Question Period

Mr. Speaker, before the Prime Minister was elected, Canada was a great place to invest in the energy sector. Companies like Kinder Morgan did not need bailouts or guarantees. They had investors, and they had the commitment to get through one of the world's most rigorous environmental processes. In fact, the previous Conservative government got four major pipelines built, including northern gateway, which would have brought our energy resources to tidewater, which they killed. Energy investment has fallen off a cliff, and now the message to investors is clear: “You need to have your project nationalized if you want it built.” Is this not what the Prime Minister wanted all along?

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been asking for a plan on how to get this pipeline built for months, and the government has done nothing. It is not just out-of-work people in Alberta or Saskatchewan who are suffering from the government's actions. It is people all across this country. There are seniors whose pension plans are being affected as more and more money leaves Canada's energy sector, but instead of building a Canadian energy brand the Prime Minister can promote around the world, he is actually in Europe talking to elites and talking down our resources. Why does the Prime Minister not champion Canada's energy sector and stand up for the men and women who work in it?

Mr. Speaker, the truth is the exact opposite. The Prime Minister was in Europe bragging about all that he is doing to punish Canada's energy sector. What he actually said, what he actually told his friends in Europe, is that he was disappointed that he could not phase out the energy sector tomorrow. Can the minister tell the House, if the Prime Minister is disappointed that he cannot phase out the energy sector tomorrow, by what date this Liberal government will finally phase it out?

Oh, oh!

Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais bien que le premier ministre m'explique sa conception du leadership, parce que dans le dossier de Trans Mountain, il en manque cruellement. Cela a pris un mois pour qu'il réunisse deux premiers ministres provinciaux concernant un dossier d'intérêt national, pour finir par dire que l'oléoduc serait peut-être construit. Pourquoi le premier ministre attend-il toujours à la dernière minute pour s'impliquer dans des dossiers qui touchent nos ressources naturelles, nos investissements privés, nos emplois, ainsi que nos familles canadiennes qui en dépendent?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would really like the Prime Minister to explain his idea of leadership, because he certainly has not shown any on the Trans Mountain proposal. It took him a month to bring two provincial premiers together to discuss an issue of national interest, and the upshot of the meeting was that the pipeline may or may not be built. Why does the Prime Minister always wait until the last minute to intervene in matters involving our natural resources, our private investments, our jobs, and the Canadian families who depend on them?

Monsieur le Président, voici les faits: la première ministre de l'Alberta a rappelé que le délai coûte chaque jour 40 millions de dollars, et on apprend maintenant que le premier ministre souhaite investir du capital public, de l'argent de la population, pour rassurer les investisseurs. Donc, si je comprends bien, l'incapacité du premier ministre à prendre des décisions va se faire aux frais des contribuables canadiens. Ma question est simple: combien le premier ministre va-t-il prendre d'argent dans les poches de la population canadienne pour gérer son incompétence dans ce dossier?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, these are the facts. The Premier of Alberta pointed out that each day of delay costs $40 million, and now we have learned that the Prime Minister wants to invest public money, taxpayer's money, to reassure investors. If I have understood correctly, the Prime Minister's inability to make decisions will cost Canadian taxpayers. My question is simple. How much will the Prime Minister' incompetence on this file cost taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon the Standing Committee on Health will table its report. It will highlight the need to implement universal pharmacare. The study, instigated by my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway, has made it possible for the committee members to hear testimony from 99 witnesses. It was a comprehensive two-year study, and the outcome of all this work is crystal clear. To quote our leader, Jagmeet Singh, “People need a champion for better public health care. It's not enough to defend it. We need to expand it.” Why is the government refusing to commit to implementing universal pharmacare now?

Monsieur le Président, une personne sur cinq n'arrive pas à se payer des médicaments d'ordonnance au Canada. Il y a des études, des commissions et des rapports fédéraux qui concluent depuis des décennies qu'un programme universel d'assurance-médicaments aiderait des millions de personnes et ferait épargner 4,2 milliards de dollars en frais de médicaments d'ordonnance. Les gens veulent un programme universel d'assurance-médicaments maintenant et non pas une autre étude. Malgré deux ans de travail qui aboutiront aujourd'hui avec le dépôt d'un nouveau rapport, le gouvernement pense qu'on devrait encore étudier la question. Pourquoi?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, one in five Canadians cannot afford prescription drugs. For decades, federal studies, commissions, and reports have shown that a universal pharmacare program would help millions of people and save $4.2 billion in prescription fees. People do not want another study. They want a universal pharmacare program now. Despite the fact that a new report representing two years' worth of work will be tabled today, the government still thinks that we need to continue examining the issue. Why?

Mr. Speaker, reconciliation is not a hashtag. It is not a bumper sticker on a Liberal car. It is about recognizing the section 35 constitutional rights of indigenous people in this country, yet yesterday when my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou asked about the failure of the government to consult indigenous people about their section 35 rights on Kinder Morgan, the government did not even bother to respond. Therefore, on the record, do the Liberals believe that in the case of Kinder Morgan, the section 35 rights of indigenous people in Canada must be respected?

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts for my friend. Reconciliation and UNDRIP are going to be made real on the ground by the indigenous people of this country, yet in the middle of what they texted as an ultimatum to demand action, the oil company met with everybody but the indigenous peoples in this country. Does my friend think they are just going to walk past indigenous Canada to build this Liberal pipeline? Is that what he is telling the people of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis that has been created by the government, and it is following on the uncertainty of the Trans Mountain project. Let us take a look at what it has done to foreign investments. Since 2015, investments have decreased by $80 billion. In 2016 and 2017, they decreased a further 42% and 27%. Now the Prime Minister is travelling internationally, understandably in order to sell Canada to foreign investors, and what does he say? He says he laments that he cannot phase out the oil and gas sector tomorrow. Is this how they think they sell investor confidence?

Mr. Speaker, I thought it would never end. Let us review the actual record of the government when it comes to its inability to get things done: the $36-billion investment in the Pacific NorthWest LNG project, cancelled; the $7.9-billion northern gateway project, cancelled; the $50-billion energy east and eastern mainline projects, both cancelled. Again, the Prime Minister of Canada ends up going to Europe to try to sell investor confidence by saying that his plan is to phase out the oil and gas industry. Can anyone over there answer for me—

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I heard again from oil and gas sector workers and their families, and they are still scared. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister was in France lamenting the fact that he could not phase out the Canadian energy sector fast enough. The Prime Minister's attack on the energy sector has driven billions of dollars out of Canada and into the hands of foreign competitors, including almost $90 billion in the last two years alone. Why does this Prime Minister say one thing when he is in Fort McMurray and the exact opposite when he is in Paris?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources asked why we are not sharing his optimism. Is he serious? Investments of $86 billion are gone. Northern gateway, energy east, and Pacific NorthWest are cancelled. Trans Mountain is on its last legs, and we are facing a job-killing carbon tax. Again, the Prime Minister unveils his true vision for Canada's energy sector: phasing it out. On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of unemployed energy workers across Canada and their families, does the minister truly believe that phasing out Alberta's energy sector is reason for optimism, or is he just delusional?

Oh, oh!

Check his water.

Mr. Speaker, things are actually only going to get worse. The Prime Minister said Canada must phase out the oil sands. He killed northern gateway, energy east, and the Pacific NorthWest LNG project, and he imposed a tanker ban and an offshore drilling ban. He is piling up costs and red tape, and investment and capital are leaving Canada at historic levels. Yesterday in Calgary we met with energy investors and workers, and they want market access, certainty, and a champion. Instead, the Prime Minister was in France undermining Canadian oil and gas, saying he cannot phase it out fast enough. He is failing and dividing Canadians. Why on earth will he not put our own country first?

Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker, these Liberals are killing Canadian innovation and killing Canadian jobs. Canadian energy creates jobs across the whole country and provides billions for social services, health care, schools, charities, and pension plans, but hundreds of thousands of energy workers have lost their jobs, families are struggling, substance abuse and suicide are up, and these Liberals here are laughing about it today. Global oil demand will increase long into the future, but the Prime Minister will not let Canada compete. Canada's oil and gas is the most environmentally and socially responsible in the world. We on this side know it. They have no clue. When will the Prime Minister quit attacking Canadian energy and—

Monsieur le Président, un Canadien, Abousfian Abdelrazik, a été emprisonné pendant six ans au Soudan. Il a subi l'isolement cellulaire, une détention illégale et la torture. Pire encore, des agents de renseignement canadiens auraient collaboré avec les autorités soudanaises lors de sa détention et auraient nui au travail des diplomates canadiens. Que fera le ministre pour s'assurer que plus jamais le SCRS ne sera impliqué, directement ou indirectement, dans la torture d'un citoyen canadien?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Abousfian Abdelrazik has been imprisoned in Sudan for six years. He has endured isolation, unlawful detention, and torture. Even worse, Canadian intelligence officers allegedly collaborated with the Sudanese authorities when he was detained and undermined the work of Canadian diplomats. How will the minister ensure that CSIS will never again be involved, directly or indirectly, in torturing a Canadian citizen?

Mr. Speaker, this Canadian has already suffered unconscionable abuse and torture at the hands of Sudanese authorities, and the Government of Canada not only abandoned him but also was found by the Federal Court to have been complicit in his detention. However, rather than work toward justice and accountability, the government has just walked away from settlement negotiations with Mr. Abdelrazik, giving no reasons. Let me echo the call from Amnesty International. Will the Prime Minister instruct his officials to recommit to mediation and to apologize for Canada's role in his horrific ordeal?

Monsieur le Président, le Québec en a assez du manque de sérieux du premier ministre concernant les migrants illégaux à Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle. Il n'accepte plus de payer la facture pour le manque de leadership du premier ministre. Le Québec réclame un remboursement de 146 millions de dollars et limitera dorénavant l'hébergement de nouveaux arrivants. Pourquoi le premier ministre abuse-t-il de la générosité des Québécois?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Quebec has had enough of the Prime Minister's lax approach to the illegal migrants crossing at Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle. Quebec refuses to subsidize the Prime Minister's lack of leadership. It is asking to be reimbursed $146 million and will now limit accommodation for newcomers. Why is the Prime Minister abusing Quebeckers' generous spirit?

Monsieur le Président, peut-on imaginer le bordel qu'il va y avoir? Il y a 300 à 400 immigrants illégaux qui vont venir à Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, cet été. Le gouvernement du Québec n'en peut plus et exige des mesures concrètes et fermes du gouvernement du Canada et du premier ministre. Quand le premier ministre va-t-il mettre ses culottes et s'en occuper pour que le ministre de l'Immigration arrête de lancer des paroles en l'air?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, just imagine the chaos. This summer, 300 to 400 illegal immigrants will come to Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle. The Government of Quebec has had enough and is demanding that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister take action. When will the Prime Minister step up and get the Minister of Immigration to stop giving us rhetoric?

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that will fly really well in Quebec today. Government officials project that there could be 400 people who illegally enter from the United States this summer just at the Quebec border alone. They will claim asylum, will not have their claims heard for years, all the while benefiting from government social programs. Canadians expect a fair immigration system. What is happening now is completely unfair, both to Canadian taxpayers and to those seeking who enter Canada while playing by the rules. Could the minister stop the excuses and just tell us how he will end this crisis?

Mr. Speaker, spending tax dollars is not a metric in and of itself. Quebec is demanding millions of dollars to fund the housing, health care, and education of illegal migrants. Quebec has called the Liberals' response unacceptable. It is not compassionate to tweet #welcometocanada and turn Canada's asylum system into a joke. His ego and his failure have put Canada's social programs and once sound immigration system in jeopardy. Will the Prime Minister designate the entire Canadian border as a technical official point of entry for the purpose of applying the safe third country agreement?

Monsieur le Président, plusieurs industries au Québec sont très inquiètes des négociations entourant l'ALENA. Il n'y a aucune certitude que notre industrie de l'aluminium sera protégée contre des tarifs imposés par les États-Unis et que les libéraux vont respecter leur promesse de protéger la gestion de l'offre. Il est temps que le gouvernement rassure tous les producteurs ainsi que tous les travailleurs et les travailleuses. Est-ce que les libéraux vont rassurer nos industries en promettant qu'il n'y aura aucune brèche dans la gestion de l'offre et qu'aucun tarif punitif n'affectera l'industrie de l'aluminium?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, many industries in Quebec are very concerned about the NAFTA negotiations. There is no guarantee that our aluminum industry will be protected from tariffs imposed by the United States and that the Liberals will keep their promise to protect supply management. The government must reassure producers as well as all the workers. Will the Liberals reassure our industries and promise that the supply management system will be protected and that no punitive tariffs will be imposed on the aluminum industry?

Mr. Speaker, Canada is holding its breath as Donald Trump threatens to remove steel and aluminum tariff exemptions on May 1 unless NAFTA is signed to his liking. The minister is headed to Washington with only six out of 30 chapters negotiated and the idea of an agreement in principle being floated. What exactly is an agreement in principle and what will we give up to achieve it? Will it be brought before the House to be debated and voted on, or will Canadians be bound for another 25 years with a NAFTA that puts profits before protection of our environment, our sovereignty, and working people?

Monsieur le Président, lorsque les pompiers, les policiers et les ambulanciers mettent en danger leur sécurité en agissant au service de tous les Canadiens, lorsque leur travail les conduit à l'ultime sacrifice, leurs familles méritent notre soutien en retour. Could the Minister of Public Safety tell us how the government is upholding the commitment that we made to Canadians to support the families of fallen public security officers?

Monsieur le Président, le Parti libéral, dans son programme électoral, avait fait la promesse suivante, à la page 83: « Nous irons plus loin en matière de transparence financière. » La réalité, c'est qu'ils vont plus loin en matière de cachotteries financières. Voilà que le président du Conseil du Trésor nous propose un budget de 7 milliards de dollars, mais il ne sait pas trop ce qu'il va faire avec. Il demande que nous votions pour cela, mais c'est comme un chèque en blanc de 7 milliards de dollars. Il nous dit: « faites-moi confiance, je sais comment le dépenser. » Comme ces gens-là ne savent pas du tout compter et dépensent sans compter, pourquoi leur faire confiance?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on page 75 of its electoral platform, the Liberal Party made the following promise: “We will raise the bar on fiscal transparency.” However, what they are actually doing is raising the bar on fiscal secrecy. The President of the Treasury Board is proposing a $7-billion budget, but he is not quite sure of what he is going to do with it. He wants us to vote for it, but that would be like signing a blank cheque for $7 billion. He wants us to trust him and trust that he knows how to spend the money. Why would we trust people who cannot do math and only know how to spend, spend, spend?

Monsieur le Président, soyons bon joueur, je félicite à nouveau le ministre pour tous ses efforts pour la langue française. Sérieusement, on ne peut pas le prendre au sérieux lorsqu'il parle de finances publiques. Ces gens-là ce sont fait élire en disant qu'ils feraient des petits déficits, mais les déficits sont trois fois plus élevés que prévu, et qu'il y aurait zéro déficit en 2019, alors qu'ils n'ont aucune idée du retour à l'équilibre budgétaire. Aujourd'hui, ils veulent qu'on leur fasse confiance pour 7 milliards de dollars. La réponse est non. Pourquoi le gouvernement est-il si cachottier?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will be a good sport and congratulate the minister once again on all his efforts to speak French. Niceties aside, it is hard to take him seriously when he talks about public finances. Those folks over there were elected on a promise to run small deficits, but deficits are three times larger than planned. They also promised a zero deficit in 2019, but they actually have no idea when we will return to a balanced budget. Today they want us to simply trust them with $7 billion. The answer is no. Why is the government being so secretive?

Says the President of the Treasury Board who was the greatest defender of the sponsorship scandal anywhere in Canada, Mr. Speaker. He now expects us to believe that the novel he held up, which he calls his “budget book”, has any legal weight in restricting on what the government spends this $7 billion no-strings-attached Liberal slush fund. What crisis justifies giving those Liberal ministers the power to spend that money with no restrictions right in an election year?

Mr. Speaker, what is not in there is legal enforceability. The legislation does not clearly restrict the power of that group of Liberal politicians on the Treasury Board to move that $7 billion between and among priorities that have not been approved by Parliament. Governments can only spend what Parliament has approved and only on the specific purposes approved, except this slush fund will allow the Liberals to move the money wherever they want. How is that accountable to taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals go on and on about Kinder Morgan being in the national interest. Do members know what is in the national interest? Protecting our coastal economy. Do members know what else is in the national interest? Protecting our marine environment. The proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline will mean a sevenfold increase in tanker traffic. These tankers will be filled with diluted bitumen. Do members know what is not in the Liberals' so-called oceans protection plan? Technology to clean up toxic dilbit. When will the Prime Minister put an end to this charade and protect our coast?

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the Kinder Morgan crisis, the Prime Minister is actually uniting the country, but not the way he thinks, because whether one is an oil worker in Alberta or an environmentalist in British Columbia, everyone can now agree that he screwed this thing up right from the very beginning. There has been no meaningful consultation with first nations, no credible environmental review, and no oil spill cleanup plan. From the British Parliament to British Columbia, folks want to know when the Liberals are going to finally keep their promise to people on the planet.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills excused her words at an event featuring a notorious apologist for the war crimes of Syrian President Assad, an event hosted by Palestine House, long associated with anti-Israel extremism and terror, by saying that she was only meeting with a diverse array of individuals. Diversity does not excuse pandering to extremist organizations in the Prime Minister's name. Again, will the Prime Minister renounce this unacceptable solicitation of votes?

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first example of the government looking the other way when Liberal MPs seek electoral support and funding from groups associated with extremism and terror. Government funding of Palestine House was cut by our previous Conservative government six years ago for just these reasons. Again, will the Prime Minister distance himself from this outrageous tribute made in his name?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, first-degree murder charges against notorious gang leader Nick Chan were thrown out of court due to delay. The Minister of Justice claims that she is appointing judges, but after a year and a half, only one out of 10 new judicial spots created to stem the backlog in Alberta's courts has been filled. This is worse than inaction. This is negligence. Will the minister take responsibility for the release of this dangerous criminal?

Mr. Speaker, in Ontario, 25 remote first nations communities depend on diesel as their sole source of electricity. This source is neither viable nor reliable. It is also extremely expensive. Recently, the hon. Minister of Indigenous Services announced a historic partnership that would not only allow for reliable and clean power generation but would also contribute to economic development and infrastructure opportunities in first nations communities. Would the hon. minister please share with this House the benefits of this project?

Mr. Speaker, China is becoming more and more aggressive, building military installations throughout the South China Sea, and today holding live fire drills in the Taiwan Strait. Canada's government has thus far declined to condemn Chinese aggression in the South China Sea and has never stood up for Taiwan. The Prime Minister can promote peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific by condemning clear acts of aggression. Will he?

Monsieur le Président, selon l'appel d'offres pour le démantèlement du Kathryn Spirit, l'entrepreneur devait fournir un plan d'intervention en cas d'urgence dans les 30 jours avant le début des travaux. Or, lorsque les 75 pompiers ont combattu les flammes à bord de l'épave, ils ont travaillé sans plan d'urgence, parce que tout ce que le Groupe St-Pierre leur a fourni, c'est un beau plan du bateau. Ça, ça aide à éteindre un feu! De plus, le chef des pompiers de Beauharnois m'a assuré que, s'il n'obtient pas la liste des contaminants qu'il reste à bord du bateau, ses hommes n'interviendront plus. C'est très inquiétant. Est-ce que le gouvernement va arrêter de minimiser la question et lancer enfin une enquête?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, according to the tender for the dismantling of the Kathryn Spirit, the contractor had to provide an emergency response plan 30 days before the work began. However, when a fire broke out in the wreck, the 75 firefighters who responded had to work without an emergency plan because the only thing that Groupe St-Pierre provided them was a layout of the vessel. That is not much help in putting out a fire. What is more, the Beauharnois fire chief assured me that if his men are not given a list of the contaminants that are still on board the wreck, they will no longer respond to emergency calls to the vessel. That is very worrisome. Will the government stop minimizing this issue and finally launch an investigation?

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that a sustainably developed resource sector is essential to the success of the Canadian economy. Getting this right requires us to work with indigenous peoples as equal partners through well-defined, predictable processes, like we do through co-management regimes across the north. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs update this House on the steps taken to ensure co-management is at the forefront of discussions on northern resource development?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Northwest Territories for his tremendous leadership on northern issues in Canada. Canada's northern co-management approach to resource development is an example to the world, and one we are proud of. Both territorial and indigenous partners came together at the UN Permanent Forum on co-management in the north, because it has ensured that indigenous people are equal partners in determining the best use of their lands and their resources. Together, we will continue to develop a shared vision, one that is strong, prosperous, and sustainable.

Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister laid out critical bid criteria for those interested in the lucrative surf clam quota, such as that the successful applicant must be an indigenous company, in respect of which shares are owned by indigenous persons or groups. However, we know the winning bid was not even incorporated until weeks after the announcement was made. We know that a Liberal MP's brother and a former Liberal MP are going to get very rich. Will the minister table the bid criteria scores so we can all see how his Liberal family and friends won a bid without a company, without a boat, and without indigenous partners?

Monsieur le Président, le Québec a toujours été une terre d'accueil recherchée, mais depuis l'invitation irresponsable du premier ministre, le Québec vit une véritable crise des migrants pendant qu'Ottawa a les doigts dans le nez. La Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada a des années de retard dans le traitement des dossiers, et le ministre de l'Immigration, des Réfugiés et de la Citoyenneté vient faire la morale au Québec. C'est irresponsable et c'est inacceptable, comme le dit Québec. Le gouvernement va-t-il enfin se décider avant ce soir et rembourser le Québec pour les dépenses qu'il a faites, à cause de sa négligence dans le dossier?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Quebec has always been a desirable destination for newcomers, but ever since the Prime Minister issued that irresponsible invitation, Quebec has been facing an immigration crisis, and Ottawa is not taking the issue seriously. The case processing backlog at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is years long, yet the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship sees fit to tell Quebec what to do. That is irresponsible and unacceptable, as Quebec has said. The government's carelessness is costing Quebec a lot of money. Will the government make a decision by the end of the day and reimburse Quebec for those costs?

Mr. Speaker, in a moment, along with my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, we will be asking for unanimous consent on an important motion, because it is up to the Parliament of Canada to accept our role and obligation in furthering the work of reconciliation and in addressing the still harsh wounds from the forcible removal of indigenous children to destroy indigenous identity in the residential school system. There have been extensive talks among all the parties, and I sincerely hope that you will find unanimous consent in this Parliament for this motion: That the House call on the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops to (a) invite Pope Francis to Canada to apologize on behalf of the Catholic Church to indigenous people for the church's role in the residential school system, as outlined in Call to Action 58 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report; (b) to respect its moral obligation and the spirit of the 2006 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and resume the best efforts to raise the full amount of the agreed upon funds; and (c) to make a consistent and sustained effort to turn over the relevant documents when called upon by survivors of residential schools, their families, and scholars working to understand the full scope of the horrors of the residential school system in the interest of truth and reconciliation.

Agreed. No.