the shipbuilding contract was discussed. We know that cabinet meetings are recorded and we know that the Prime Minister has the full legal authority to release those recordings. Will he do so and if not, what is he hiding?
Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to, but I want to start by thanking the member for CumberlandColchester for his wisdom and the outstanding advice he gave me personally during the negotiations, especially on chapter 19.He asks an excellent question. ISDS is now removed from the new trade agreement between Canada and the United States. That will save Canada from frivolous lawsuits like the one the member mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, the safety of our women and men in uniform is our government's top priority. We always try to mitigate as best as possible the level of risk our people face while on operations. We will always ensure our troops have the right training and the right equipment to carry out the missions we send them on.
Mr. Speaker, years ago, a Canadian prime minister acted with the dignity befitting his position, and the minister knows him quite well. In 2004, the Right Hon. Paul Martin, a Liberal prime minister, released evidence connected to the sponsorship scandal. Why did he do this? He did it because it was in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.Will the Prime Minister rise in the House to clearly state that he will act with the dignity befitting his position and release the evidence pertaining to the trial of a Canadian vice-admiral?
Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental tenets of democracy and a fair justice system is access to the truth. The Prime Minister and his cabinet are refusing to release evidence to Vice-Admiral Norman's defence team. As a result, the House must act and hold cabinet and the Prime Minister to account for this cover-up.The Prime Minister claims he respects the court. If he does, why will he not release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, we are just asking for the schedule of the President of the Treasury Board. Here is the inconvenient truth. I can tell the President of the Treasury Board that he has met with Irving 16 times since he became minister, and those are just the publicly disclosed meetings. It does not include emails, texts, or instant messaging. That is information that Vice-Admiral Norman needs to build his defence. Why will the Liberals not release this information? What are they trying to hide and who are they trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, it does not do the job. The Liberals are making things up as they go.Yesterday, the government had nothing prepared, but it still called in the media for a series of press conferences to announce some possible future legislation. In Canada, 500,000 people, including a disproportionate number of racialized and indigenous people, have a criminal record for simple possession of 30 grams or less of cannabis.What does the government have to say to the tens of thousands of Canadians who are wondering why it does not want to expunge their criminal records, which, in our opinion, is the easiest and only option?
Mr. Speaker, we support our women and men in uniform in whatever they are sent to do. The Liberals told Canadians that they were sent to Mali on a peacekeeping mission, without debate, without a vote and where there was no peace to keep. The head of the UN has said that the situation in Mali has sharply deteriorated.How can Canadians be assured that our soldiers have the equipment and the manpower to defend themselves when the Liberals play politics with procurement?
Mr. Speaker, we know from Ontario and the gas plant scandal that when Liberals get into trouble, the first thing they do is destroy the evidence. In fact, Ontario Liberals in former premier Kathleen Wynne's office have been convicted and are going to jail for destroying records that implicated their government.Could the Prime Minister assure us that no one in his office or any other ministers' office has destroyed any records, recordings or other evidence related to the Mark Norman case?
Mr. Speaker, we have not offered to repatriate anyone. In fact, there is no deal with the Kurdish region at the present time, and there has not been. The fact of the matter is, we will pursue criminal prosecutions in every possible way we can. We have demonstrated that by actually doing it, where the previous government, while it talks a good game, failed to lay a single charge.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals confused Canadians yesterday when they said they were moving forward with lowering interchange fees for small businesses, because their so-called agreement with Visa and Mastercard is entirely voluntary, and still only reduces rates by 0.1%. Small businesses in Canada were expecting more and are calling the Liberal plan extremely underwhelming.The NDP is calling for the government to cap merchant fees at 1% to help small businesses save up to $1 billion a year. Will the Liberals cap merchant fees at 1%, or will they continue to side with the big banks?
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely ridiculous because the Prime Minister publicly stated that Vice-Admiral Norman would likely be charged. How did he come to that conclusion? It is as if he knew something before the RCMP investigation was complete. The Prime Minister is playing a very dangerous game with Vice-Admiral Norman's life and that is precisely why it is important for the vice-admiral's defence team to see the evidence the Prime Minister is covering up. What is the Prime Minister hiding and who is he protecting?
Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. This prosecution is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which is a body that is independent from the Office of the Attorney General.As this matter is before the courts, we will not, it is not appropriate to, comment further.
Mr. Speaker, like most Liberals, the minister has always accused the previous government of cutting the budget. However, they could take back $10 million from Omar Khadr and reinvest it so they could deal with the others over there.The Prime Minister knows full well that leaving Canada to participate in terrorist activities is a Criminal Code offence. Some men and women want to return to Canada after fighting against our allies, and the Liberals are doing nothing to prevent them from returning. I am asking this question today in the name of Quebeckers and Canadians who are fed up with the government's answers. When will the Prime Minister do something to resolve the situation?
Mr. Speaker, it is just the contrary. It is our government that is actually delivering for small businesses and entrepreneurs across the country. We have actually lowered the small business tax rate from 11% going 9%. We have not just talked about it, we are doing it. Because of that, over the last six quarters we have seen investment in business in Canada grow by 8%. That is because the actions we are taking are real. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that.
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of our economy. That is why our government has worked with credit card companies so that they would lower the rates for small businesses.We are very proud of the work we have been doing. This is going to save small businesses $7,500 a year. We will always work hard for small businesses, and we will keep doing that.
Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for this. When it comes to asking Web giants to pay their fair share, it seems that common sense and tax fairness go out the window. The Minister of Finance expects an international consensus. I have news for him. We are the only idiots in the G7 who are not taxing Netflix. Worse still, France is going to make Netflix pay taxes, collect sales tax and guarantee 30% local content. Meanwhile, in Canada, everything is cool for Netflix and Google. There are no taxes, no sales tax, no quotas. Nothing.The Minister of Canadian Heritage could take a lesson from the Robert Charlebois song: Between two joints, you could do something.
Mr. Speaker, those who have abandoned Canadian democracy to travel to a war zone and engage with vicious terrorists need to take the full responsibility for their criminal conduct. Our intelligence, security and police agencies will investigate terrorists by all possible means with the absolute goal to charge and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Thus far, under our government, we have charged four, convicted two. Two are outstanding. Under the previous government, there were no such charges.
Mr. Speaker, let me refer to a document called The House of Commons Compendium of Procedure, which is in fact prepared by the distinguished Table Officers immediately before us. That compendium says this, Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters actively before the courts or under judicial consideration in order to guard those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry from any undue influence. Those are the rules of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, the government has agreed to discriminatory provisions under its new trade agreement, the USMCA. Private couriers delivering goods across the border receive a duty exemption that our Crown corporation, Canada Post, does not. This provision punishes rural areas, where Canada Post is the only game in town for delivering goods. Why did the government agree to this, and why are the Liberals undermining our Crown corporation and public services?
Mr. Speaker, by all accounts, it seems that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed at the behest of Saudi Arabia at its consulate in Istanbul. The details being reported in Turkish newspapers are appallingly grisly.We hope there will be a UN investigation into this in order to identify those who are really responsible for this atrocity.When those responsible are identified, will the government be prepared to enforce the Magnitsky law?
Mr. Speaker, for too long, our country's trade with the United States through the Detroit-Windsor corridor has been limited by a lack of capacity. With only one bridge, which is privately owned, the flow of people and goods has not been as efficient as it could and should be. My constituents and all southern Ontarians know this first-hand. Can the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities please update this House on the steps the government has taken to change this?
Mr. Speaker, sadly, I get the impression that the Liberals and the Conservatives are cut from the same cloth. Stephen Harper stood before the G20 and announced with a straight face that Canada had no history of colonialism. Now, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism claims that there is no racism in Canada. Good grief.Does he realize how many people he just insulted?Allow me to give the minister an opportunity to admit he was wrong, to admit he made a mistake, that he screwed up, and say I'm sorry.
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the cornerstone of the Canadian economy. However, a recent World Economic Forum competitiveness report found that Canadian businesses already faced a heavy regulatory burden and inefficient bureaucracy. What the Liberals therefore did, besides increasing the regulatory burden, was they brought in onerous new small business tax rules, a carbon tax on everything and payroll tax hikes, and the Prime Minister calls them wealthy tax cheats. Why do the Liberals continue to attack our hard-working local small business owners?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Prime Minister cares about ISIS terrorists, but on this side of the House, we condemn their terrible acts and take the threat they pose seriously.Like rats fleeing a sinking ship, these traitors are returning to Canada and trying to make us believe that they are victims.Will the Prime Minister put an end to this circus and take meaningful action against these cowards to ensure that they face the full force of the law if they return to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, again, the fact remains that we are taking real action to grow the economy. The Conservatives had 10 years and they had the worst growth since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, we have some of the lowest unemployment rates in 40 years. It is no surprise that as we are cutting taxes for small businesses, for Canadians, for families and stopping to send cheques to millionaires, our economy is one of the best in the G7. With a failed record like that, no wonder the Conservatives do not understand what success looks like.
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago an American company decided to establish a large quarry in Nova Scotia. The quarry project was turned down by the federal and provincial governments because of environmental concerns. Then the American company sued the Canadian government for $500 million under the investor-state dispute settlement clause in the old NAFTA.Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us if the new USMCA will stop those frivolous lawsuits against Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, every member of the House can be assured that this government follows the law meticulously.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say this prosecution is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which operates independently from my office. As this matter is currently before the court, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment further.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote: Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters before the courts, or under judicial consideration, in order to protect those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry against any undue influence through the discussion of the case. This practice is referred to as the sub judice convention and it applies to debate, statements and Question Period. Those are the words of the hon. Peter Van Loan, May 11, 2015.
Mr. Speaker, the prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, a body that acts independently of my role. As this matter is currently before the court, as the member opposite should know, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the opposition members in their political enthusiasm are obviously inviting the government and ministers of the government to comment on matters that are presently before the courts. They may try to camouflage that reality, but that is in fact the case, and we have the procedural documents produced by the table officers of the House, as well as former distinguished members of the House like Mr. Van Loan, saying that is improper and outside the rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Shelley Beyak's children were abducted by their father and taken to Beirut. On September 14, the Prime Minister received a petition of over 930 names of Canadians, adding their voices to that of Shelley Beyak, imploring the Prime Minister to personally intervene and bring these children home. If you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent to table this document.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-83, on administrative segregation. This debate will continue tomorrow.Next Monday, October 22, shall be an allotted day. Also, priority will be given to report stage and third reading debate of Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, as soon as it is reported back to the House. Finally, I would like to remind everybody that next Thursday, pursuant to the order made earlier this week, the House will have Wednesday sitting hours to allow for the address in the House at 10:30 a.m. by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
Mr. Speaker, we share the concern about disproportionate impacts. That is why we are advancing a no wait, no fee pardon system to remove the stigma of those impacts. The expungement argument the hon. gentleman makes by contrast, expungement has been used exclusively and only to deal with those cases where the law itself was inherently discriminatory and a fundamental violation of human rights, as for example when the Criminal Code attacked people simply for being gay.
Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege.In response to our question yesterday, the Prime Minister misled the House by providing incorrect information. The interim leader of the Bloc Québécois asked him why the rush to legalize cannabis by October 17, and the Prime Minister replied: The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks. However, Quebec asked to push cannabis legislation back to July 1, 2019. The Quebec National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion to that effect on November 16, 2017. It reads: THAT the National Assembly ask the Federal Government to defer the cannabis legalization currently scheduled to come into force on 1 July 2018 until at least 1 July 2019. The Prime Minister's statement was misleading.In addition, after the National Assembly adopted this motion, it also unanimously agreed to send this motion to the Prime Minister and to all Liberal members of Parliament from Quebec.The Prime Minister therefore had knowledge of the resolution adopted by the Quebec National Assembly. The Prime Minister therefore knew when he was making that statement that it was incorrect.Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and that the Prime Minister made a statement that he knew to be incorrect, it seems clear to us that the Prime Minister intended to mislead the House. Just this morning we received the selected decisions from May 7, 2012, of the Speaker who preceded you. On page 31, it states: It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a Member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House. Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and incorrectas we have demonstratedand given that he knew, when he was making the statement, that it was misleading and incorrectas we have demonstratedwhat other intention could he have had apart from misleading the House by saying these falsehoods?I repeat the Prime Minister's reply: The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks. I would like to clarify that I raised my question of privilege at the earliest opportunity because the most recent information was obtained during yesterday's question period.Finally, should you consider it to be a prima facie question of privilege, I intend to move the following motion: That the House acknowledge that the Prime Minister misled the House and ask him to correct the answer to the question posed October 17, 2018, by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, and to apologize to the House.Thank you for your attention to this matter, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of taxation, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have been very clear. However, we also know that the Broadcasting Act has not been reviewed since before the Internet came into our homes. The Conservatives did nothing for 10 long years, so we have taken action. We have appointed a panel of experts to help us modernize this act, and our starting point is clear. All players that participate in the system must contribute to the system. There will be no free rides.
Mr. Speaker, the independent judicial system requires evidence. It is the government that is responsible for producing that evidence.The Prime Minister promised Canadians a transparent, accountable and open government, but that is not what the Liberals have delivered. Instead, the Liberals are using political games to hide the truth. In the case of Vice-Admiral Norman, the Liberals are refusing to release critical evidence central to his defence.Can the Prime Minister honour his commitment to be open and transparent, honour our judicial system and the rule of law, and release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, I can say that I have a very clear understanding of the importance of the independence of the judicial system.As I have stated, this prosecution of Vice-Admiral Norman is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, a body that is independent from my office, the Office of the Attorney General. It would be entirely inappropriate to comment on this matter, because it is before the courts.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.I want to point out once again that the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi is very troubling. Canada has made that very clear. That is the message that I sent to the Saudi Arabian foreign minister. I also initiated a discussion on the subject with my counterparts in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States.We join our partners in calling for a thorough investigation to identify those responsible.
Mr. Speaker, the reported murder of Jamal Khashoggi is the latest in a series of horrible acts by Saudi Arabia. The war in Yemen is bringing famine to millions and is rife with war crimes. Attacks on journalism, democracy and basic human rights should trigger consequences, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs this morning said that honouring Canada's arms deal with Saudi Arabia was more important than honouring human rights.Does the minister really think that is what Canadians want?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals love to take credit for things that they were forced to do. They know full well that was a flip-flop and they were only forced to return to that tax cut, which the Conservatives put in place and they tried to take away. Small businesses continue to struggle because of the Liberal government. The Liberals cut an advisory committee that ensured that each new regulation on small businesses would be offset by the removal of another piece of regulation. The Liberals simply continue to pile on new regulatory burdens. How can the Liberals say that they are easing burdens on small businesses when they are continuing to add more taxes and more red tape?
Mr. Speaker, an estimated 500,000 Canadians have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis, which is now a perfectly legal substance. The Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday that a disproportionate number of marginalized people lived with the stigma of a criminal record, and pledged that those records would not follow them for the rest of their lives. However, they will. A pardon is like a band-aid covering a wound; it does not make it disappear.When will the government finally understand that the best solution, the only solution, is expungement?
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. We need to draw the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable. The murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is the last, blood-soaked straw. By selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Canada is supporting this murderous regime and selling its soul.Will the government suspend its contracts with Saudi Arabia or will it remain complicit?
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my first answer, we will investigate through our police and security agencies by all possible means, with the absolute determination to lay charges and to prosecute in every case. In fact, in the cases that have been dealt with so far, there have been four charges laid by this government, two convictions obtained, and two others are in the process. By contrast, under the previous government, with respect to these terrorist returnees, not a single charge was laid by the Harper government.
Mr. Speaker, a report commissioned by the Liberals calls for a complete overhaul of the EI system. What a surprise. The Liberals and Conservatives ransacked the EI program, leaving holes in the social safety net for people who are unemployed or sick. Now that their own report has confirmed what we have been saying for years, when will the minister finally do a complete overhaul of the EI program?
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that Canadians want to know that their government will protect them and put their safety first. However, the reality is the Liberals have given $10.5 million to a terrorist, and they proactively welcome and facilitate terrorists coming back to Canada. That is a fact. Canadians actually want to know that terrorists will end up in jail, not walking on our streets and living in our communities. Can the Liberals assure Canadians that terrorists will end up behind bars if the Liberals bring them back to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, for the third time, I will say to the House and say to all Canadians, those who have left the comfortable confines of Canadian democracy to travel overseas and associate themselves with a terrorist cause will be pursued by Canadian justice. We will investigate by every means possible, in concert with our allies in the Five Eyes and the G7, to lay charges and to prosecute. We have already done that in four cases. We will continue to do it in every possible case, whereas they did nothing.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has spoken out very clearly about human rights and everyone knows it. That definitely includes Saudi Arabia, as everyone saw this summer.With regard to Jamal Khashoggi, we are working closely with our G7 allies. We all spoke on Tuesday and we are all saying that a thorough and transparent investigation is needed to bring those responsible to justice.
Mr. Speaker, today all the ministers responsible for status of women meet in Yukon. Tuesday, I called again for Liberals to walk the talk, finally end violence against women and remove barriers to economic justice. Whether it is pay equity, child care or a national action plan, the Liberals have promised so much and delivered so little. Women fought in court to be called persons. They still fight in court for equality because the government will not legislate it.The time is up. When will the Liberals lock in equality?
Mr. Speaker, of course I do not think that is what Canadians want and that is why I said no such thing. Canada's position on human rights in general, very much including Saudi Arabia, is clear and firm. We took a clear and firm position in August, and I think that is something that Canadians can be proud of.When it comes to the case of Jamal Khashoggi, we led a G7 foreign ministers' statement, which came out on Tuesday, saying that those responsible must be held to account.
Mr. Speaker, on March 25 of this year, Mia and Liam Tarabichi went on what was supposed to be just a quick trip with their father to Seattle. Instead, he abducted them and fled to Beirut. He is now wanted on an international arrest warrant. The children's mother, Shelley Beyak, has tried to contact the Prime Minister and has received no answer. The Prime Minister can intervene and help bring these children home to their mom, but he refuses. Why?
Mr. Speaker, there are judicial procedures quite independent of the House that deal with the matters that are referred to in that question. The point is, in the rules of the House and in the conventions of the House, members are expected not to ask questions and ministers are expected not to give answers that comment directly or indirectly on an outstanding legal procedure, and we will honour that convention.
Mr. Speaker, the confusion inherent in that question demonstrates exactly why this House has a rule and a convention that says that matters of this nature are dealt with through proper independent legal procedures and not through the political process in the House.That is why Minister Van Loan, at the time, was absolutely correct in saying a Minister in responding to a question shall not comment on any matter that is sub judice.
Mr. Speaker, the contrast is that terrorists have been emboldened by the government. Canadians are rightly concerned when they hear about ISIS terrorists returning to Canada and that they may live in their neighbourhoods. Any persons who join a terrorist organization to fight against Canada and its allies are criminals and threats to our safety. When will the government get serious about keeping terrorists out of Canada and ensure that those returning will face the full extent of the law?
Mr. Speaker, we know we need to take action on climate change. We know we need to reduce emissions. We are committed to doing that across all sectors. We have a price on pollution. We are phasing out coal. We are making historic investments in public transportation. We are investing in clean technology companies. We will continue taking the actions that Canadians expect to protect our environment and grow our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.As we told our G7 partners on Tuesday, we are very concerned about the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. As we told our partners in the G7, of which Canada currently holds the presidency, all those responsible for this situation must be held to account. It is very important. We support the calls for a thorough and transparent investigation into these serious allegations.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General.In her mandate letter, the Prime Minister asked her to ensure that the rights of Canadians are protected. One of the core rights of Canadians is the right to make full answer and defence in a criminal proceeding through the disclosure of evidence to the accused. The Liberals are denying Admiral Mark Norman his due process rights, as articulated in the charter and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.Will the minister, as our top justice official, commit her government to living up to the charter and release all evidence?
Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister to comment on the details of the case. I am not asking the minister to comment on the contents of the document. It is shocking that our top justice official will not commit to just releasing the documents. All we are asking is for an affirmation from Canada's top justice official that she will ensure that Admiral Mark Norman's charter rights to be able to defend himself are respected by their releasing the documents, not what is in them.Will she release the documents, or what is she hiding?
Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of that situation. Our hearts go out to the mother and her children. We are providing consular services. Of course we are bound by the Privacy Act, so I am not permitted to say anything further.
Mr. Speaker, the minister of labour seems to have no idea how much she upset entrepreneurs, elected officials in Quebec City and Canadians when she made a mockery of my question on the labour shortage and the crisis we are in.Throughout BeauportLimoilou, Quebec and Canada, SMEs, economists and other stakeholders are pointing out that the labour shortage is a serious crisis. No one thinks this is good news. No one is laughing; quite the contrary. It is time for action.Does the Prime Minister plan to laugh about the labour shortage, or does he plan to do something about it?
Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see the opposition members applaud our success as a government. We have ensured that we have the lowest rate of unemployment. Since the 1970s, we have added over 600,000 jobs. In fact, small and medium-sized businesses have added 600,000 jobs to our economy. Now we have a new problem of people who are looking for employees. That is why we are working so hard to make sure that every Canadian has that first shot at success, whether it is small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec, or in Ontario, or in Alberta or any of the other provinces or territories, so they have an opportunity to develop the skills they need to take advantage of that work.
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking the minister anything about the case. We are asking about the activities within the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices. It is very troubling that the minister refuses to answer whether the government has destroyed any records relevant to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's case. Maybe he was not expecting my question, so I will ask him again. This is not about the case. This is about evidence, recordings and data that the Prime Minister's Office and other ministers have access to. Could we be assured none of it has been destroyed?
Mr. Speaker, we are obviously deeply concerned about the disproportionate impacts of Canada's old cannabis laws. That is why we have repealed them and we have replaced them with a new legal regime and strict regulations to better keep cannabis away from our kids and illegal profits away from organized crime. We are also advancing a new and far more effective pardon system for simple possession, with no waiting period before eligibility and no fee for the expressed purpose of getting rid of the stigma.
Mr. Speaker, we want every trial in Canada to be a fair trial and that is assured by the very system we have, where the prosecution is in the hands of the independent Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which is not directed by the government, and the defence is obviously in the hands of very capable defence counsel. They have the law before them. They have an independent court procedure before them. Canadians can be assured that justice will be done and it will be seen to be done.
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, as a long-standing member of the House, the government does not comment or speculate on matters that are related to ongoing criminal trials. That is the long-standing convention of the House. It is important that the judicial system be free to conduct itself completely in an independent fashion. That is important for the prosecution. That is important for the defence.We will not comment on ongoing processes.
Mr. Speaker, it has become a habit for the Liberal government to govern not for all Canadians, but for Liberal cronies and certain interest groups.If sunny ways, as they liked to say, mean a cabinet that obstructs the courts in order to hide the real sacrificial lamb in this story, then the House of Commons has to hold cabinet to account.What is the government hiding?
Mr. Speaker, the prosecution in this case is handled completely independently by the Public Prosecution Service. The defence is obviously in very capable hands of learned counsel who will, no doubt, pursue the appropriate laws and rules of court. I would add this: It is deemed improper for a Member, in posing a question, or a Minister in responding to a question, to comment on any matter that is sub judice. Those again are the words of the hon. Peter Peter van Loan, May 11, 2015.
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the Prime Minister is the first prime minister to have broken the law with respect to certain regulations. This is serious. Vice-Admiral Mark Norman served Canada with unwavering commitment. Now he has been charged and is going to trial. All Canadians have a right to a fair defence. This requires access to all evidence. The Prime Minister has evidence pertaining to this case.Does he want the vice-admiral to have a fair trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, we know that when we invest in women, we strengthen the economy for everyone. That is why we are making Status of Women Canada a full department; why we have invested $40 billion in a national housing strategy, 25% of which will go toward women and their families; dedicated $7.5 billion for child care; created a new parental sharing benefit; and are supporting women entrepreneurs and women in the trades. Investing in gender equality is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House and the laws of Canada need to be applied with complete impartiality and to the appropriate conclusions that are determined not by politics, but by an independent judicial process. The Public Prosecution Service is in charge of the prosecution. Eminent legal counsel is in charge of the defence. They undoubtedly will make sure that justice is done.
Mr. Speaker, in the past couple of days, Canadians have emitted a great deal of cannabis smoke. However, that is nothing compared to the emissions from energy-intensive cannabis production. U.S. cannabis production emits as much carbon as three million cars.Has the government estimated the carbon footprint of Canadian cannabis production and what steps has the government taken to limit those emissions as it lights up this new industry?
Mr. Speaker, the conclusion of the modernized NAFTA was a major accomplishment for Canada, a major accomplishment for Canadian businesses and for Canadian workers. One of the great achievements in this agreement was to keep de minimis levels low. That is something Canadian small businesses asked us to do. That is something we achieved, and we are glad we were able to do so.
Mr. Speaker, Vice-Admiral Norman cannot defend himself since the Prime Minister refuses to give him access to evidence for his defence. This is amateur theatre hour.In Canada, justice is not a one-way street. Every Canadian has rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Mr. Norman has the right to a fair trial.Can the Prime Minister guarantee that Vice-Admiral Norman will be able to defend himself and that he will release all the necessary evidence to the defence?
Mr. Speaker, two years ago the government announced a ban on asbestos via four different ministers. They know who they are, yet today one of those four ministers is announcing watered down regulations that fly in the face of science, and the science is crystal clear. There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. Asbestos is the greatest industrial killer of all time, so why has the government chosen to leave Canadian workers and their families exposed to it?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to answer questions about Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's case 24 times. The Prime Minister refused to explain why he is obstructing justice and he refuses to hand over the evidence that Vice-Admiral Norman needs to defend himself.On Tuesday, the President of the Treasury Board said that his only contact with Irving was to have been copied on a letter. Will the President of the Treasury Board tell the House how many times he has met with representatives from Irving?
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government, and I hope the answer is better than the ones we got in question period.Can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tell us what the government has planned for the rest of this week and next week?
Mr. Speaker, this government, which is all about promoting peace and love and singing Kumbaya, is quick to abandon its grand principles of universal peace and love when it comes to taking action against tyranny. There will not be any sanctions against Saudi Arabia for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, no sir. The government is looking the other way. I do not call that diplomacy. I call that complicity.Is the Prime Minister aware that, by selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, he is complicit with this murderous regime?
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking for any questioning of the independent system. What we are asking for is for the government, whose responsibility it is, to provide the documents to be able to have the evidence filed. The prosecution of Vice-Admiral Norman has been politically motivated from the start. The Prime Minister is hiding evidence and refuses to release it, jeopardizing his right to a fair trial. The evidence will reveal the truth.Who is the Prime Minister protecting? What is he hiding? If he has nothing to hide, why will he not release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, since taking office, our government has worked exclusively on making sure EI was more accessible, more fair and delivered to people in a timely way so that their benefits were received to support them as they moved between jobs. We have been working on EI reform, as I said, to make sure that we have more generous benefits as well to make sure that seasonal gaps for people in seasonal industries are taken care of and to make sure that maternity leave and sick leave are also addressed. EI reform continues to be one of our priorities. We continue to move forward on this. We received the report and will be reporting back on further developments as they are developed.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from BrossardSaint-Lambert for her excellent question. Our government committed to ensuring that Canadians have access to secure and convenient online electronic tax filing services, and that is exactly what we are doing.I am proud to announce that the Canada Revenue Agency and Tax-Filer Empowerment Canada have signed a joint digital services collaboration plan. The plan will enable us to improve our services, especially for people in remote regions, by providing innovative digital services that are easier to use.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for London North Centre for his great question and his good work on behalf of all southern Ontarians.After many years of discussion and planning, our government is proud to have officially broken ground on the Gordie Howe International Bridge project. With 30% of all Canada-U.S. trade flowing across this corridor each and every single day, it is vital to have two crossings and to finally have highway-to-highway connectivity.The Gordie Howe International Bridge will be a great achievement for Canada and something all members of this House should be very proud of.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect high-quality services delivered in a timely and efficient way. Our government is committed to modernizing the Canada Revenue Agency's services to better reflect Canadians' expectations.Would the Minister of National Revenue update us on the measures she has taken to provide innovative digital services to taxpayers?
Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition is inviting a commentary upon a judicial proceeding which is outstanding. That kind of commentary on the floor of the House of Commons is not permitted. It is obviously within the purview of the official opposition to try to politicize this process if it wishes, but the fact of the matter is that the rules of the House of Commons, as expressed in the House of Commons Compendium of Procedure, urges all members to guard against that by not violating the sub judice principle.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that diversity is our strength. While we have much to celebrate, we know that there are still real challenges for many people in this country. Throughout our history, there have been people and communities, particularly indigenous peoples, who have experienced systemic racism, oppression and discrimination that has prevented them from fully participating in society. We know these experiences are a reality for many, and we can and must do better. This is why our government is engaging communities and experts to modernize our approach and to take action on this really important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I was delighted today to announce that by December 31, we will have that ban on asbestos. This has been a long time coming. It is extremely important. We are committed to the health of Canadians and tackling pollution of all kinds, from pollution that causes climate change to pollution that is causing cancers like asbestos.I would like to quote the head of the Canadian Labour Congress, Hassan Yussuff: We're extremely happy that it meets our expectations in terms of what we wanted to see in the regulations.... especially [for] families who have lost their loved ones over the last many decades in this country to asbestos.
Mr. Speaker, in order for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman to get a fair trial, his defence team has requested and has the right to evidence relevant to his case. The evidence includes recordings of cabinet meetings where the shipbuilding contract was discussed. We know that cabinet meetings are recorded and we know that the Prime Minister has the full legal authority to release those recordings. Will he do so and if not, what is he hiding?
Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to, but I want to start by thanking the member for CumberlandColchester for his wisdom and the outstanding advice he gave me personally during the negotiations, especially on chapter 19.He asks an excellent question. ISDS is now removed from the new trade agreement between Canada and the United States. That will save Canada from frivolous lawsuits like the one the member mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, the safety of our women and men in uniform is our government's top priority. We always try to mitigate as best as possible the level of risk our people face while on operations. We will always ensure our troops have the right training and the right equipment to carry out the missions we send them on.
Mr. Speaker, years ago, a Canadian prime minister acted with the dignity befitting his position, and the minister knows him quite well. In 2004, the Right Hon. Paul Martin, a Liberal prime minister, released evidence connected to the sponsorship scandal. Why did he do this? He did it because it was in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.Will the Prime Minister rise in the House to clearly state that he will act with the dignity befitting his position and release the evidence pertaining to the trial of a Canadian vice-admiral?
Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental tenets of democracy and a fair justice system is access to the truth. The Prime Minister and his cabinet are refusing to release evidence to Vice-Admiral Norman's defence team. As a result, the House must act and hold cabinet and the Prime Minister to account for this cover-up.The Prime Minister claims he respects the court. If he does, why will he not release the evidence?
Most positive speeches
Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental tenets of democracy and a fair justice system is access to the truth. The Prime Minister and his cabinet are refusing to release evidence to Vice-Admiral Norman's defence team. As a result, the House must act and hold cabinet and the Prime Minister to account for this cover-up.The Prime Minister claims he respects the court. If he does, why will he not release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, years ago, a Canadian prime minister acted with the dignity befitting his position, and the minister knows him quite well. In 2004, the Right Hon. Paul Martin, a Liberal prime minister, released evidence connected to the sponsorship scandal. Why did he do this? He did it because it was in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.Will the Prime Minister rise in the House to clearly state that he will act with the dignity befitting his position and release the evidence pertaining to the trial of a Canadian vice-admiral?
Mr. Speaker, the safety of our women and men in uniform is our government's top priority. We always try to mitigate as best as possible the level of risk our people face while on operations. We will always ensure our troops have the right training and the right equipment to carry out the missions we send them on.
Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to, but I want to start by thanking the member for CumberlandColchester for his wisdom and the outstanding advice he gave me personally during the negotiations, especially on chapter 19.He asks an excellent question. ISDS is now removed from the new trade agreement between Canada and the United States. That will save Canada from frivolous lawsuits like the one the member mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, in order for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman to get a fair trial, his defence team has requested and has the right to evidence relevant to his case. The evidence includes recordings of cabinet meetings where the shipbuilding contract was discussed. We know that cabinet meetings are recorded and we know that the Prime Minister has the full legal authority to release those recordings. Will he do so and if not, what is he hiding?
Mr. Speaker, I was delighted today to announce that by December 31, we will have that ban on asbestos. This has been a long time coming. It is extremely important. We are committed to the health of Canadians and tackling pollution of all kinds, from pollution that causes climate change to pollution that is causing cancers like asbestos.I would like to quote the head of the Canadian Labour Congress, Hassan Yussuff: We're extremely happy that it meets our expectations in terms of what we wanted to see in the regulations.... especially [for] families who have lost their loved ones over the last many decades in this country to asbestos.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that diversity is our strength. While we have much to celebrate, we know that there are still real challenges for many people in this country. Throughout our history, there have been people and communities, particularly indigenous peoples, who have experienced systemic racism, oppression and discrimination that has prevented them from fully participating in society. We know these experiences are a reality for many, and we can and must do better. This is why our government is engaging communities and experts to modernize our approach and to take action on this really important issue.
Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition is inviting a commentary upon a judicial proceeding which is outstanding. That kind of commentary on the floor of the House of Commons is not permitted. It is obviously within the purview of the official opposition to try to politicize this process if it wishes, but the fact of the matter is that the rules of the House of Commons, as expressed in the House of Commons Compendium of Procedure, urges all members to guard against that by not violating the sub judice principle.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect high-quality services delivered in a timely and efficient way. Our government is committed to modernizing the Canada Revenue Agency's services to better reflect Canadians' expectations.Would the Minister of National Revenue update us on the measures she has taken to provide innovative digital services to taxpayers?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for London North Centre for his great question and his good work on behalf of all southern Ontarians.After many years of discussion and planning, our government is proud to have officially broken ground on the Gordie Howe International Bridge project. With 30% of all Canada-U.S. trade flowing across this corridor each and every single day, it is vital to have two crossings and to finally have highway-to-highway connectivity.The Gordie Howe International Bridge will be a great achievement for Canada and something all members of this House should be very proud of.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from BrossardSaint-Lambert for her excellent question. Our government committed to ensuring that Canadians have access to secure and convenient online electronic tax filing services, and that is exactly what we are doing.I am proud to announce that the Canada Revenue Agency and Tax-Filer Empowerment Canada have signed a joint digital services collaboration plan. The plan will enable us to improve our services, especially for people in remote regions, by providing innovative digital services that are easier to use.
Mr. Speaker, since taking office, our government has worked exclusively on making sure EI was more accessible, more fair and delivered to people in a timely way so that their benefits were received to support them as they moved between jobs. We have been working on EI reform, as I said, to make sure that we have more generous benefits as well to make sure that seasonal gaps for people in seasonal industries are taken care of and to make sure that maternity leave and sick leave are also addressed. EI reform continues to be one of our priorities. We continue to move forward on this. We received the report and will be reporting back on further developments as they are developed.
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking for any questioning of the independent system. What we are asking for is for the government, whose responsibility it is, to provide the documents to be able to have the evidence filed. The prosecution of Vice-Admiral Norman has been politically motivated from the start. The Prime Minister is hiding evidence and refuses to release it, jeopardizing his right to a fair trial. The evidence will reveal the truth.Who is the Prime Minister protecting? What is he hiding? If he has nothing to hide, why will he not release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, this government, which is all about promoting peace and love and singing Kumbaya, is quick to abandon its grand principles of universal peace and love when it comes to taking action against tyranny. There will not be any sanctions against Saudi Arabia for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, no sir. The government is looking the other way. I do not call that diplomacy. I call that complicity.Is the Prime Minister aware that, by selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, he is complicit with this murderous regime?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to answer questions about Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's case 24 times. The Prime Minister refused to explain why he is obstructing justice and he refuses to hand over the evidence that Vice-Admiral Norman needs to defend himself.On Tuesday, the President of the Treasury Board said that his only contact with Irving was to have been copied on a letter. Will the President of the Treasury Board tell the House how many times he has met with representatives from Irving?
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government, and I hope the answer is better than the ones we got in question period.Can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tell us what the government has planned for the rest of this week and next week?
Mr. Speaker, two years ago the government announced a ban on asbestos via four different ministers. They know who they are, yet today one of those four ministers is announcing watered down regulations that fly in the face of science, and the science is crystal clear. There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. Asbestos is the greatest industrial killer of all time, so why has the government chosen to leave Canadian workers and their families exposed to it?
Mr. Speaker, Vice-Admiral Norman cannot defend himself since the Prime Minister refuses to give him access to evidence for his defence. This is amateur theatre hour.In Canada, justice is not a one-way street. Every Canadian has rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Mr. Norman has the right to a fair trial.Can the Prime Minister guarantee that Vice-Admiral Norman will be able to defend himself and that he will release all the necessary evidence to the defence?
Mr. Speaker, the conclusion of the modernized NAFTA was a major accomplishment for Canada, a major accomplishment for Canadian businesses and for Canadian workers. One of the great achievements in this agreement was to keep de minimis levels low. That is something Canadian small businesses asked us to do. That is something we achieved, and we are glad we were able to do so.
Mr. Speaker, in the past couple of days, Canadians have emitted a great deal of cannabis smoke. However, that is nothing compared to the emissions from energy-intensive cannabis production. U.S. cannabis production emits as much carbon as three million cars.Has the government estimated the carbon footprint of Canadian cannabis production and what steps has the government taken to limit those emissions as it lights up this new industry?
Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House and the laws of Canada need to be applied with complete impartiality and to the appropriate conclusions that are determined not by politics, but by an independent judicial process. The Public Prosecution Service is in charge of the prosecution. Eminent legal counsel is in charge of the defence. They undoubtedly will make sure that justice is done.
Mr. Speaker, we know that when we invest in women, we strengthen the economy for everyone. That is why we are making Status of Women Canada a full department; why we have invested $40 billion in a national housing strategy, 25% of which will go toward women and their families; dedicated $7.5 billion for child care; created a new parental sharing benefit; and are supporting women entrepreneurs and women in the trades. Investing in gender equality is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the Prime Minister is the first prime minister to have broken the law with respect to certain regulations. This is serious. Vice-Admiral Mark Norman served Canada with unwavering commitment. Now he has been charged and is going to trial. All Canadians have a right to a fair defence. This requires access to all evidence. The Prime Minister has evidence pertaining to this case.Does he want the vice-admiral to have a fair trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the prosecution in this case is handled completely independently by the Public Prosecution Service. The defence is obviously in very capable hands of learned counsel who will, no doubt, pursue the appropriate laws and rules of court. I would add this: It is deemed improper for a Member, in posing a question, or a Minister in responding to a question, to comment on any matter that is sub judice. Those again are the words of the hon. Peter Peter van Loan, May 11, 2015.
Mr. Speaker, it has become a habit for the Liberal government to govern not for all Canadians, but for Liberal cronies and certain interest groups.If sunny ways, as they liked to say, mean a cabinet that obstructs the courts in order to hide the real sacrificial lamb in this story, then the House of Commons has to hold cabinet to account.What is the government hiding?
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, as a long-standing member of the House, the government does not comment or speculate on matters that are related to ongoing criminal trials. That is the long-standing convention of the House. It is important that the judicial system be free to conduct itself completely in an independent fashion. That is important for the prosecution. That is important for the defence.We will not comment on ongoing processes.
Mr. Speaker, we want every trial in Canada to be a fair trial and that is assured by the very system we have, where the prosecution is in the hands of the independent Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which is not directed by the government, and the defence is obviously in the hands of very capable defence counsel. They have the law before them. They have an independent court procedure before them. Canadians can be assured that justice will be done and it will be seen to be done.
Mr. Speaker, we are obviously deeply concerned about the disproportionate impacts of Canada's old cannabis laws. That is why we have repealed them and we have replaced them with a new legal regime and strict regulations to better keep cannabis away from our kids and illegal profits away from organized crime. We are also advancing a new and far more effective pardon system for simple possession, with no waiting period before eligibility and no fee for the expressed purpose of getting rid of the stigma.
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking the minister anything about the case. We are asking about the activities within the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices. It is very troubling that the minister refuses to answer whether the government has destroyed any records relevant to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's case. Maybe he was not expecting my question, so I will ask him again. This is not about the case. This is about evidence, recordings and data that the Prime Minister's Office and other ministers have access to. Could we be assured none of it has been destroyed?
Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see the opposition members applaud our success as a government. We have ensured that we have the lowest rate of unemployment. Since the 1970s, we have added over 600,000 jobs. In fact, small and medium-sized businesses have added 600,000 jobs to our economy. Now we have a new problem of people who are looking for employees. That is why we are working so hard to make sure that every Canadian has that first shot at success, whether it is small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec, or in Ontario, or in Alberta or any of the other provinces or territories, so they have an opportunity to develop the skills they need to take advantage of that work.
Mr. Speaker, the minister of labour seems to have no idea how much she upset entrepreneurs, elected officials in Quebec City and Canadians when she made a mockery of my question on the labour shortage and the crisis we are in.Throughout BeauportLimoilou, Quebec and Canada, SMEs, economists and other stakeholders are pointing out that the labour shortage is a serious crisis. No one thinks this is good news. No one is laughing; quite the contrary. It is time for action.Does the Prime Minister plan to laugh about the labour shortage, or does he plan to do something about it?
Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister to comment on the details of the case. I am not asking the minister to comment on the contents of the document. It is shocking that our top justice official will not commit to just releasing the documents. All we are asking is for an affirmation from Canada's top justice official that she will ensure that Admiral Mark Norman's charter rights to be able to defend himself are respected by their releasing the documents, not what is in them.Will she release the documents, or what is she hiding?
Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of that situation. Our hearts go out to the mother and her children. We are providing consular services. Of course we are bound by the Privacy Act, so I am not permitted to say anything further.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General.In her mandate letter, the Prime Minister asked her to ensure that the rights of Canadians are protected. One of the core rights of Canadians is the right to make full answer and defence in a criminal proceeding through the disclosure of evidence to the accused. The Liberals are denying Admiral Mark Norman his due process rights, as articulated in the charter and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.Will the minister, as our top justice official, commit her government to living up to the charter and release all evidence?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.As we told our G7 partners on Tuesday, we are very concerned about the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. As we told our partners in the G7, of which Canada currently holds the presidency, all those responsible for this situation must be held to account. It is very important. We support the calls for a thorough and transparent investigation into these serious allegations.
Mr. Speaker, we know we need to take action on climate change. We know we need to reduce emissions. We are committed to doing that across all sectors. We have a price on pollution. We are phasing out coal. We are making historic investments in public transportation. We are investing in clean technology companies. We will continue taking the actions that Canadians expect to protect our environment and grow our economy.
Mr. Speaker, the contrast is that terrorists have been emboldened by the government. Canadians are rightly concerned when they hear about ISIS terrorists returning to Canada and that they may live in their neighbourhoods. Any persons who join a terrorist organization to fight against Canada and its allies are criminals and threats to our safety. When will the government get serious about keeping terrorists out of Canada and ensure that those returning will face the full extent of the law?
Mr. Speaker, the confusion inherent in that question demonstrates exactly why this House has a rule and a convention that says that matters of this nature are dealt with through proper independent legal procedures and not through the political process in the House.That is why Minister Van Loan, at the time, was absolutely correct in saying a Minister in responding to a question shall not comment on any matter that is sub judice.
Mr. Speaker, there are judicial procedures quite independent of the House that deal with the matters that are referred to in that question. The point is, in the rules of the House and in the conventions of the House, members are expected not to ask questions and ministers are expected not to give answers that comment directly or indirectly on an outstanding legal procedure, and we will honour that convention.
Mr. Speaker, on March 25 of this year, Mia and Liam Tarabichi went on what was supposed to be just a quick trip with their father to Seattle. Instead, he abducted them and fled to Beirut. He is now wanted on an international arrest warrant. The children's mother, Shelley Beyak, has tried to contact the Prime Minister and has received no answer. The Prime Minister can intervene and help bring these children home to their mom, but he refuses. Why?
Mr. Speaker, of course I do not think that is what Canadians want and that is why I said no such thing. Canada's position on human rights in general, very much including Saudi Arabia, is clear and firm. We took a clear and firm position in August, and I think that is something that Canadians can be proud of.When it comes to the case of Jamal Khashoggi, we led a G7 foreign ministers' statement, which came out on Tuesday, saying that those responsible must be held to account.
Mr. Speaker, today all the ministers responsible for status of women meet in Yukon. Tuesday, I called again for Liberals to walk the talk, finally end violence against women and remove barriers to economic justice. Whether it is pay equity, child care or a national action plan, the Liberals have promised so much and delivered so little. Women fought in court to be called persons. They still fight in court for equality because the government will not legislate it.The time is up. When will the Liberals lock in equality?
Mr. Speaker, Canada has spoken out very clearly about human rights and everyone knows it. That definitely includes Saudi Arabia, as everyone saw this summer.With regard to Jamal Khashoggi, we are working closely with our G7 allies. We all spoke on Tuesday and we are all saying that a thorough and transparent investigation is needed to bring those responsible to justice.
Mr. Speaker, for the third time, I will say to the House and say to all Canadians, those who have left the comfortable confines of Canadian democracy to travel overseas and associate themselves with a terrorist cause will be pursued by Canadian justice. We will investigate by every means possible, in concert with our allies in the Five Eyes and the G7, to lay charges and to prosecute. We have already done that in four cases. We will continue to do it in every possible case, whereas they did nothing.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that Canadians want to know that their government will protect them and put their safety first. However, the reality is the Liberals have given $10.5 million to a terrorist, and they proactively welcome and facilitate terrorists coming back to Canada. That is a fact. Canadians actually want to know that terrorists will end up in jail, not walking on our streets and living in our communities. Can the Liberals assure Canadians that terrorists will end up behind bars if the Liberals bring them back to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, a report commissioned by the Liberals calls for a complete overhaul of the EI system. What a surprise. The Liberals and Conservatives ransacked the EI program, leaving holes in the social safety net for people who are unemployed or sick. Now that their own report has confirmed what we have been saying for years, when will the minister finally do a complete overhaul of the EI program?
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my first answer, we will investigate through our police and security agencies by all possible means, with the absolute determination to lay charges and to prosecute in every case. In fact, in the cases that have been dealt with so far, there have been four charges laid by this government, two convictions obtained, and two others are in the process. By contrast, under the previous government, with respect to these terrorist returnees, not a single charge was laid by the Harper government.
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. We need to draw the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable. The murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is the last, blood-soaked straw. By selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Canada is supporting this murderous regime and selling its soul.Will the government suspend its contracts with Saudi Arabia or will it remain complicit?
Mr. Speaker, an estimated 500,000 Canadians have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis, which is now a perfectly legal substance. The Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday that a disproportionate number of marginalized people lived with the stigma of a criminal record, and pledged that those records would not follow them for the rest of their lives. However, they will. A pardon is like a band-aid covering a wound; it does not make it disappear.When will the government finally understand that the best solution, the only solution, is expungement?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals love to take credit for things that they were forced to do. They know full well that was a flip-flop and they were only forced to return to that tax cut, which the Conservatives put in place and they tried to take away. Small businesses continue to struggle because of the Liberal government. The Liberals cut an advisory committee that ensured that each new regulation on small businesses would be offset by the removal of another piece of regulation. The Liberals simply continue to pile on new regulatory burdens. How can the Liberals say that they are easing burdens on small businesses when they are continuing to add more taxes and more red tape?
Mr. Speaker, the reported murder of Jamal Khashoggi is the latest in a series of horrible acts by Saudi Arabia. The war in Yemen is bringing famine to millions and is rife with war crimes. Attacks on journalism, democracy and basic human rights should trigger consequences, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs this morning said that honouring Canada's arms deal with Saudi Arabia was more important than honouring human rights.Does the minister really think that is what Canadians want?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.I want to point out once again that the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi is very troubling. Canada has made that very clear. That is the message that I sent to the Saudi Arabian foreign minister. I also initiated a discussion on the subject with my counterparts in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States.We join our partners in calling for a thorough investigation to identify those responsible.
Mr. Speaker, I can say that I have a very clear understanding of the importance of the independence of the judicial system.As I have stated, this prosecution of Vice-Admiral Norman is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, a body that is independent from my office, the Office of the Attorney General. It would be entirely inappropriate to comment on this matter, because it is before the courts.
Mr. Speaker, the independent judicial system requires evidence. It is the government that is responsible for producing that evidence.The Prime Minister promised Canadians a transparent, accountable and open government, but that is not what the Liberals have delivered. Instead, the Liberals are using political games to hide the truth. In the case of Vice-Admiral Norman, the Liberals are refusing to release critical evidence central to his defence.Can the Prime Minister honour his commitment to be open and transparent, honour our judicial system and the rule of law, and release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of taxation, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have been very clear. However, we also know that the Broadcasting Act has not been reviewed since before the Internet came into our homes. The Conservatives did nothing for 10 long years, so we have taken action. We have appointed a panel of experts to help us modernize this act, and our starting point is clear. All players that participate in the system must contribute to the system. There will be no free rides.
Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege.In response to our question yesterday, the Prime Minister misled the House by providing incorrect information. The interim leader of the Bloc Québécois asked him why the rush to legalize cannabis by October 17, and the Prime Minister replied: The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks. However, Quebec asked to push cannabis legislation back to July 1, 2019. The Quebec National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion to that effect on November 16, 2017. It reads: THAT the National Assembly ask the Federal Government to defer the cannabis legalization currently scheduled to come into force on 1 July 2018 until at least 1 July 2019. The Prime Minister's statement was misleading.In addition, after the National Assembly adopted this motion, it also unanimously agreed to send this motion to the Prime Minister and to all Liberal members of Parliament from Quebec.The Prime Minister therefore had knowledge of the resolution adopted by the Quebec National Assembly. The Prime Minister therefore knew when he was making that statement that it was incorrect.Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and that the Prime Minister made a statement that he knew to be incorrect, it seems clear to us that the Prime Minister intended to mislead the House. Just this morning we received the selected decisions from May 7, 2012, of the Speaker who preceded you. On page 31, it states: It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a Member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House. Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and incorrectas we have demonstratedand given that he knew, when he was making the statement, that it was misleading and incorrectas we have demonstratedwhat other intention could he have had apart from misleading the House by saying these falsehoods?I repeat the Prime Minister's reply: The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks. I would like to clarify that I raised my question of privilege at the earliest opportunity because the most recent information was obtained during yesterday's question period.Finally, should you consider it to be a prima facie question of privilege, I intend to move the following motion: That the House acknowledge that the Prime Minister misled the House and ask him to correct the answer to the question posed October 17, 2018, by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, and to apologize to the House.Thank you for your attention to this matter, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we share the concern about disproportionate impacts. That is why we are advancing a no wait, no fee pardon system to remove the stigma of those impacts. The expungement argument the hon. gentleman makes by contrast, expungement has been used exclusively and only to deal with those cases where the law itself was inherently discriminatory and a fundamental violation of human rights, as for example when the Criminal Code attacked people simply for being gay.
Mr. Speaker, every member of the House can be assured that this government follows the law meticulously.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say this prosecution is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which operates independently from my office. As this matter is currently before the court, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment further.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote: Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters before the courts, or under judicial consideration, in order to protect those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry against any undue influence through the discussion of the case. This practice is referred to as the sub judice convention and it applies to debate, statements and Question Period. Those are the words of the hon. Peter Van Loan, May 11, 2015.
Mr. Speaker, the prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, a body that acts independently of my role. As this matter is currently before the court, as the member opposite should know, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the opposition members in their political enthusiasm are obviously inviting the government and ministers of the government to comment on matters that are presently before the courts. They may try to camouflage that reality, but that is in fact the case, and we have the procedural documents produced by the table officers of the House, as well as former distinguished members of the House like Mr. Van Loan, saying that is improper and outside the rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Shelley Beyak's children were abducted by their father and taken to Beirut. On September 14, the Prime Minister received a petition of over 930 names of Canadians, adding their voices to that of Shelley Beyak, imploring the Prime Minister to personally intervene and bring these children home. If you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent to table this document.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-83, on administrative segregation. This debate will continue tomorrow.Next Monday, October 22, shall be an allotted day. Also, priority will be given to report stage and third reading debate of Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, as soon as it is reported back to the House. Finally, I would like to remind everybody that next Thursday, pursuant to the order made earlier this week, the House will have Wednesday sitting hours to allow for the address in the House at 10:30 a.m. by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago an American company decided to establish a large quarry in Nova Scotia. The quarry project was turned down by the federal and provincial governments because of environmental concerns. Then the American company sued the Canadian government for $500 million under the investor-state dispute settlement clause in the old NAFTA.Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us if the new USMCA will stop those frivolous lawsuits against Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Prime Minister cares about ISIS terrorists, but on this side of the House, we condemn their terrible acts and take the threat they pose seriously.Like rats fleeing a sinking ship, these traitors are returning to Canada and trying to make us believe that they are victims.Will the Prime Minister put an end to this circus and take meaningful action against these cowards to ensure that they face the full force of the law if they return to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, again, the fact remains that we are taking real action to grow the economy. The Conservatives had 10 years and they had the worst growth since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, we have some of the lowest unemployment rates in 40 years. It is no surprise that as we are cutting taxes for small businesses, for Canadians, for families and stopping to send cheques to millionaires, our economy is one of the best in the G7. With a failed record like that, no wonder the Conservatives do not understand what success looks like.
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the cornerstone of the Canadian economy. However, a recent World Economic Forum competitiveness report found that Canadian businesses already faced a heavy regulatory burden and inefficient bureaucracy. What the Liberals therefore did, besides increasing the regulatory burden, was they brought in onerous new small business tax rules, a carbon tax on everything and payroll tax hikes, and the Prime Minister calls them wealthy tax cheats. Why do the Liberals continue to attack our hard-working local small business owners?
Mr. Speaker, sadly, I get the impression that the Liberals and the Conservatives are cut from the same cloth. Stephen Harper stood before the G20 and announced with a straight face that Canada had no history of colonialism. Now, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism claims that there is no racism in Canada. Good grief.Does he realize how many people he just insulted?Allow me to give the minister an opportunity to admit he was wrong, to admit he made a mistake, that he screwed up, and say I'm sorry.
Mr. Speaker, for too long, our country's trade with the United States through the Detroit-Windsor corridor has been limited by a lack of capacity. With only one bridge, which is privately owned, the flow of people and goods has not been as efficient as it could and should be. My constituents and all southern Ontarians know this first-hand. Can the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities please update this House on the steps the government has taken to change this?
Mr. Speaker, by all accounts, it seems that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed at the behest of Saudi Arabia at its consulate in Istanbul. The details being reported in Turkish newspapers are appallingly grisly.We hope there will be a UN investigation into this in order to identify those who are really responsible for this atrocity.When those responsible are identified, will the government be prepared to enforce the Magnitsky law?
Mr. Speaker, the government has agreed to discriminatory provisions under its new trade agreement, the USMCA. Private couriers delivering goods across the border receive a duty exemption that our Crown corporation, Canada Post, does not. This provision punishes rural areas, where Canada Post is the only game in town for delivering goods. Why did the government agree to this, and why are the Liberals undermining our Crown corporation and public services?
Mr. Speaker, let me refer to a document called The House of Commons Compendium of Procedure, which is in fact prepared by the distinguished Table Officers immediately before us. That compendium says this, Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters actively before the courts or under judicial consideration in order to guard those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry from any undue influence. Those are the rules of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, those who have abandoned Canadian democracy to travel to a war zone and engage with vicious terrorists need to take the full responsibility for their criminal conduct. Our intelligence, security and police agencies will investigate terrorists by all possible means with the absolute goal to charge and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Thus far, under our government, we have charged four, convicted two. Two are outstanding. Under the previous government, there were no such charges.
Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for this. When it comes to asking Web giants to pay their fair share, it seems that common sense and tax fairness go out the window. The Minister of Finance expects an international consensus. I have news for him. We are the only idiots in the G7 who are not taxing Netflix. Worse still, France is going to make Netflix pay taxes, collect sales tax and guarantee 30% local content. Meanwhile, in Canada, everything is cool for Netflix and Google. There are no taxes, no sales tax, no quotas. Nothing.The Minister of Canadian Heritage could take a lesson from the Robert Charlebois song: Between two joints, you could do something.
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of our economy. That is why our government has worked with credit card companies so that they would lower the rates for small businesses.We are very proud of the work we have been doing. This is going to save small businesses $7,500 a year. We will always work hard for small businesses, and we will keep doing that.
Mr. Speaker, it is just the contrary. It is our government that is actually delivering for small businesses and entrepreneurs across the country. We have actually lowered the small business tax rate from 11% going 9%. We have not just talked about it, we are doing it. Because of that, over the last six quarters we have seen investment in business in Canada grow by 8%. That is because the actions we are taking are real. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that.
Mr. Speaker, like most Liberals, the minister has always accused the previous government of cutting the budget. However, they could take back $10 million from Omar Khadr and reinvest it so they could deal with the others over there.The Prime Minister knows full well that leaving Canada to participate in terrorist activities is a Criminal Code offence. Some men and women want to return to Canada after fighting against our allies, and the Liberals are doing nothing to prevent them from returning. I am asking this question today in the name of Quebeckers and Canadians who are fed up with the government's answers. When will the Prime Minister do something to resolve the situation?
Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. This prosecution is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which is a body that is independent from the Office of the Attorney General.As this matter is before the courts, we will not, it is not appropriate to, comment further.
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely ridiculous because the Prime Minister publicly stated that Vice-Admiral Norman would likely be charged. How did he come to that conclusion? It is as if he knew something before the RCMP investigation was complete. The Prime Minister is playing a very dangerous game with Vice-Admiral Norman's life and that is precisely why it is important for the vice-admiral's defence team to see the evidence the Prime Minister is covering up. What is the Prime Minister hiding and who is he protecting?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals confused Canadians yesterday when they said they were moving forward with lowering interchange fees for small businesses, because their so-called agreement with Visa and Mastercard is entirely voluntary, and still only reduces rates by 0.1%. Small businesses in Canada were expecting more and are calling the Liberal plan extremely underwhelming.The NDP is calling for the government to cap merchant fees at 1% to help small businesses save up to $1 billion a year. Will the Liberals cap merchant fees at 1%, or will they continue to side with the big banks?
Mr. Speaker, we have not offered to repatriate anyone. In fact, there is no deal with the Kurdish region at the present time, and there has not been. The fact of the matter is, we will pursue criminal prosecutions in every possible way we can. We have demonstrated that by actually doing it, where the previous government, while it talks a good game, failed to lay a single charge.
Mr. Speaker, we know from Ontario and the gas plant scandal that when Liberals get into trouble, the first thing they do is destroy the evidence. In fact, Ontario Liberals in former premier Kathleen Wynne's office have been convicted and are going to jail for destroying records that implicated their government.Could the Prime Minister assure us that no one in his office or any other ministers' office has destroyed any records, recordings or other evidence related to the Mark Norman case?
Mr. Speaker, we support our women and men in uniform in whatever they are sent to do. The Liberals told Canadians that they were sent to Mali on a peacekeeping mission, without debate, without a vote and where there was no peace to keep. The head of the UN has said that the situation in Mali has sharply deteriorated.How can Canadians be assured that our soldiers have the equipment and the manpower to defend themselves when the Liberals play politics with procurement?
Mr. Speaker, it does not do the job. The Liberals are making things up as they go.Yesterday, the government had nothing prepared, but it still called in the media for a series of press conferences to announce some possible future legislation. In Canada, 500,000 people, including a disproportionate number of racialized and indigenous people, have a criminal record for simple possession of 30 grams or less of cannabis.What does the government have to say to the tens of thousands of Canadians who are wondering why it does not want to expunge their criminal records, which, in our opinion, is the easiest and only option?
Mr. Speaker, we are just asking for the schedule of the President of the Treasury Board. Here is the inconvenient truth. I can tell the President of the Treasury Board that he has met with Irving 16 times since he became minister, and those are just the publicly disclosed meetings. It does not include emails, texts, or instant messaging. That is information that Vice-Admiral Norman needs to build his defence. Why will the Liberals not release this information? What are they trying to hide and who are they trying to protect?
Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental tenets of democracy and a fair justice system is access to the truth. The Prime Minister and his cabinet are refusing to release evidence to Vice-Admiral Norman's defence team. As a result, the House must act and hold cabinet and the Prime Minister to account for this cover-up.The Prime Minister claims he respects the court. If he does, why will he not release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, years ago, a Canadian prime minister acted with the dignity befitting his position, and the minister knows him quite well. In 2004, the Right Hon. Paul Martin, a Liberal prime minister, released evidence connected to the sponsorship scandal. Why did he do this? He did it because it was in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.Will the Prime Minister rise in the House to clearly state that he will act with the dignity befitting his position and release the evidence pertaining to the trial of a Canadian vice-admiral?
Mr. Speaker, the safety of our women and men in uniform is our government's top priority. We always try to mitigate as best as possible the level of risk our people face while on operations. We will always ensure our troops have the right training and the right equipment to carry out the missions we send them on.
Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to, but I want to start by thanking the member for CumberlandColchester for his wisdom and the outstanding advice he gave me personally during the negotiations, especially on chapter 19.He asks an excellent question. ISDS is now removed from the new trade agreement between Canada and the United States. That will save Canada from frivolous lawsuits like the one the member mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, in order for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman to get a fair trial, his defence team has requested and has the right to evidence relevant to his case. The evidence includes recordings of cabinet meetings where the shipbuilding contract was discussed. We know that cabinet meetings are recorded and we know that the Prime Minister has the full legal authority to release those recordings. Will he do so and if not, what is he hiding?
Mr. Speaker, I was delighted today to announce that by December 31, we will have that ban on asbestos. This has been a long time coming. It is extremely important. We are committed to the health of Canadians and tackling pollution of all kinds, from pollution that causes climate change to pollution that is causing cancers like asbestos.I would like to quote the head of the Canadian Labour Congress, Hassan Yussuff: We're extremely happy that it meets our expectations in terms of what we wanted to see in the regulations.... especially [for] families who have lost their loved ones over the last many decades in this country to asbestos.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that diversity is our strength. While we have much to celebrate, we know that there are still real challenges for many people in this country. Throughout our history, there have been people and communities, particularly indigenous peoples, who have experienced systemic racism, oppression and discrimination that has prevented them from fully participating in society. We know these experiences are a reality for many, and we can and must do better. This is why our government is engaging communities and experts to modernize our approach and to take action on this really important issue.
Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition is inviting a commentary upon a judicial proceeding which is outstanding. That kind of commentary on the floor of the House of Commons is not permitted. It is obviously within the purview of the official opposition to try to politicize this process if it wishes, but the fact of the matter is that the rules of the House of Commons, as expressed in the House of Commons Compendium of Procedure, urges all members to guard against that by not violating the sub judice principle.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect high-quality services delivered in a timely and efficient way. Our government is committed to modernizing the Canada Revenue Agency's services to better reflect Canadians' expectations.Would the Minister of National Revenue update us on the measures she has taken to provide innovative digital services to taxpayers?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for London North Centre for his great question and his good work on behalf of all southern Ontarians.After many years of discussion and planning, our government is proud to have officially broken ground on the Gordie Howe International Bridge project. With 30% of all Canada-U.S. trade flowing across this corridor each and every single day, it is vital to have two crossings and to finally have highway-to-highway connectivity.The Gordie Howe International Bridge will be a great achievement for Canada and something all members of this House should be very proud of.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from BrossardSaint-Lambert for her excellent question. Our government committed to ensuring that Canadians have access to secure and convenient online electronic tax filing services, and that is exactly what we are doing.I am proud to announce that the Canada Revenue Agency and Tax-Filer Empowerment Canada have signed a joint digital services collaboration plan. The plan will enable us to improve our services, especially for people in remote regions, by providing innovative digital services that are easier to use.
Mr. Speaker, since taking office, our government has worked exclusively on making sure EI was more accessible, more fair and delivered to people in a timely way so that their benefits were received to support them as they moved between jobs. We have been working on EI reform, as I said, to make sure that we have more generous benefits as well to make sure that seasonal gaps for people in seasonal industries are taken care of and to make sure that maternity leave and sick leave are also addressed. EI reform continues to be one of our priorities. We continue to move forward on this. We received the report and will be reporting back on further developments as they are developed.
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking for any questioning of the independent system. What we are asking for is for the government, whose responsibility it is, to provide the documents to be able to have the evidence filed. The prosecution of Vice-Admiral Norman has been politically motivated from the start. The Prime Minister is hiding evidence and refuses to release it, jeopardizing his right to a fair trial. The evidence will reveal the truth.Who is the Prime Minister protecting? What is he hiding? If he has nothing to hide, why will he not release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, this government, which is all about promoting peace and love and singing Kumbaya, is quick to abandon its grand principles of universal peace and love when it comes to taking action against tyranny. There will not be any sanctions against Saudi Arabia for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, no sir. The government is looking the other way. I do not call that diplomacy. I call that complicity.Is the Prime Minister aware that, by selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, he is complicit with this murderous regime?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to answer questions about Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's case 24 times. The Prime Minister refused to explain why he is obstructing justice and he refuses to hand over the evidence that Vice-Admiral Norman needs to defend himself.On Tuesday, the President of the Treasury Board said that his only contact with Irving was to have been copied on a letter. Will the President of the Treasury Board tell the House how many times he has met with representatives from Irving?
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government, and I hope the answer is better than the ones we got in question period.Can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tell us what the government has planned for the rest of this week and next week?
Mr. Speaker, two years ago the government announced a ban on asbestos via four different ministers. They know who they are, yet today one of those four ministers is announcing watered down regulations that fly in the face of science, and the science is crystal clear. There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. Asbestos is the greatest industrial killer of all time, so why has the government chosen to leave Canadian workers and their families exposed to it?
Mr. Speaker, Vice-Admiral Norman cannot defend himself since the Prime Minister refuses to give him access to evidence for his defence. This is amateur theatre hour.In Canada, justice is not a one-way street. Every Canadian has rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Mr. Norman has the right to a fair trial.Can the Prime Minister guarantee that Vice-Admiral Norman will be able to defend himself and that he will release all the necessary evidence to the defence?
Mr. Speaker, the conclusion of the modernized NAFTA was a major accomplishment for Canada, a major accomplishment for Canadian businesses and for Canadian workers. One of the great achievements in this agreement was to keep de minimis levels low. That is something Canadian small businesses asked us to do. That is something we achieved, and we are glad we were able to do so.
Mr. Speaker, in the past couple of days, Canadians have emitted a great deal of cannabis smoke. However, that is nothing compared to the emissions from energy-intensive cannabis production. U.S. cannabis production emits as much carbon as three million cars.Has the government estimated the carbon footprint of Canadian cannabis production and what steps has the government taken to limit those emissions as it lights up this new industry?
Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House and the laws of Canada need to be applied with complete impartiality and to the appropriate conclusions that are determined not by politics, but by an independent judicial process. The Public Prosecution Service is in charge of the prosecution. Eminent legal counsel is in charge of the defence. They undoubtedly will make sure that justice is done.
Mr. Speaker, we know that when we invest in women, we strengthen the economy for everyone. That is why we are making Status of Women Canada a full department; why we have invested $40 billion in a national housing strategy, 25% of which will go toward women and their families; dedicated $7.5 billion for child care; created a new parental sharing benefit; and are supporting women entrepreneurs and women in the trades. Investing in gender equality is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the Prime Minister is the first prime minister to have broken the law with respect to certain regulations. This is serious. Vice-Admiral Mark Norman served Canada with unwavering commitment. Now he has been charged and is going to trial. All Canadians have a right to a fair defence. This requires access to all evidence. The Prime Minister has evidence pertaining to this case.Does he want the vice-admiral to have a fair trial, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, the prosecution in this case is handled completely independently by the Public Prosecution Service. The defence is obviously in very capable hands of learned counsel who will, no doubt, pursue the appropriate laws and rules of court. I would add this: It is deemed improper for a Member, in posing a question, or a Minister in responding to a question, to comment on any matter that is sub judice. Those again are the words of the hon. Peter Peter van Loan, May 11, 2015.
Mr. Speaker, it has become a habit for the Liberal government to govern not for all Canadians, but for Liberal cronies and certain interest groups.If sunny ways, as they liked to say, mean a cabinet that obstructs the courts in order to hide the real sacrificial lamb in this story, then the House of Commons has to hold cabinet to account.What is the government hiding?
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, as a long-standing member of the House, the government does not comment or speculate on matters that are related to ongoing criminal trials. That is the long-standing convention of the House. It is important that the judicial system be free to conduct itself completely in an independent fashion. That is important for the prosecution. That is important for the defence.We will not comment on ongoing processes.
Mr. Speaker, we want every trial in Canada to be a fair trial and that is assured by the very system we have, where the prosecution is in the hands of the independent Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which is not directed by the government, and the defence is obviously in the hands of very capable defence counsel. They have the law before them. They have an independent court procedure before them. Canadians can be assured that justice will be done and it will be seen to be done.
Mr. Speaker, we are obviously deeply concerned about the disproportionate impacts of Canada's old cannabis laws. That is why we have repealed them and we have replaced them with a new legal regime and strict regulations to better keep cannabis away from our kids and illegal profits away from organized crime. We are also advancing a new and far more effective pardon system for simple possession, with no waiting period before eligibility and no fee for the expressed purpose of getting rid of the stigma.
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking the minister anything about the case. We are asking about the activities within the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices. It is very troubling that the minister refuses to answer whether the government has destroyed any records relevant to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's case. Maybe he was not expecting my question, so I will ask him again. This is not about the case. This is about evidence, recordings and data that the Prime Minister's Office and other ministers have access to. Could we be assured none of it has been destroyed?
Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see the opposition members applaud our success as a government. We have ensured that we have the lowest rate of unemployment. Since the 1970s, we have added over 600,000 jobs. In fact, small and medium-sized businesses have added 600,000 jobs to our economy. Now we have a new problem of people who are looking for employees. That is why we are working so hard to make sure that every Canadian has that first shot at success, whether it is small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec, or in Ontario, or in Alberta or any of the other provinces or territories, so they have an opportunity to develop the skills they need to take advantage of that work.
Mr. Speaker, the minister of labour seems to have no idea how much she upset entrepreneurs, elected officials in Quebec City and Canadians when she made a mockery of my question on the labour shortage and the crisis we are in.Throughout BeauportLimoilou, Quebec and Canada, SMEs, economists and other stakeholders are pointing out that the labour shortage is a serious crisis. No one thinks this is good news. No one is laughing; quite the contrary. It is time for action.Does the Prime Minister plan to laugh about the labour shortage, or does he plan to do something about it?
Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister to comment on the details of the case. I am not asking the minister to comment on the contents of the document. It is shocking that our top justice official will not commit to just releasing the documents. All we are asking is for an affirmation from Canada's top justice official that she will ensure that Admiral Mark Norman's charter rights to be able to defend himself are respected by their releasing the documents, not what is in them.Will she release the documents, or what is she hiding?
Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of that situation. Our hearts go out to the mother and her children. We are providing consular services. Of course we are bound by the Privacy Act, so I am not permitted to say anything further.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General.In her mandate letter, the Prime Minister asked her to ensure that the rights of Canadians are protected. One of the core rights of Canadians is the right to make full answer and defence in a criminal proceeding through the disclosure of evidence to the accused. The Liberals are denying Admiral Mark Norman his due process rights, as articulated in the charter and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.Will the minister, as our top justice official, commit her government to living up to the charter and release all evidence?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.As we told our G7 partners on Tuesday, we are very concerned about the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. As we told our partners in the G7, of which Canada currently holds the presidency, all those responsible for this situation must be held to account. It is very important. We support the calls for a thorough and transparent investigation into these serious allegations.
Mr. Speaker, we know we need to take action on climate change. We know we need to reduce emissions. We are committed to doing that across all sectors. We have a price on pollution. We are phasing out coal. We are making historic investments in public transportation. We are investing in clean technology companies. We will continue taking the actions that Canadians expect to protect our environment and grow our economy.
Mr. Speaker, the contrast is that terrorists have been emboldened by the government. Canadians are rightly concerned when they hear about ISIS terrorists returning to Canada and that they may live in their neighbourhoods. Any persons who join a terrorist organization to fight against Canada and its allies are criminals and threats to our safety. When will the government get serious about keeping terrorists out of Canada and ensure that those returning will face the full extent of the law?
Mr. Speaker, the confusion inherent in that question demonstrates exactly why this House has a rule and a convention that says that matters of this nature are dealt with through proper independent legal procedures and not through the political process in the House.That is why Minister Van Loan, at the time, was absolutely correct in saying a Minister in responding to a question shall not comment on any matter that is sub judice.
Mr. Speaker, there are judicial procedures quite independent of the House that deal with the matters that are referred to in that question. The point is, in the rules of the House and in the conventions of the House, members are expected not to ask questions and ministers are expected not to give answers that comment directly or indirectly on an outstanding legal procedure, and we will honour that convention.
Mr. Speaker, on March 25 of this year, Mia and Liam Tarabichi went on what was supposed to be just a quick trip with their father to Seattle. Instead, he abducted them and fled to Beirut. He is now wanted on an international arrest warrant. The children's mother, Shelley Beyak, has tried to contact the Prime Minister and has received no answer. The Prime Minister can intervene and help bring these children home to their mom, but he refuses. Why?
Mr. Speaker, of course I do not think that is what Canadians want and that is why I said no such thing. Canada's position on human rights in general, very much including Saudi Arabia, is clear and firm. We took a clear and firm position in August, and I think that is something that Canadians can be proud of.When it comes to the case of Jamal Khashoggi, we led a G7 foreign ministers' statement, which came out on Tuesday, saying that those responsible must be held to account.
Mr. Speaker, today all the ministers responsible for status of women meet in Yukon. Tuesday, I called again for Liberals to walk the talk, finally end violence against women and remove barriers to economic justice. Whether it is pay equity, child care or a national action plan, the Liberals have promised so much and delivered so little. Women fought in court to be called persons. They still fight in court for equality because the government will not legislate it.The time is up. When will the Liberals lock in equality?
Mr. Speaker, Canada has spoken out very clearly about human rights and everyone knows it. That definitely includes Saudi Arabia, as everyone saw this summer.With regard to Jamal Khashoggi, we are working closely with our G7 allies. We all spoke on Tuesday and we are all saying that a thorough and transparent investigation is needed to bring those responsible to justice.
Mr. Speaker, for the third time, I will say to the House and say to all Canadians, those who have left the comfortable confines of Canadian democracy to travel overseas and associate themselves with a terrorist cause will be pursued by Canadian justice. We will investigate by every means possible, in concert with our allies in the Five Eyes and the G7, to lay charges and to prosecute. We have already done that in four cases. We will continue to do it in every possible case, whereas they did nothing.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that Canadians want to know that their government will protect them and put their safety first. However, the reality is the Liberals have given $10.5 million to a terrorist, and they proactively welcome and facilitate terrorists coming back to Canada. That is a fact. Canadians actually want to know that terrorists will end up in jail, not walking on our streets and living in our communities. Can the Liberals assure Canadians that terrorists will end up behind bars if the Liberals bring them back to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, a report commissioned by the Liberals calls for a complete overhaul of the EI system. What a surprise. The Liberals and Conservatives ransacked the EI program, leaving holes in the social safety net for people who are unemployed or sick. Now that their own report has confirmed what we have been saying for years, when will the minister finally do a complete overhaul of the EI program?
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my first answer, we will investigate through our police and security agencies by all possible means, with the absolute determination to lay charges and to prosecute in every case. In fact, in the cases that have been dealt with so far, there have been four charges laid by this government, two convictions obtained, and two others are in the process. By contrast, under the previous government, with respect to these terrorist returnees, not a single charge was laid by the Harper government.
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. We need to draw the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable. The murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is the last, blood-soaked straw. By selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Canada is supporting this murderous regime and selling its soul.Will the government suspend its contracts with Saudi Arabia or will it remain complicit?
Mr. Speaker, an estimated 500,000 Canadians have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis, which is now a perfectly legal substance. The Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday that a disproportionate number of marginalized people lived with the stigma of a criminal record, and pledged that those records would not follow them for the rest of their lives. However, they will. A pardon is like a band-aid covering a wound; it does not make it disappear.When will the government finally understand that the best solution, the only solution, is expungement?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals love to take credit for things that they were forced to do. They know full well that was a flip-flop and they were only forced to return to that tax cut, which the Conservatives put in place and they tried to take away. Small businesses continue to struggle because of the Liberal government. The Liberals cut an advisory committee that ensured that each new regulation on small businesses would be offset by the removal of another piece of regulation. The Liberals simply continue to pile on new regulatory burdens. How can the Liberals say that they are easing burdens on small businesses when they are continuing to add more taxes and more red tape?
Mr. Speaker, the reported murder of Jamal Khashoggi is the latest in a series of horrible acts by Saudi Arabia. The war in Yemen is bringing famine to millions and is rife with war crimes. Attacks on journalism, democracy and basic human rights should trigger consequences, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs this morning said that honouring Canada's arms deal with Saudi Arabia was more important than honouring human rights.Does the minister really think that is what Canadians want?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.I want to point out once again that the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi is very troubling. Canada has made that very clear. That is the message that I sent to the Saudi Arabian foreign minister. I also initiated a discussion on the subject with my counterparts in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States.We join our partners in calling for a thorough investigation to identify those responsible.
Mr. Speaker, I can say that I have a very clear understanding of the importance of the independence of the judicial system.As I have stated, this prosecution of Vice-Admiral Norman is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, a body that is independent from my office, the Office of the Attorney General. It would be entirely inappropriate to comment on this matter, because it is before the courts.
Mr. Speaker, the independent judicial system requires evidence. It is the government that is responsible for producing that evidence.The Prime Minister promised Canadians a transparent, accountable and open government, but that is not what the Liberals have delivered. Instead, the Liberals are using political games to hide the truth. In the case of Vice-Admiral Norman, the Liberals are refusing to release critical evidence central to his defence.Can the Prime Minister honour his commitment to be open and transparent, honour our judicial system and the rule of law, and release the evidence?
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of taxation, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have been very clear. However, we also know that the Broadcasting Act has not been reviewed since before the Internet came into our homes. The Conservatives did nothing for 10 long years, so we have taken action. We have appointed a panel of experts to help us modernize this act, and our starting point is clear. All players that participate in the system must contribute to the system. There will be no free rides.
Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege.In response to our question yesterday, the Prime Minister misled the House by providing incorrect information. The interim leader of the Bloc Québécois asked him why the rush to legalize cannabis by October 17, and the Prime Minister replied: The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks. However, Quebec asked to push cannabis legislation back to July 1, 2019. The Quebec National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion to that effect on November 16, 2017. It reads: THAT the National Assembly ask the Federal Government to defer the cannabis legalization currently scheduled to come into force on 1 July 2018 until at least 1 July 2019. The Prime Minister's statement was misleading.In addition, after the National Assembly adopted this motion, it also unanimously agreed to send this motion to the Prime Minister and to all Liberal members of Parliament from Quebec.The Prime Minister therefore had knowledge of the resolution adopted by the Quebec National Assembly. The Prime Minister therefore knew when he was making that statement that it was incorrect.Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and that the Prime Minister made a statement that he knew to be incorrect, it seems clear to us that the Prime Minister intended to mislead the House. Just this morning we received the selected decisions from May 7, 2012, of the Speaker who preceded you. On page 31, it states: It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a Member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House. Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and incorrectas we have demonstratedand given that he knew, when he was making the statement, that it was misleading and incorrectas we have demonstratedwhat other intention could he have had apart from misleading the House by saying these falsehoods?I repeat the Prime Minister's reply: The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks. I would like to clarify that I raised my question of privilege at the earliest opportunity because the most recent information was obtained during yesterday's question period.Finally, should you consider it to be a prima facie question of privilege, I intend to move the following motion: That the House acknowledge that the Prime Minister misled the House and ask him to correct the answer to the question posed October 17, 2018, by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, and to apologize to the House.Thank you for your attention to this matter, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we share the concern about disproportionate impacts. That is why we are advancing a no wait, no fee pardon system to remove the stigma of those impacts. The expungement argument the hon. gentleman makes by contrast, expungement has been used exclusively and only to deal with those cases where the law itself was inherently discriminatory and a fundamental violation of human rights, as for example when the Criminal Code attacked people simply for being gay.
Mr. Speaker, every member of the House can be assured that this government follows the law meticulously.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say this prosecution is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which operates independently from my office. As this matter is currently before the court, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment further.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote: Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters before the courts, or under judicial consideration, in order to protect those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry against any undue influence through the discussion of the case. This practice is referred to as the sub judice convention and it applies to debate, statements and Question Period. Those are the words of the hon. Peter Van Loan, May 11, 2015.
Mr. Speaker, the prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, a body that acts independently of my role. As this matter is currently before the court, as the member opposite should know, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the opposition members in their political enthusiasm are obviously inviting the government and ministers of the government to comment on matters that are presently before the courts. They may try to camouflage that reality, but that is in fact the case, and we have the procedural documents produced by the table officers of the House, as well as former distinguished members of the House like Mr. Van Loan, saying that is improper and outside the rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Shelley Beyak's children were abducted by their father and taken to Beirut. On September 14, the Prime Minister received a petition of over 930 names of Canadians, adding their voices to that of Shelley Beyak, imploring the Prime Minister to personally intervene and bring these children home. If you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent to table this document.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-83, on administrative segregation. This debate will continue tomorrow.Next Monday, October 22, shall be an allotted day. Also, priority will be given to report stage and third reading debate of Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, as soon as it is reported back to the House. Finally, I would like to remind everybody that next Thursday, pursuant to the order made earlier this week, the House will have Wednesday sitting hours to allow for the address in the House at 10:30 a.m. by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago an American company decided to establish a large quarry in Nova Scotia. The quarry project was turned down by the federal and provincial governments because of environmental concerns. Then the American company sued the Canadian government for $500 million under the investor-state dispute settlement clause in the old NAFTA.Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us if the new USMCA will stop those frivolous lawsuits against Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Prime Minister cares about ISIS terrorists, but on this side of the House, we condemn their terrible acts and take the threat they pose seriously.Like rats fleeing a sinking ship, these traitors are returning to Canada and trying to make us believe that they are victims.Will the Prime Minister put an end to this circus and take meaningful action against these cowards to ensure that they face the full force of the law if they return to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, again, the fact remains that we are taking real action to grow the economy. The Conservatives had 10 years and they had the worst growth since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, we have some of the lowest unemployment rates in 40 years. It is no surprise that as we are cutting taxes for small businesses, for Canadians, for families and stopping to send cheques to millionaires, our economy is one of the best in the G7. With a failed record like that, no wonder the Conservatives do not understand what success looks like.
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the cornerstone of the Canadian economy. However, a recent World Economic Forum competitiveness report found that Canadian businesses already faced a heavy regulatory burden and inefficient bureaucracy. What the Liberals therefore did, besides increasing the regulatory burden, was they brought in onerous new small business tax rules, a carbon tax on everything and payroll tax hikes, and the Prime Minister calls them wealthy tax cheats. Why do the Liberals continue to attack our hard-working local small business owners?
Mr. Speaker, sadly, I get the impression that the Liberals and the Conservatives are cut from the same cloth. Stephen Harper stood before the G20 and announced with a straight face that Canada had no history of colonialism. Now, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism claims that there is no racism in Canada. Good grief.Does he realize how many people he just insulted?Allow me to give the minister an opportunity to admit he was wrong, to admit he made a mistake, that he screwed up, and say I'm sorry.
Mr. Speaker, for too long, our country's trade with the United States through the Detroit-Windsor corridor has been limited by a lack of capacity. With only one bridge, which is privately owned, the flow of people and goods has not been as efficient as it could and should be. My constituents and all southern Ontarians know this first-hand. Can the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities please update this House on the steps the government has taken to change this?
Mr. Speaker, by all accounts, it seems that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed at the behest of Saudi Arabia at its consulate in Istanbul. The details being reported in Turkish newspapers are appallingly grisly.We hope there will be a UN investigation into this in order to identify those who are really responsible for this atrocity.When those responsible are identified, will the government be prepared to enforce the Magnitsky law?
Mr. Speaker, the government has agreed to discriminatory provisions under its new trade agreement, the USMCA. Private couriers delivering goods across the border receive a duty exemption that our Crown corporation, Canada Post, does not. This provision punishes rural areas, where Canada Post is the only game in town for delivering goods. Why did the government agree to this, and why are the Liberals undermining our Crown corporation and public services?
Mr. Speaker, let me refer to a document called The House of Commons Compendium of Procedure, which is in fact prepared by the distinguished Table Officers immediately before us. That compendium says this, Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters actively before the courts or under judicial consideration in order to guard those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry from any undue influence. Those are the rules of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, those who have abandoned Canadian democracy to travel to a war zone and engage with vicious terrorists need to take the full responsibility for their criminal conduct. Our intelligence, security and police agencies will investigate terrorists by all possible means with the absolute goal to charge and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Thus far, under our government, we have charged four, convicted two. Two are outstanding. Under the previous government, there were no such charges.
Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for this. When it comes to asking Web giants to pay their fair share, it seems that common sense and tax fairness go out the window. The Minister of Finance expects an international consensus. I have news for him. We are the only idiots in the G7 who are not taxing Netflix. Worse still, France is going to make Netflix pay taxes, collect sales tax and guarantee 30% local content. Meanwhile, in Canada, everything is cool for Netflix and Google. There are no taxes, no sales tax, no quotas. Nothing.The Minister of Canadian Heritage could take a lesson from the Robert Charlebois song: Between two joints, you could do something.
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of our economy. That is why our government has worked with credit card companies so that they would lower the rates for small businesses.We are very proud of the work we have been doing. This is going to save small businesses $7,500 a year. We will always work hard for small businesses, and we will keep doing that.
Mr. Speaker, it is just the contrary. It is our government that is actually delivering for small businesses and entrepreneurs across the country. We have actually lowered the small business tax rate from 11% going 9%. We have not just talked about it, we are doing it. Because of that, over the last six quarters we have seen investment in business in Canada grow by 8%. That is because the actions we are taking are real. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that.
Mr. Speaker, like most Liberals, the minister has always accused the previous government of cutting the budget. However, they could take back $10 million from Omar Khadr and reinvest it so they could deal with the others over there.The Prime Minister knows full well that leaving Canada to participate in terrorist activities is a Criminal Code offence. Some men and women want to return to Canada after fighting against our allies, and the Liberals are doing nothing to prevent them from returning. I am asking this question today in the name of Quebeckers and Canadians who are fed up with the government's answers. When will the Prime Minister do something to resolve the situation?
Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. This prosecution is being handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which is a body that is independent from the Office of the Attorney General.As this matter is before the courts, we will not, it is not appropriate to, comment further.
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely ridiculous because the Prime Minister publicly stated that Vice-Admiral Norman would likely be charged. How did he come to that conclusion? It is as if he knew something before the RCMP investigation was complete. The Prime Minister is playing a very dangerous game with Vice-Admiral Norman's life and that is precisely why it is important for the vice-admiral's defence team to see the evidence the Prime Minister is covering up. What is the Prime Minister hiding and who is he protecting?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals confused Canadians yesterday when they said they were moving forward with lowering interchange fees for small businesses, because their so-called agreement with Visa and Mastercard is entirely voluntary, and still only reduces rates by 0.1%. Small businesses in Canada were expecting more and are calling the Liberal plan extremely underwhelming.The NDP is calling for the government to cap merchant fees at 1% to help small businesses save up to $1 billion a year. Will the Liberals cap merchant fees at 1%, or will they continue to side with the big banks?
Mr. Speaker, we have not offered to repatriate anyone. In fact, there is no deal with the Kurdish region at the present time, and there has not been. The fact of the matter is, we will pursue criminal prosecutions in every possible way we can. We have demonstrated that by actually doing it, where the previous government, while it talks a good game, failed to lay a single charge.
Mr. Speaker, we know from Ontario and the gas plant scandal that when Liberals get into trouble, the first thing they do is destroy the evidence. In fact, Ontario Liberals in former premier Kathleen Wynne's office have been convicted and are going to jail for destroying records that implicated their government.Could the Prime Minister assure us that no one in his office or any other ministers' office has destroyed any records, recordings or other evidence related to the Mark Norman case?
Mr. Speaker, we support our women and men in uniform in whatever they are sent to do. The Liberals told Canadians that they were sent to Mali on a peacekeeping mission, without debate, without a vote and where there was no peace to keep. The head of the UN has said that the situation in Mali has sharply deteriorated.How can Canadians be assured that our soldiers have the equipment and the manpower to defend themselves when the Liberals play politics with procurement?
Mr. Speaker, it does not do the job. The Liberals are making things up as they go.Yesterday, the government had nothing prepared, but it still called in the media for a series of press conferences to announce some possible future legislation. In Canada, 500,000 people, including a disproportionate number of racialized and indigenous people, have a criminal record for simple possession of 30 grams or less of cannabis.What does the government have to say to the tens of thousands of Canadians who are wondering why it does not want to expunge their criminal records, which, in our opinion, is the easiest and only option?
Mr. Speaker, we are just asking for the schedule of the President of the Treasury Board. Here is the inconvenient truth. I can tell the President of the Treasury Board that he has met with Irving 16 times since he became minister, and those are just the publicly disclosed meetings. It does not include emails, texts, or instant messaging. That is information that Vice-Admiral Norman needs to build his defence. Why will the Liberals not release this information? What are they trying to hide and who are they trying to protect?