//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessFederal Trades StrategyInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1820)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House. As usual, I want to say hello to all the residents of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching right now. I had the honour of meeting thousands of them last weekend at the Grand bazar du Vieux-Limoilou, where I had a booth, as the local member of Parliament. It was a fantastic outdoor party, and the weather co-operated beautifully.Before I discuss the motion, I just want the people of Beauport—Limoilou to know that we will have plenty of opportunities to meet this summer at all the events and festivals being held in Beauport and Limoilou. As usual, I will be holding my annual summer party in August, where thousands of people come to meet me. We often eat hot dogs, chips and popcorn from Île d'Orléans together. It is a chance for me to get to know my constituents, talk about the issues affecting the riding, and share information about the services that my office can provide to Canadians dealing with the federal government.I also want to say that this may be the last speech I give in the House during the 42nd Parliament. It was a huge honour to be here, and I hope to again have that honour after election day, October 21.I plan to run in the upcoming election and I hope to represent my constituents for a long time to come. I am extremely proud of the work I have done over the past four years, including the work I did in my riding, on my portfolio, Canada's official languages, and during debates.I am asking my constituents to do me a favour and put their trust in me for another four years. I will be here every day to serve them.Today we are debating Motion No. 227, a Liberal motion to conduct a study in committee. It is commendable to do a study at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This is a very important House of Commons committee. A Liberal Party MP is proposing to conduct a study on labour shortages in the skilled trades in Canada.As soon as I saw that I wanted to say a few words about this motion. Whether it be in Quebec City, Regina, Nanaimo, or elsewhere in Canada, there is a crisis right now. The labour shortage will affect us quite quickly.We have heard that, a few years from now, the greater Quebec City area will need an additional 150,000 workers. This remarkable shortage will be the result of baby boomers retiring. Baby boomers, including my parents, will enjoy a well-deserved retirement. This is a very important issue, and we must address it.I would like to remind the House that, in January, February and March, I asked the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour about the serious labour shortage problem in Canada. Each time, she made a mockery of my question by saying that the Liberals had created 600,000 new jobs. Today, they say one million. I am glad that this motion was moved, but it is more or less an exercise in virtue signalling. Actually, it is more of an exercise in public communications, although I am not questioning my colleague's sincere wish to look into the issue. In six or seven days, the 42nd Parliament will be dissolved. Well, the House will adjourn. Parliament will be dissolved in a few months, before the election.My colleague's committee will not be able to study the motion. My colleagues and I on the Standing Committee on Official Languages are finishing our study of the modernization of the Official Languages Act. We decided that we would finalize our recommendations tomorrow at noon, to ensure that we are able to table the report from the Standing Committee on Official Languages in the House.In essence, this is a public communications exercise, since the committee will not be able to study the issue. However, I think it would be good to talk about the labour shortages in the skilled trades with the Canadians who are watching us. What are skilled trades? We are talking about hairdressers, landscapers, cabinetmakers, electricians, machinists, mechanics, and crane or other equipment operators. Skilled trades also include painters, plumbers, welders and technicians.(1825)I will explain why the labour shortage in the skilled trades is worrisome. When people take a good look around they soon realize that these trades are very important. Skilled tradespeople build everything around us, such as highways, overpasses, waterworks, subways, transportation systems like the future Quebec streetcar line that we have talked about a lot lately, the railroads that cross the country, skyscrapers in major cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, factories in rural areas, tractors, equipment and the canals of the St. Lawrence Seaway, which were built in the 1950s. China, India and the United States are making huge investments in infrastructure. For example, in recent years, the U.S. government did not flinch at investing $5 billion to improve the infrastructure of the Port of New York and New Jersey, which was built by men and women in the trades. In Quebec, we are still waiting for the Liberals to approve a small $60-million envelope for the Beauport 2020 project, now called the Laurentia project, which will ensure the shipping competitiveness of the St. Lawrence for years to come.There has been a lack of infrastructure investment in Canada. The Liberals like to say that their infrastructure Canada plan is historic, but only $14 billion of the $190 billion announced have actually been allocated. That is not all. Even if the Liberals were releasing the funds and making massive investments to surpass other G20 and G7 countries, the world's largest economies, they would not be able to deliver on their incredible projects without skilled labour. Consider this: even Nigeria, with a population of 200 million, is catching up with us when it comes to infrastructure investments.It is about time that we, as legislators, dealt with this issue, but clearly that is not what the Liberals have been doing over the past few years, although I have heard some members talk about a few initiatives here and there in some provinces. The announcement of this study is late in coming.I would also remind the House that this is a provincial jurisdiction, given that provincial regulations govern the training of skilled workers. That said, the federal government can still be helpful by implementing various measures through federal transfers, such as apprenticeship grants and loans, tax credits and job training programs. This all requires a smooth, harmonious relationship between the provinces and the federal government. Not only do the political players have to get along well, but so do the politicians themselves.If, God forbid, the Liberals get another four-year term in office, taxes will increase dramatically, since they will want to make up for the huge deficits they racked up over the past four years. In 2016, they imposed conditions on health transfers. Then, they rushed ahead with the legalization of marijuana even though the provinces wanted more time. Then, they imposed the carbon tax on provinces like New Brunswick, which had already closed a number of coal-fired plants and significantly reduced its greenhouse gas emissions. The Liberals said that they still considered the province to be an offender and imposed the Liberal carbon tax. Finally, today, they are rushing through the study of Bill C-69, which seeks to implement regulations that are far too rigid and that will interfere with the development of natural resources in various provinces, even though six premiers have stated that this bill will stifle their local economies.(1830)How can we hope that this government will collaborate to come to an agreement seeking to address skilled trades shortages when it has such a poor track record on intergovernmental relations?Government performanceInfrastructureLabour shortageM-227Motion of instructionProvincial jurisdictionSkilled workers and skilled tradesStanding Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesTerrySheehanSault Ste. MarieCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by Members2019 General ElectionInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1415)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government is more centralist, paternalistic and, quite simply, arrogant than any other Liberal government in the history of our federation.For the past four years, the government has repeatedly shown that it is out of touch with the spirit of federalism. It refuses to honour the tradition of appointing a political lieutenant for Quebec and instead made a minister from Toronto responsible for the economic development of our province. It is imposing political conditions on federal transfers. It refuses to give Quebec greater powers in the area of immigration. It refuses to respond favourably to the National Assembly's request for a single tax return, something all Quebeckers want. I could go on and on. Following in the footsteps of founding fathers Cartier and MacDonald, we the Conservatives will continue to properly honour federalism. In 2008, we recognized that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada.In 2019, when we form the government, we will respond favourably to the demands of Quebeckers and Quebec.Federal-provincial-territorial relationsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationStatements by MembersEmmanuelDubourgBourassaDanRuimyPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodOfficial LanguagesInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1505)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, everyone remembers the huge mistake the Minister of Official Languages made two years ago when she concluded an agreement with Netflix that did not guarantee any French-language cultural production. Quebeckers and francophones across the country were so frustrated that the Prime Minister removed her from that position and she lost the heritage portfolio.Here is what she is telling us today. She made a plan for tourism two weeks ago. It contains no guarantees, no investments for the francophone minority communities across Canada. She just made an announcement today and, once again, there is nothing for francophones.Was this an oversight on the part of the minister or does this government just not take official languages seriously?Francophones outside QuebecGovernment policyOral questionsTourismGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestMélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-Cartierville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1455)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, in 2015, the Prime Minister, surrounded by Liberal candidates, including the member for Orléans and the Minister of National Defence, who are both veterans themselves, made a solemn promise that under his leadership, veterans would never, ever have to go to court to get their due. He broke that promise.He also promised to restore the pension for life option in the proper way. That was another broken promise. We are not the ones saying so. It is veterans themselves, the ones who are the most affected by this affair, who are saying that the money is just not there for the pension for life option.Why?Disabled veteransOral questionsPensions and pensionersVeteransVeterans benefitsGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestLawrenceMacAulayHon.Cardigan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1445)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is the head of the government. He has many roles and responsibilities, but his primary duty consists of two fundamental objectives. First of all, he must ensure our great federation is politically united. Second, he must ensure that the government is there for our military personnel, and that includes giving them the honours they deserve. Did the Prime Minister share the profound disappointment felt by Canadians and by our troops when they learned that the families of fallen Afghanistan war soldiers were excluded from the war memorial event? Afghanistan Memorial HallOral questionsVeteransVeterans benefitsJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeteransInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1455)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable that the Liberal government, the Canadian government, did not invite the families of fallen soldiers to a memorial here in Canada.This is highly disrespectful, not only to our fallen soldiers, but also to their families and loved ones.The minister was there and he was aware of the event details. When did he learn that the families would not be there? He is the minister. He is the boss. He is a veteran.Why did did he approve this completely disrespectful decision?Afghanistan Memorial HallOral questionsGinettePetitpas TaylorHon.Moncton—Riverview—DieppeLawrenceMacAulayHon.Cardigan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersResuming debateInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1725)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House. I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable. I would also like to acknowledge the many residents of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching this afternoon's proceedings as usual. I would like to thank them for a wonderful riding week last week. I met with several hundred of my constituents, many of whom attended the 17th Beauport business network breakfast. The network is doing very well. We will soon be holding a local press conference to announce that the network is going to have its own independent board of directors. That will give Beauport's business people a strong voice for dialogue with their elected representatives. Back home, I often joke that I am getting my own opposition up and running. All joking aside, following the three “Alupa à l'écoute” public consultations that I held, I want to tell those watching us today that I will hold a press conference in a few weeks to announce the public policy that I am going to introduce with my leader when we form the government in October. This policy will help seniors return to the labour market, if they so wish, and alleviate the labour shortage.This evening we are debating the motion moved barely 24 hours ago by the government, which would have us sit until midnight every evening from Monday to Thursday, starting next Monday. The government feels compelled to make up for its complacency over the past few months. It was caught up in several scandals that made the headlines, such as the SNC-Lavalin scandal. It is waking up and realizing that time is passing and it only has 20 days to complete its legislative agenda. There is a sense of panic. Above all, when the session comes to an end, they do not want to be known as the government with the poor legislative track record.I would like to quickly talk about the government's bills. My colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles talked about the number of bills the government has passed so far. This time three and a half years ago, in the final weeks of the Conservative term under Mr. Harper, we had more than 82 bills that received royal assent, and five or six other bills on the Order Paper. So far, the Liberals have passed only 48 government bills that have received royal assent, and 17 are still on the agenda. They do not have very many bills on their legislative record. For three and a half years we have heard their grand patriotic speeches and all the rhetoric that entails. During the election campaign, their slogan was “Real change”, but with so few bills on their legislative record, their slogan rings hollow. What is more, their bills are flawed. Every time their bills are referred to committee, the government has to propose dozens of amendments through its own members, something that is rarely done for government bills.Next, let us talk about electoral partisanship. The Liberals made big promises to minority groups in Canada. Three and a half years ago, the Prime Minister boasted about wanting to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples. However, the Liberals waited until just a month before the end of the 42nd Parliament to introduce Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages, in the House. Even though the Liberals are always saying that the government's most important relationship is the one it has with first nations, they waited over three and a half years before introducing a government bill on the protection of indigenous languages. I would like to remind members that there are over 77 indigenous languages in Canada. Once again, we see that the Liberals are in a rush and stressed out. They want to placate all of the interest groups that believe in them before October.What about the leadership of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons? From the start, three and a half years ago, she said that her approach was the exact opposite of the previous government's, which she claimed was harmful. Nevertheless, she forced sixty-some time allocation motions on us. When it came to reforming the rules and procedures, she wanted to significantly reduce the opposition's power.(1730)We want to stand before Canadians and ask questions and bring to light the reason why debates will go until midnight. The reason is that the Liberals were unable to properly complete their legislative agenda and move forward as they should have.Extending sitting beyond ordinary hour of adjournmentExtension of sitting hours in JuneGovernment Business No. 30PartisanshipAnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1430)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the commemoration of the Second World War is tinged with sadness every year, and planning the event itself is stressful. Our cousins in Bernières-sur-Mer, France, where thousands of Canadians landed on June 6, 1944, including some of our very own ancestors, learned in the news that the 40 veterans would simply not be attending the event. This news came just days in advance.Do we not believe that a more dignified and honourable approach would have been for the minister to call the mayor himself to inform him and then the veterans of the decision?Afghanistan Memorial HallOral questionsHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthStéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-Nation//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFinanceInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1440)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, real federalism is what we did. We recognized Quebec as a nation in 2008, something the Liberals never would have done.Not only that, but we have seen since 2015 that they are anything but transparent. They hide tax hikes and bury objectionable provisions in huge omnibus bills. Surprise, surprise, what do we see? The Liberals refused to properly fund the Office of the Auditor General this year.Why are they withholding that funding, which the Auditor General needs in order to perform audits to hold this government accountable to Canadians?Audits and auditorsGovernment expendituresOffice of the Auditor GeneralOral questionsFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainJoëlLightboundLouis-Hébert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessOfficers of ParliamentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1715)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to say hello to the many constituents of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching. Today, it is my pleasure to debate Motion No. 170, which reads as follows:That, in the opinion of the House, a special committee, chaired by the Speaker of the House, should be established at the beginning of each new Parliament, in order to select all Officers of Parliament.Before I begin, I would like to recognize with all due respect that the motion was moved by the member for Hamilton Centre, who is with the NDP and has been in Parliament for quite a while, but will not seek re-election. If he is listening right now, I would like to acknowledge him and thank him for his work and decades of public service. The member for Hamilton Centre was once an MPP in Ontario, as well, and worked hard on all sorts of causes that were important to his constituents. I would like to congratulate him on his service.Moreover, he is more than just a good parliamentarian. I remember hearing one of his speeches at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, if I remember correctly. I took note of his delivery, because he is a fine public speaker with good rhetorical skills. I have always had a great deal of respect for my colleagues with vast parliamentary experience. I try to learn from the best.I am sure the member for Hamilton Centre wants to leave his mark on Canadian democracy. I too want to improve Canada's Westminster-style parliamentary democracy. Our role as MPs is the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy. It is fundamental. MPs must play a leading role in the workings of Canadian democracy, which includes the selection and appointment of officers of Parliament. That is what this motion is about.Officers of Parliament are individuals jointly appointed by the House of Commons and the Senate to look into matters on our behalf and help us carry out our duties and responsibilities. For example, Canada has a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, a position created by Mr. Harper and the Conservative Party. There is also the Information Commissioner, who ensures that Canadians are able to have access to all government information so that they can get to the bottom of things. Then, there is the Commissioner of Lobbying. We heard a lot about her because of the Prime Minister's trip to the Aga Khan's island. Then there is the Commissioner of Official Languages. I am the official languages critic and I worked on the appointment of the new commissioner, Mr. Théberge. There is also the Auditor General. That position is currently vacant because the former auditor general passed away just a few months ago. God rest his soul. I send my best wishes to his family. Finally, there is the Chief Electoral Officer and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.There are other officers of Parliament, but the ones I mentioned are the main commissioners who have been mandated by Parliament to conduct investigations in order to ensure proper accountability in the Canadian democratic process.The member for Hamilton Centre wants to improve and strengthen parliamentary democracy with respect to the process for appointing commissioners and other officers of Parliament. Here is why.During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister made some promises that he mostly did not keep. He promised to make the process for appointing commissioners more democratic. Under the Conservative government, from 2006 to 2015, the process for appointing commissioners was much more democratic from the perspective of a Westminster-style parliamentary system. It was also much more transparent than what we have seen over the past few years with the Prime Minister and the Liberal government.When the Prime Minister chose the Official Languages Commissioner a year and a half ago, I am sure that the member for Hamilton Centre noticed, as we all did, that the process for appointing officers of Parliament was anything but open and transparent. Note that I am not in any way trying to target the individual who was selected and who currently holds that position.(1720)This was done differently before 2015. For example, the Standing Committee on Official Languages used to send the Prime Minister of Canada a list of potential candidates for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages. The Prime Minister, with help from his advisors and cabinet, selected one of the candidates suggested. That is far more transparent and democratic than what the Prime Minister and member for Papineau is doing.What has the Prime Minister done these past few years? Instead of having committees with oversight and the necessary skills for selecting commissioners, such as the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics or the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the Prime Minister is no longer relying on committees to send him a list of names of people or experts in the field. They are no longer able to send a list to the Prime Minister. He said to trust him, that he had set up a system involving people in his own office who send him lists of candidates with absolutely no partisan connections or any connections whatsoever to the Liberal list, candidates who were found by virtue of their expertise.What actually happened? We saw one clearly terrible case with Ms. Meilleur. Far be it from me to badmouth her, but unfortunately, she was part of this undemocratic process. Ms. Meilleur had been a Liberal MPP in Ontario. She donated money to the Liberal Party of Canada, and less than a year later, she was nominated for the position of official languages commissioner. The Prime Minister did not send a list of candidates' names to the opposition parties. He did not start a discussion with the other party leaders to ask who they thought the best candidate was. He sent a single name to the leader of the official opposition and to the then NDP leader, saying that this was his pick and asking if they agreed.Not only did the committees have no input under the current Liberal Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister actually only sent one name to the opposition leader.What the member for Hamilton Centre wants to do is set up a process whereby candidates are selected by a committee, which would be chaired by you, Mr. Speaker, amazingly enough. First off, the idea suggested by my colleague, the member for Hamilton Centre, could not be implemented before the session ends. We have only a few weeks left, and I gather that an NDP member will be proposing an amendment to the motion in a few minutes. We will see what happens then.Personally, I would say we need to go even further than the motion moved by the member for Hamilton Centre. I will speak to my colleagues about this once we are in government, as of October.Why not be even bolder and give parliamentary committees not just the power to refer candidates to the Prime Minister for him to decide, but also the power to appoint officers of Parliament? I want to point out that I am speaking only for myself here. I began reflecting on this a year and a half ago, after what happened with Ms. Meilleur and the current commissioner.I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for two years now, and I humbly believe that I have learned a lot about official languages issues. I am familiar with the key players on the ground and I am beginning to understand who the real experts are, who the stakeholders are and who might make a good commissioner. I have to wonder why we would not go even further than what my colleague from Hamilton Centre is proposing, and perhaps even give the real power to the committees.Imagine the legitimacy the process would have if parliamentary committees could one day choose officers of Parliament. These appointments should still be confirmed by both chambers, as is always the case. Careful reflection is still needed. What is certain is that we are too close to the end of the current parliamentary session for the motion moved by the member for Hamilton Centre to become a reality. This is even less likely to happen under the current Liberal government, which made many promises to please the Canadian left, including a promise for democratic emancipation. All those promises have been broken.I wish the hon. member for Hamilton Centre continued success.Establishment of a committeeM-170Officers of ParliamentParliamentary democracyPatronage appointmentsPolitical appointmentsPrivate Members' MotionsSelection processSpecial committeesAnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersIndigenous Languages ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1525)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as always, I would like to salute all the people of Beauport—Limoilou tuning in this afternoon. I would also like to salute my colleague from Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, who just gave a speech on Bill C-91. We worked together for a time on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I know languages in general are important to him. I also know that, as a Métis person, his personal and family history have a lot to do with his interest in advocating for indigenous languages. That is very honourable of him.For those watching who are not familiar with Bill C-91, it is a bill on indigenous languages. Enacted in 1969, Canada's Official Languages Act is now 50 years old. That makes this a big year for official languages, and the introduction of this bill on indigenous languages, which is now at third reading, is just and fitting. That is why my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, the Conservative Party's indigenous affairs critic, said she would support the bill when it was introduced back in February. Nevertheless, we do have some criticisms, which I will lay out shortly.The bill's purpose is twofold. Its primary purpose is to protect indigenous languages and ensure their survival. Did you know that there are 70 indigenous languages spoken in Canada? The problem is that while some languages are still spoken more or less routinely, others are disappearing. Beyond ensuring their survival, this bill seeks to promote the development of indigenous languages that have all but disappeared for the many reasons we are discussing.The second purpose of the bill, which is just as commendable, is to directly support reconciliation between our founding peoples and first nations, or in other words, reconciliation between federal institutions and indigenous peoples. As the bill says, the purpose is to support and promote the use of indigenous languages, including indigenous sign languages. It seeks to support the efforts of indigenous peoples to reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen indigenous languages, especially the more commonly-spoken ones.Canada's official opposition obviously decided to support the principles of this bill right from the beginning for four main reasons. The first involves the Conservative Party's record on indigenous matters. Our record may not have been the same in the 19th century, and the same could be said of all parties, but during our 10 years in power, Prime Minister Harper recognized the profound tragedy and grave error of the residential schools. He offered an official apology in 2008. I want to share a quote from Prime Minister Harper, taken from the speech by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo: The government now recognizes that the...Indian residential schools policy...has had a lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage and language.That is why my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo said: We acknowledged in 2008 that [the Canadian government at the time was] part of the destruction of these languages and cultures. Therefore, the government must be part of the solution in terms of helping to bring the languages [and culture] back, and part of that is Bill C-91.This is why I said that reconciliation is one of the objectives of this bill, beyond the more tangible objective. That is the first reason the Conservatives will support this bill on indigenous languages.The second reason is that, under Mr. Harper's fantastic tenure, we created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It was an important and highly enlightening process.(1530)There were some very sad moments. Members of indigenous nations came to talk about their background and share their stories. They put their cards on the table for all to see. They bared their souls and told the Canadian government what they go through today and what their ancestors went through in the 19th century. Not only did the Conservatives offer a formal apology in 2008, but they also created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to promote reconciliation between indigenous peoples and the Government of Canada and all Canadians. Our legacy is a testament to our sincere belief in reconciliation. I am sure that is true for all MPs and all Canadians. Now I will move on to the third reason we support this bill. I am the critic for Canada's official languages, French and English. That is one of the reasons I am speaking today. When I first saw Bill C-91 on the legislative agenda, I considered the issue and then read the Official Languages Act of 1969. The final paragraph of the preamble to the Official Languages Act states that the act:...recognizes the importance of preserving and enhancing the use of languages other than English and French while strengthening the status and use of the official languages....When members examine constitutional or legislative matters in committee or in debates such as this one, we need to take the intent of the legislators into consideration. When the Official Languages Act was introduced and passed in 1969, the legislators had already clearly indicated that they intended the protection of official languages to one day include the promotion, enhancement and maintenance of every other language in Canada, including the 70 indigenous languages. Clearly that took some time. That was 50 years ago.Those are the first three reasons why we support this bill.The fourth reason goes without saying. We have a duty to make amends for past actions. Those who are familiar with Canada's history know that both French and English colonizers lived in relative harmony with indigenous peoples for the first two or three centuries after Jacques Cartier's arrival in the Gaspé in 1534 and Samuel de Champlain's arrival in Quebec City in 1608. Indigenous peoples are the ones who helped us survive the first winters, plain and simple. They helped us to clear the land and grow crops. Unfortunately, in the late 19th century, when we were able to thrive without the help of indigenous peoples, we began implementing policies of cultural alienation and residential schools. All of that happened in an international context involving cultural theories that have since been debunked and are now considered preposterous.Yes, we need to make amends for Canada's history and what for what the founding peoples, our francophone and anglophone ancestors, did. It is a matter of justice. The main goal of Bill C-91 is to ensure the development of indigenous languages in Canada, to keep them alive and to prevent them from disappearing.In closing, for the benefit of Canadians watching us this afternoon, I would like to summarize what Bill C-91 would ultimately achieve. Part of it is about recognition. The bill provides that: (a) the Government of Canada recognizes that the rights of Indigenous people recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 include rights related to Indigenous languages.This is a bit like what happened with the Official Languages Act, which, thanks to its section 82, takes precedence over other acts. It is also related to section 23 on school boards and the protection of anglophone and francophone linguistic minorities across the country. This bill would create the same situation with respect to section 35 and indigenous laws in Canada.(1535) The legislation also states that the government may enter into agreements to protect languages. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism may enter into different types of agreements or arrangements in respect of indigenous languages with indigenous governments or other indigenous governing bodies or indigenous organizations, taking into account the unique circumstances and needs of indigenous groups, communities and peoples.Lastly, the bill would ensure the availability of translation and interpretation services like those available for official languages, but probably not to the same degree. Federal institutions can cause documents to be translated into an indigenous language or provide interpretation services to facilitate the use of an indigenous language.Canadians listening to us should note one important point. I myself do not speak any indigenous languages, but for the past year, anyone, especially indigenous members, can speak in indigenous languages in the House. Members simply need to give translators 24- or 48-hour notice. That aspect of the bill is about providing translation and interpretation services, but those services will not be offered to the same standard as services provided under the Official Languages Act. However, it is patently clear that an effort is being made to encourage the development of indigenous languages, not only on the ground or in communities where indigenous people live, but also within federal institutions.I would also point out that the bill provides for a commissioner's office. I find that a little strange. As my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo said, for the past four years, the Liberals have been telling us that their most important relationship is the one they have with indigenous peoples. I understand that as a policy statement, but I think it would be more commendable for a government to say that its most important relationship is the one it has with all Canadians.Now I will talk briefly about the current Commissioner of Official Languages. Many will understand the link I am trying to make with the new indigenous languages commissioner position that will be created. Right when all official language minority communities across the country are talking about the need to modernize the act, today the Commissioner of Official Languages released his annual report and his report on modernizing the act. Most Canadians want bilingualism that is even more vibrant and more wide-spread across Canada. At the same time, there are clearly important gaps in terms of implementing the Official Languages Act across the entire government apparatus.I have a some examples. A few months ago, the National Energy Board published a report in English only in violation of the OLA. At the time, the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie said that was unacceptable. The government's job is not to simply say so, however. She should have taken action to ensure that the National Energy Board complies with the Official Languages Act. Then, there were the websites showing calls for tender by Public Services and Procurement Canada that are often riddled with mistakes, grammatical, syntax, and translation errors and misinterpretation. Again, the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie told us that this was unacceptable.There is also the Canada Infrastructure Bank, in Toronto. The Conservatives oppose such an institution. We do not believe it will produce the desired results. In its first year, the Canada Infrastructure Bank struggled to serve Canadians in both official languages. Again, the minister stated that this is unacceptable.These problems keep arising because of cabinet's reckless approach to implementing, as well as ensuring compliance with and enforcement of, the Official Languages Act across the government apparatus. It has taken its duties lightly. The minister responsible is not showing any leadership within cabinet.(1540)When cabinet is not stepping up, we should be able to count on the commissioner. I met with the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Théberge, yesterday, and he gave me a summary of the report he released this morning. He said that he had a lot of investigative powers, including the power to subpoena. However, he said that he has no coercive power. This is one of the main issues with enforcement. For example, the majority of Canadians abide by the Criminal Code because police officers exercise coercive powers, ensuring that everyone complies with Canadian laws and the Criminal Code.The many flaws and shortcomings in the implementation of the Official Languages Act are due not only to a lack of leadership in cabinet, but also to the commissioner not having adequate coercive power. The Conservatives will examine this issue very carefully to determine whether the commissioner should have coercive power.The provisions of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages, dealing with the establishment of the office of the commissioner of indigenous languages are quite vague. Not only will the commissioner not have any coercive power, but he or she will also not have any well-established investigative powers.The Liberals waited until the end of their four-year term to bring this bill forward, even though they spent those four years telling us that the relationship with indigenous peoples is their most important relationship. Furthermore, in committee, they frantically rushed to table 20-odd amendments to their own bill, as my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo pointed out.How can the Liberals say their most important relationship is their relationship with indigenous peoples when they waited four years to table this bill? What is more, not only did they table the bill in a slapdash way, but they had to get their own members to propose amendments to improve it. It is not unusual for members to propose amendments, but the Liberals had to table a whole stack of them because the bill had all kinds of flaws.In closing, I think this bill is a good step towards reconciliation, but there are no tangible measures for the commissioner. For instance, if members have their speeches to the House translated into an indigenous language and the translation is bad, what can the commissioner do? If an indigenous community signs an agreement with the federal government and then feels that the agreement was not implemented properly, who can challenge the government on their behalf?There is still a lot of work to be done, but we need to pass this bill as quickly as possible, despite all of its flaws, because the end of this Parliament is approaching. Once again, the government has shown its lack of seriousness, as it has with many other bills. To end on a positive note, I would like to say that this bill is a step toward reconciliation between indigenous peoples and the founding peoples, which is very commendable and necessary.Aboriginal languagesC-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languagesGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionDanVandalSaint Boniface—Saint VitalGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersIndigenous Languages ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1545)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member is right. We are celebrating 50 years of having two official languages in Canada. They are official languages in terms of status and institutionalization of the facts, because historically, there were two languages three centuries ago. They were part of our identity in Canada, and they are still part of it.There are a few ways to ensure that the Commissioner of Official Languages has more powers. As legislators, we have to do our due diligence and look at this carefully. Specialists have said that we should have pecuniary and administrative sanctions. For example, some governmental agencies and private enterprises go against the law. Only one private enterprise in Canada is under the law, which is Air Canada. Some of them constantly go against the law in their behaviour and actions, on a monthly basis sometimes. Although the commissioner is constantly making recommendations, 20% of his recommendations are never followed, as was said this morning. Why? It is because he does not have the power to tell organizations to stop or they will pay a fine.Another option is to have an executory deal. It is less coercive. The governmental agency or private enterprise could be asked to make a deal, such as being in accordance with the law within five months.If my colleague is interested, he can look into how it is done in Wales, England. It has a commissioner who has huge coercive powers. Aboriginal languagesC-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languagesGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkSheriBensonSaskatoon West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersIndigenous Languages ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, if I correctly understood what the member said, there is, in fact, a part at the beginning of the law that speaks about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, which does not bind the government to this law, and maybe she finds that unfortunate. However, I voted against UNDRIP. There were some indigenous people in my riding who came to my office, and with courage and pride I sat in front of them and explained to them why it was actually a courageous act as a legislator in 2018 to vote against the ratification of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by Canada. Why? It is because most constitutionalists would say that it goes against some of our own constitutional conventions and laws, and I think that a courageous legislator must tell the truth to Canadians. Although we might like UNDRIP, it is not in accordance with Canadian law. What is most important for a legislator is not to protect United Nations accords; it is to protect the Canadian law. I explained that to my constituent, who was an indigenous person, and I think we had huge respect for each other. Although he did not agree with me, I understand why he could not agree with me, which was because of the history he had with us and the founding people. Maybe that is why UNDRIP is not so clearly enshrined in this law. Aboriginal languagesC-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languagesGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionSheriBensonSaskatoon WestCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersIndigenous Languages ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, to the first question on the importance of language, I know what it means, because I am a Quebecker. I am a French Canadian, and I am able to speak in French in this institution, but I like to show respect and answer in English when someone talks to me in English. My father is an anglophone, by the way. When my daughter was born five years ago, I intended to speak to her in English, and I told my wife that she could speak to her in French, but I could not do it, because when I speak in English to my daughter, it is not from my heart. I do not feel the connection. Therefore, yes, a language is fundamental to a person's identity. It is fundamental to carry the culture we are from. It is impossible for me to speak to my kids in English. I do not see them that much, because I am here, but when I speak to my kids, I want my heart to be speaking.Second, it is obvious that there were a lot of mistakes in the bill, because the government had to present more than 20 amendments. We should be afraid that there are other mistakes in the bill, which we did not have time to discuss or analyze correctly. I think that could be something troublesome that the next government, which will be Conservative, will have to repair.Aboriginal languagesC-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languagesGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Natural Resources]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1605)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as always, I am very honoured to rise in the House today. I would like to say hello to the many people of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching. I saw them late last week at the Grand bazar du Vieux-Limoilou, the Patro Roc-Amadour community centre and the 52nd Salon de Mai craft fair, which was held at Promenades Beauport mall. Congratulations to the organizers. I would also like to say that we are all very sad to hear that our colleague from Langley—Aldergrove is fighting a serious cancer. He just gave a powerful speech that reminded us how fragile life is. I even spoke to my wife and children to tell them that I love them. Our colleague gave a very poignant speech about that. I thank him for his years of service to Canada and to the House of Commons, and for all the future years that he will devote himself to his community.Before I say anything about the Conservative Party motion now before us, I would like to say a quick word about what U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said yesterday. At a meeting of the Arctic Council in Finland, he had the gall to say that Canada’s claim of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage is illegitimate. He even compared us to Russia and China, referring to their behaviour and their propensity to annex territories, like Russia did in Ukraine. Personally, I find that shameful.I would like to remind the U.S. government that we have been their allies for a long time. President Reagan and Prime Minister Mulroney reached an agreement, which both parties signed, and which stipulated that Canada indeed has sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. In the 19th century, we launched a number of expeditions and explorations supported by the British Crown, and Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage and in the Arctic Archipelago is entirely legitimate.Today we are discussing the importance of the oil industry and the importance of climate change. These two issues go hand in hand. They are key issues today and will continue to be in the future. Of course, I believe that the environment is extremely important. It is important for all Conservatives and for all Canadians. I remember collecting all sorts of bottles and cans along the roadside as a boy. I often did that with my father. He is an example for me in that respect. Throughout my life, I have always wanted to be a part of community organizations where people pick up garbage.I am also very proud of most Canadian governments' environmental record. They have always endeavoured to meet the expectations of Canadians, for whom the environment is extremely important. Most of the time, the Liberals try to paint the Conservatives as anti-environment. I can assure my colleagues that I have never seen anything to support that in the Conservative Party. On the contrary, under Mr. Harper, we took important steps to lower greenhouse gas emissions in Canada by 2.2% between 2006 and 2015. I will come back to that later.There are two approaches being proposed in the current debate on climate change. This applies to several western countries. I say western countries because those are the countries affected, given that our industrial era has been well established for two centuries. There are some industries that have been polluting rather significantly for a long time. We have reached a point in our history where we realize that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are playing a very significant role in climate change. Yes, we must act, but there are two possible approaches. One is the Liberal Party approach of taxing Canadians even more. The Liberals are asking Canadians to bear the burden of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The approach the Conservatives prefer is not to create a new tax or to tax the fuel that Canadians put in their cars to go to work every day.(1610)Our approach is rather to help Canadians in their everyday lives and to help the provinces implement their respective environmental plans.For example, I always like to remind the Canadians listening to us, as well as all environmentalists, that we set up the Canada ecotrust in 2007-08. This $1.3-billion program was meant to allocate funds to the provinces so that they could deal in their own way with the major concerns associated with climate change and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. That is a fine example of how we want to help people.Jean Charest was premier of Quebec at the time. We provided $300 million to help Quebec implement its GHG emissions reduction plan. Mr. Harper and Mr. Charest gave a joint press conference, and even Mr. Guilbeault from Greenpeace said that the Canada ecotrust was a significant, important program.We did the same thing for Ontario, British Columbia and all the other provinces that wanted to join the ecotrust. It is very likely that the program allowed the Government of Ontario to implement its own program and close its coal-fired power plants.As a result, under the Harper government, GHG emissions in Canada dropped by 2.2%. It bears repeating, since that is the approach we will adopt with our current leader, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. In a few weeks, we will announce our environmental plan, which has been keenly anticipated by all Canadians, and especially by the Liberal government. It will be a serious plan. It will include environmental targets that will allow Canada and Canadians to excel in the fight against climate change. In particular, we will maintain our sound approach, which is to help the provinces. By contrast, the government prefers to start constitutional squabbles with them by imposing taxes on Canadians, overstepping its jurisdiction in the process, since environmental matters fall under provincial jurisdiction.I would like to use Quebec as an example, as my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent did this morning. I have here a report on Quebec's inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in 2016 and their evolution since 1990. It was tabled by the new CAQ government last November, and it is very interesting. In 2016, greenhouse gas emissions increased in Quebec, despite the fact that the carbon exchange made its debut in 2013. That is ironic. Despite the implementation of a fuel tax to cut down on fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, emissions actually went up.The same report also indicates that between 1990 and 2015, greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec decreased even though the carbon exchange had not been fully implemented. The conclusion explains how this happened: The decrease in GHG emissions from 1990 to 2016 is mainly due to the industrial sector. The decrease observed in this sector resulted from technical improvements in certain processes, increased energy efficiency and the substitution of certain fuels.That is exactly what we, the Conservatives, want to do. Instead of imposing a new tax on Canadians, we want to maintain a decentralized federal approach. We want to help the provinces adopt greener energy sources to stimulate even greener economic growth and the deindustrialization of certain sectors, create new technologies and increase innovation in the Canadian economy. That is the objective of a Conservative approach to the environment.(1615)The objective of the Conservative approach to the environment is not to come down hard on the provinces and impose new taxes on Canadians. As we saw with Quebec, that did not have the desired effect. Our objective is to provide assistance while ensuring that our oil industry can grow in a healthy way. That is what Norway did. If I had 10 more minutes, I could talk more about that wonderful country, which has increased its oil production and exports and is one of the fairest and greenest countries in the world.Carbon pricingCarbon taxConsumer priceGasolineGreenhouse gasesOpposition motionsBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBrendaShanahanChâteauguay—Lacolle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Natural Resources]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1620)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle for her question. I sat with her on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I have a great deal of respect for her. Yes, the carbon exchange is a market-based approach. However, as we have seen, Quebec has not achieved the desired results. The purpose of the Canada ecotrust program created under Mr. Harper was to give the provinces a budget and allow them to come up with their own plans to tackle climate change. Canada's greenhouse gas emissions then dropped by 2.2%, a concrete and historic reduction.What I find unfortunate is that the carbon tax is currently priced at $20 a tonne. It will go up to $50 a tonne by 2020. It seems likely that the Liberals will want to raise it even further if they stay in power in a few months.What is even more unfortunate is that this tax will not apply to Canada's major emitters, big industries like cement, concrete and coal. They will pay only 8% of the total revenue from the carbon tax, while families and small businesses will have to pay the remaining 92%.It has been said that it will not apply in Quebec because Quebec already has a carbon tax. However, as we have seen in recent weeks, the price of gas has gone up across Canada, including in Quebec and British Columbia, which already have carbon exchanges.Carbon pricingCarbon taxClimate change and global warmingConsumer priceGasolineOpposition motionsBrendaShanahanChâteauguay—LacolleFrançoisChoquetteDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Natural Resources]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1620)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, what my colleague said about energy east is totally false. Energy east is dead and buried. However, he did say that the commissioner of the environment suggested the results might be due to the provinces' efforts. That is exactly how the Conservatives want to approach this. We think the provinces are in the best position to set standards for their industrial sectors and make appropriate changes based on their population, their industries and the environment.That is exactly what we did. Under the ecotrust program, we transferred funds to the provinces so they could finance certain portions of their climate change programs. My colleague was right when he said the provinces did the work, but it is important to acknowledge that the federal government helped by doing exactly what the founding fathers intended back in 1867. Carbon pricingCarbon taxConsumer priceGasolineOpposition motionsPipeline transportationFrançoisChoquetteDrummondKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodOfficial LanguagesInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1200)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, every year, of the forty recruits trained at the RCMP academy only one is trained solely in French. I did say one. Now, there will be none, because the RCMP is launching a pilot project that will put an end to training in French only. Clearly, this decision goes against the spirit and the letter of the Official Languages Act. The Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Official Languages must absolutely overturn this decision immediately.What are they waiting for?Education and trainingFrenchOfficial Languages ActOfficial languages policyOral questionsRoyal Canadian Mounted PolicePaulLefebvreSudburyMélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-Cartierville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Government Policies]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1315)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the NDP motion. I would first like to say hello to the many people of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching us live or who will watch later on social media.I just spent two weeks in my riding, where I met thousands of my constituents at events and activities organized by different organizations. Last Thursday, the Corporation de développement communautaire de Beauport, or CDCB, held a unique and innovative event. For the first time, all elected municipal, provincial and federal officials in the riding attended a breakfast meet and greet for constituents and representatives of organizations. It was a type of round table with elected members from all levels of government. It was an exemplary exercise in good democratic practices for our country. We had some great conversations. I would like to congratulate the CDCB for this very interesting event, which I hope will become an annual tradition.I also want to mention that my beautiful Quebec is experiencing serious flooding across the province. When I left Quebec City this morning around six  o'clock I could see damage all along the road between Trois-Rivières and Montreal and in the Maskinongé area. There is always a little water there in the spring, but there is a lot of water this year. When I got to the Gatineau-Ottawa area I saw houses flooded. Nearly 8,000 people, men, women and families, have been displaced. These are tough times, and I want them to know that my heart is with them. I wish them much strength. I am pleased to see that the Government of Quebec has announced assistance, as has the federal government, of course.The NDP's motion is an interesting one. It addresses the fact that the current Prime Minister of Canada tried to influence the course of justice a couple of ways, in particular with the SNC-Lavalin matter, which has had a lot of media coverage in the past three months. The NDP also raised the issue of drug prices. Conservatives know that, in NAFTA 2.0, which has not yet been ratified by any of the countries involved, the Liberals sadly gave in to pressure from President Trump to extend drug patents. If the agreement is ratified, Canadians will pay more for prescription drugs. People are also wondering when the Liberals will initiate serious talks about the steel and aluminum tariffs and when they will bring NAFTA ratification to the House for debate.The NDP motion also mentions Loblaws' lobbying activities. People thought it was some kind of joke. They could not believe their eyes or their ears. The government gave Loblaws, a super-rich company, $12 million to replace its fridges. The mind boggles. The NDP also talks about banking practices in Canada. Conservatives know that banks are important, but we think some of them, especially those run by the government, are unnecessary. As NDP members often point out, for good reason, the Canada Infrastructure Bank is designed to help big interest groups, but Canadians should not have to finance private infrastructure projects.We could also talk about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is totally ridiculous. Canada sends nearly $250 million offshore to finance infrastructure projects, when right here at home, the federal government's $187-billion infrastructure plan is barely functioning. Over the past three years, only $14 billion of that $187 billion has been spent. It is deplorable, considering how great the needs are in that area. The issue of banking practices mentioned in the NDP's motion is therefore interesting to me.Another thing that really bothers me as a citizen is tax evasion. Combatting tax evasion should really begin with education in our schools. Unfortunately, that is more of a provincial responsibility. We need to put patriotism back on the agenda. Many wealthy Canadians shamelessly and unscrupulously evade taxes because they have no sense of patriotism. They have no love for their country.(1320)Schools and people in positions of authority should have instilled this notion at a very young age by teaching them that patriotism includes making sure that Canadian money stays in Canada for Canadians, for our social programs, our companies, our roads and our communities.In my opinion, a lack of love for one's country is one of the main causes of tax evasion. Young people must be taught that they should not be complaining about our democratic system, but rather participating in it. They should be taught to love Canada.That is my opinion piece for today.It is difficult for us to support the NDP's fine motion, however, because, as usual, it includes a direct attack against the Canadian oil industry and all oil-related jobs.Canadian oil is the most ethical oil in the world. Of course, in the past, there were some concerns about how the oil sands were processed, but I think a lot of effort has been made in recent years to find amazing technologies to capture the carbon released in the oil sands production process.Since the government's mandate is almost at an end, I would like to take this opportunity to mention that this motion reminded me of some of the rather troubling ethical problems that the Liberal government has had over the past few years.First the Prime Minister, the member for Papineau took a trip to a private island that belongs to our beloved and popular Aga Khan. The trip was not permissible under Canadian law, under our justice system. For the first time in Canadian history, a prime minister of Canada was found guilty of several charges under federal law because he took a private family vacation that had nothing to do with state interests and was largely paid by the Aga Khan. It was all very questionable, because at the very same time he was making this trip to the Aga Khan's private island, the Prime Minister was involved in dealings with the Aga Khan's office regarding certain investments.Next we have the fascinating tale of the Minister of Finance, who brought forward a reform aimed at small and medium-sized businesses, a reform that was supposed to be robust and rigorous, when all the while he was hiding shares of his former family business, Morneau Shepell, in numbered companies in Alberta. On top of that, he forgot to tell the Ethics Commissioner about a villa he owned in France. The young people watching us must find it rather unbelievable that someone could forget to tell the Ethics Commissioner about a wonderful villa on the Mediterranean in France, on some kind of lake or the sea, I assume. Then there is the clam scandal as well. The former minister of fisheries and oceans is in my thoughts since he is now fighting cancer. It is sad, but that does not excuse his deplorable ethics behaviour two years ago when he tried to influence a bidding process for clam harvesters in order to award a clam fishing quota to a company with ties to his family. SNC-Lavalin is another case. It seems clear that there were several ethics problems all along. What I find rather unbelievable is that the Liberals are still trying to claim that there was absolutely nothing fishy going on. I am sorry, but when two ministers resign, when the Prime Minister's principal secretary resigns, and when the Clerk of the Privy Council resigns, something fishy is going on.I want to close with a word on ethics and recent media reports about judicial appointments. There is something called the “Liberalist”, a word I find a bit strange. It is a list of everyone who has donated to the Liberal Party of Canada. Of course, all political parties have lists of their members, but the Liberals use their list to vet candidates and identify potential judicial appointees. In other words, those who want the Prime Minister and member for Papineau to give them a seat on the bench would be well advised to donate to the Liberal Party of Canada so their name appears on the Liberalist. If not, they can forget about it because actual legal skills are not a factor in gaining access to the highest court in the land and other superior federal courts.(1325)When it comes to lobbying, I just cannot believe how often the Liberals have bowed down to constant pressure from big business, like they did with Loblaws. It is a shame. Unfortunately, the NDP motion is once again attacking the people who work in our oil industry. Banks and bankingEthics and ethical issuesLobbying and lobbyistsOil and gasOpposition motionsPolitical influencePrime MinisterReferences to membersTax avoidanceTrudeau, JustinBruceStantonSimcoe NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Government Policies]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has no climate change plan. It has a taxation plan. That is exactly what it is doing.On the reverse side, under Stephen Harper, a great and honourable Canadian, we had the ecoENERGY efficiency initiative. All the young guys listening to us should google that right now, please. The ecoENERGY efficiency initiative in 2007 was even recognized by Steven Guilbeault, a great ecologist in Canada.The ecoENERGY efficiency initiative was a decentralized way of doing things in Canada to make sure that we were strong on the climate change problem in the world. For example, there was an envelope of $1.3 billion that was divided among the provinces. About $300 million or $400 million was sent to Quebec at the time, to the Charest government, which used this money to put forward the province's ecological plan. At the same time, there were other projects in Ontario that received money from the ecoENERGY efficiency initiative. All that put together gave us one important result that Canadians should remember every single day: There was a reduction of carbon dioxide in Canada of 2.2% under the great leadership of the Conservative Party from 2006 to 2015. We did not do that by taxing more Canadians; we did it through decentralization and through respect for federalism.Environmental protectionLobbying and lobbyistsOpposition motionsPolitical influenceKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Government Policies]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1330)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I believe in a free market with safeguards to protect everyone's rights. However, we must never ignore the fierce global competition.Contrary to popular belief, Mr. Harper's government eliminated many subsidies for big oil. An article published by CBC this morning indicated:The total volume of Canadian imports from Saudi Arabia has increased by 66 per cent since 2014...Saudi oil accounted for roughly 10 per cent of Canadian consumption, up from about eight per cent in 2017...Saudi Arabia is the second-largest source of foreign oil for Canada, after the U.S.Even human rights groups are saying that we need to stop importing oil from Saudi Arabia.One of the reasons why I believe we need to support the Canadian oil industry is the great Canadian paradox. The article goes on to say:Canada is the fourth-largest producer and fourth-largest exporter of oil in the world...and 99 per cent of Canadian oil exports go to the U.S. Canada is also an oil importer, which is rare for an exporting country.The paradox is that we have one of the world's largest energy resources. Importing oil for our country is ridiculous. We need to put an end to that.Under the leadership of the Conservative leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, Canada would become self-sufficient. That is a commendable goal that everyone in the country should support.Lobbying and lobbyistsOil and gasOpposition motionsPolitical influenceGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesJagmeetSinghBurnaby South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1720)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I must say that in this case, I also appreciated the speech made by my colleague from Sherbrooke. I agree with him, much to the chagrin of my colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.As the member for Sherbrooke said, this budget is dragging up broken promises, such as the promise to return to a balanced budget this year, which is rather unbelievable. It does not even include a timeline for balancing the budget. This is a first in our country's history.The government is budgeting $41 billion to deflect attention from its mistakes, including its bungled foreign and domestic policy. Once again, the budget favours the major interest groups, as the member for Sherbrooke pointed out. We saw more evidence of this today, when the government gave Loblaws $12 million for refrigerators. It is absolutely ridiculous.Does my colleague from Sherbrooke agree that this budget shows a lack of respect for Quebeckers?In 2015, the member for Papineau, the Prime Minister, told a New York newspaper that Canada was postnational. This is an outright affront to Quebeckers, whose historical and political reality is very much alive and well.There are also no measures in this bill to address the Quebec premier's concerns about the cost of the arrival of a huge number of illegal refugees. I know he does not like that term, but Quebec wants to be reimbursed for some of those costs. There is also nothing in the budget about a single tax return or the Quebec Bridge, and there is nothing to address the discriminatory measure wherein larger cities will get more money for sustainable mobility infrastructure than smaller ones like Quebec City.Does my colleague agree that the 2019 budget implementation bill once again shows the government's lack of respect for all our fellow Quebeckers?Budget 2019 (March 19, 2019)C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measuresGovernment billsGovernment expendituresProvince of QuebecSecond readingPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookePierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodJusticeInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, last week, confidential information about an individual's candidacy to the Supreme Court was reported by the media.Let's be clear. The fundamental purpose of that media leak was to have Canadians believe that the relationship between the Prime Minister and his former attorney general began to fray some time ago.There is every reason to believe that the source of the leak is the Prime Minister in an effort to launch a smear campaign, but in doing so he wilfully tarnished the reputation of Manitoba Justice Glenn Joyal.Will the Minister of Justice launch an official investigation into this breach of confidentiality?Federal judgesInformation leaksOral questionsPolitical appointmentsSupreme Court of CanadaDanVandalSaint Boniface—Saint VitalDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodJusticeInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1200)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Liberal MPs voted for 48 hours straight for one reason and one reason alone: to protect the Prime Minister, who is refusing to disclose all the facts about the SNC-Lavalin case.Over the past two weeks, two ministers, the Prime Minister's senior adviser and the Clerk of the Privy Council resigned. This week, a Liberal MP even quit the caucus. There is clearly more to the story.When will the Prime Minister give Canadians the whole truth and shed light on the SNC-Lavalin affair?Criminal prosecutionsOral questionsPolitical influencePrime MinisterReferences to membersSNC-Lavalin Group Inc.Trudeau, JustinPaulLefebvreSudburyBardishChaggerHon.Waterloo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersInternational Day of La FrancophonieInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1415)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, today, we are celebrating the International Day of La Francophonie. French is a noble language with a rich vocabulary, and its complexity is living proof of its strength and history. Let us not forget that French is the language of Molière, Voltaire, Montesquieu and Georges-Étienne Cartier. The International Day of La Francophonie is an important one, not only for the international community, but also for our great bilingual federation, Canada.As Prime Minister Harper always said, Canada, as a political entity, was first founded by French speakers. Today, over 11 million francophones are living and thriving in our magnificent country. Over 300 million people around the world speak French and that number will grow to over 700 million by 2050.It is important to point out that Canada is the one that pushed the French government to establish the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie in the 1970s. We are one of the organization's founding members, and we must continue to play a leadership role in that organization in the coming years. Long live the Francophonie.FrancophonesInternational Day of La FrancophonieStatements by MembersRenéArseneaultMadawaska—RestigoucheColinFraserWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersGovernment ProgramsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1105)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am well known for going door to door in my riding, and, honestly, I meet very few constituents who are satisfied with this Liberal government. Fewer still feel they are in a better financial position than they were before the Liberals were elected in 2015. There is no arguing with that kind of general consensus. Here are just some of the public policies that have made people feel that way. People have experienced three years of taxes going up, three years of our Canadian Armed Forces being underfunded, three years of deficit and mismanagement of public funds, three years of what might politely be called ethical breaches, three years of an infrastructure program that fails to deliver the goods, three years of multiple failed natural resources and border security policies, and three years of countless other broken promises.Canadians and the people of Beauport—Limoilou simply cannot afford another four years of Liberal government.As of October 2019, they will be able to count on the Conservative team and our great leader to change the way this country is run and renew people's hope for the future.Government policyStatements by MembersDeborahSchulteKing—VaughanTerryBeechBurnaby North—Seymour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersIndigenous Languages Act [Bill C-91—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1620)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to point out how disappointed I am. I could hardly wait to speak about this bill today, mainly for personal reasons. I have an Inuit first name, Alupa, which means “strong man”. My entire family is very aware of and attuned to indigenous matters. My wife is an anthropologist who has worked with the Inuit for many years, and my father is a forensic historian, who has defended indigenous people in many cases by locating treaties or doing research for them.The minister said that this is an extremely important bill that will protect and promote indigenous languages, some of which are dying out. That much is true. The Liberals have also said that no relationship is more important than the relationship with indigenous peoples. They have said it over and over, but this bill was introduced only a few months before the election, at the end of their mandate and four years after they were elected. Yes, it is urgent that we take action, but it is not true that we will all be able to state our position and discuss it in committee. As there are only three spots for opposition members, I do not think I will have the opportunity to debate the bill or to suggest amendments in committee.Although we support this bill on the face of it, it deals with some very serious issues. There is a very clear reason why we support this bill, and that appears in the last paragraph of the preamble to the Official Languages Act, which states that the government recognizes the importance of preserving and enhancing the use of languages other than English and French while strengthening the status and use of the official languages.This bill is therefore perfectly aligned with Canada's political doctrine. However, there are some very important issues that need clarification, and I will talk about them now. Why is the Official Languages Act quasi-constitutional? That is because it is linked to sections 16 to 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The minister told us that Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages, is linked to section 35 of the Constitution. Does that mean that this bill will become quasi-constitutional legislation like the Official Languages Act? If so, we will have to discuss this for weeks because it will have a major impact on our society. It will be a very positive impact, to be sure, but when we say that the bill could be quasi-constitutional we need to know where that takes us.The bill also states that there would be a commissioner of indigenous languages. Will this commissioner have duties similar to those of the Commissioner of Official Languages? Will they have a joint office?The bill also talks about funding to protect, preserve and promote indigenous languages. Will that involve developing action plans as we do for official languages? Will this cost billions of dollars over five years every five years, as is the case with the action plan for official languages? Will the department also receive $1 billion in recurring funding every five years?There are all kinds of questions to which we have no answers today. Could we maybe get an inkling of an answer right now?Aboriginal languagesC-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languagesGovernment billsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Single Tax Return in Quebec]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1320)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the 5,500 federal employees in Shawinigan and Jonquière will keep their jobs. We will ensure that they keep their jobs in the administrative agreements that we will sign as soon as we take office in October.The member said that she would rather help 5,500 public servants, who are merely being asked to make a bit of a transition, than the 8.3 million Quebeckers who clearly stated during our “Listening to Quebeckers” tour that they want a single tax return. The member is also going against the 125 members of the Quebec National Assembly, who together represent the 8.3 million Quebeckers who said that they want a single tax return. She is going to protect 5,500 individuals at the expense of 8.3 million people.Is that what the member is trying to tell us right now?Income tax returnsLabour forceOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecLindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Single Tax Return in Quebec]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1330)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I find this debate very interesting. What has been happening in the news in recent months or for a little more than a year is also very interesting. We can see that the very root, the core identity, of the Liberal Party has not changed.Every time that Quebec asks the Liberal government for something, whether it is in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s or today, the answer is always no. Mr. Couillard, the former premier, asked if there could be a dialogue on Quebec’s place in the Canadian Constitution. The Prime Minister dismissed it out of hand. He did not even want to have a dialogue.Recently, Quebec asked for more autonomy in immigration. The Liberals said that they would look into it, but that means no. The National Assembly, the 125 members representing 8.3 million Quebeckers, unanimously called for a single tax return, and the Liberals today are saying no, without any shame.Why is it that the core identity of the Liberal Party of Canada since 1867 is still to answer no to Quebeckers and the province of Quebec when they ask for more power in their areas of jurisdiction?Income tax returnsOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Single Tax Return in Quebec]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1335)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who will certainly build on what I have to say. It is always an honour to speak in the House. I want to say hello to the people of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching us. Today, we are debating a single tax return for Quebeckers.The member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges has said some pretty unbelievable things. He asked why the Conservatives raised this topic this year, which is an election year. In reality, we actually talked about this matter in May last year, at our general council meeting in Saint-Hyacinthe. There were 400 Conservatives at this meeting, including members of the Bloc Québécois who were tired of the pointless bickering. The Bloc Québécois will never be in power. At this general council, we adopted the motion calling for a single tax return. The motion received the support of the vast majority, 90%, of attendees. It was quite popular.That said, introducing this motion at the Saint-Hyacinthe general council was not a casual idea plucked from thin air. Our political lieutenant for Quebec and other Quebec Conservative MPs held public consultations, consultations we called “Listening to Quebecers”.We held consultations in about 40 municipalities all across Quebec, covering all of Quebec's regional districts. Quebeckers themselves told us they wanted us to simplify their day-to-day lives. Then, a month later, in May 2018, Quebec's National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion calling on the federal government, regardless of the party in power after the October 2019 election, to start working on an administrative agreement that would enable Quebec to collect federal taxes and then transfer that money to the federal government. The ultimate goal was to make Quebeckers' lives easier and give them a much easier way to do things.I would like to re-read the motion for those watching at home because it may not be written out in full at the bottom of their screen. The motion states: That, given:(a) the House has great respect for provincial jurisdiction and trust in provincial institutions;(b) the people of Quebec are burdened with completing and submitting two tax returns, one federal and one provincial; and(c) the House believes in cutting red tape and reducing unnecessary paperwork to improve the everyday lives of families; therefore,the House call on the government to work with the Government of Quebec to implement a single tax return in Quebec, as adopted unanimously in the motion of the National Assembly of Quebec on May 15, 2018.That is the motion that our political lieutenant, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, moved this morning.Why do we want the House to adopt this motion? As I said, over the past few months, we consulted with most Quebeckers as part of our province-wide consultation process. They told us that they needed this to happen because they are fed up. That is what they said. They are fed up with filling out two tax returns.The Conservative Party of Canada has always had one fundamental goal, which we pursued under the leadership of Mr. Harper when we cut taxes through 163 different measures. Clearly, the most popular measures were the ones that cut the GST from 7% to 6% and then from 6% to 5% and those that sought to cut red tape in half for all federal departments. It just so happens that the Liberals kept this administrative formality because they know how important it is. It is one of the good things they have done so far.We are also moving forward with that, because it reflects the desire of all elected officials from Quebec. That desire was reiterated a year ago, as I said at the start of my speech.There is a bit more of a personal reason that residents of Beauport—Limoilou may not be familiar with. I have knocked on 40,000 doors in my riding. I continue to do so. I even did it this Saturday in -20°C weather. I once again thank the volunteer who was with me that day. He was brave to follow me. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent also went door to door. All the Conservatives in Canada did that.(1340)Saturday, I knocked on the doors of about 50 homes and the topic came up many times. That idea was put forward publicly by the Conservative Party before the Bloc Québécois began talking about it and well before the unanimous motion in Quebec’s National Assembly, because we had heard about it on the ground and we respect Quebeckers. Our fundamental goal in politics is to make life easier for all Canadians, and particularly to avoid them having to pay for the Prime Minister's mistakes in the future.Today, we have learned something important in the House, and I asked the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges a question about this, namely, the fact that the true identity of the Liberal Party of Canada is clear for all to see. Perhaps it does not reflect on all of its individual members, although they are part of it, as they are involved in it, but fundamentally, it is a centralist party that does not care about the demands of Quebeckers for greater control. It does not care about the constitutional anguish and anxiety of Quebeckers. In particular, there is no desire to improve the lives of Quebeckers and Canadians through its government policies.On the contrary, we have never seen a government spend so much money on so few results for individual Canadians. We sometimes get the impression that the government is working for the bureaucracy and government programs instead of working for Quebeckers and Canadians in general. We have seen that identity throughout history. In 1867, George Brown and the Red Party did not want a large federation like Canada created by two founding peoples working hand in handFrom 1867 to today, we Conservatives have maintained our constitutional and political openness to the grievances of both founding peoples and the legal grievances of the Province of Quebec. Remember the total affront by the Liberals in 1982 when they repatriated the Constitution without the consent of Quebec’s National Assembly. We see history repeating itself.In 1982, Quebec’s National Assembly did not sign the Constitution. As the bastion of the Francophonie in North America, Quebec certainly had a prominent place at the table. Even political conventions and jurisprudence clearly reflected Quebec's crucial role in the matter of the repatriation of the Constitution, but the Liberals, in their arrogance, brazenly repatriated the Constitution without Quebec’s signature, just as they are now brazenly and shamelessly dismissing the unanimous request by the National Assembly regarding a single income tax return.Under Mr. Mulroney, we resumed an honourable and enthusiastic dialogue. We made every possible effort, despite the extreme pressure on all sides from the elder Mr. Trudeau. We reached the Charlottetown and Meech Lake accords; we tried to bring Quebec into the fold. Later, Mr. Harper entered into administrative agreements, because the time was not right. People did not want a constitutional debate. Just as our leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, would like to do, Mr. Harper entered into administrative agreements that helped Quebeckers in their everyday lives, while waiting for the time when we might see a constitutional debate. Later, he got a seat for Quebec at UNESCO, the last thing the Liberals would have done, and the Bloc Québécois would never have had the power to do, as they will never be in power.Not only did we get a seat for Quebec at UNESCO, but we also acknowledged the existence of the Quebec nation in this assembly, in this Westminster Parliament, on North American soil. We acknowledged that the Quebec people formed a nation within a united Canada. Mr. Harper did that. It was not the Liberals or the Bloc Québécois, who could never do it, as they will never be in power.What party increased its number of seats in Quebec in the last election? It was not the Bloc Québécois, it was the Conservative Party, which won 12 seats. Unfortunately, due to their many promises, the Liberals were able to win many seats. However, that will change, as they are unable to keep their promises. As the deficit will not be eliminated this year, they will raise taxes over the coming days, months and years if they are re-elected.By all appearances, this is the same party as it was back in the day. By its very identity, the Liberal Party of Canada has no respect for Quebeckers or for areas of jurisdiction. (1345)A few days after being elected, the Prime Minister and member for Papineau went to New York and told a newspaper that Canada had no national identity. Really? Canada has no national identity? That is not what Quebeckers think. Quebeckers will never be well served by the Liberal Party of Canada. With our leader, the member for Regina—Qu’Appelle, we will give them more independence in their areas of jurisdiction when they seek it.Income tax returnsOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecSplitting speaking timePeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesNickWhalenSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Single Tax Return in Quebec]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I know the member and respect him. We were on the OGGO committee together. He spoke to me in French so I will speak to him in English.Do members know why the Liberals speak about the technicalities of the matter? It is because they do not want to talk about the matter at hand, which is whether they are for or against our ideas. They are against them. Every time the government talks about complexities and technicalities, it is because it does not want to face reality.This is a good idea. It does not come from them. It comes from us. More than that, as I said during my speech, it is not possible for Liberal MPs in this land to do differently from what they are doing today, because this is part of their core identity.They do not want to respect decentralization. They do not believe in federalism. They do not believe in this country. They believe that everything should be centralized in Ottawa. First and foremost, they do not believe in French Canada.Income tax returnsOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecNickWhalenSt. John's EastPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Single Tax Return in Quebec]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1350)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, how typical of Canadian socialists. It is the opinion of the majority, because Quebec's National Assembly voted unanimously for a motion asking the federal government to begin administrative-level talks on a single tax return. It is always the same thing: every time the majority goes against what they believe in, Canadian socialists say that the majority's opinion is hogwash.I am not the one pitting Quebeckers against each other; the Liberals are. I am not the one disrespecting Quebeckers; the Liberals are. The Liberals are not the ones who will increase Quebec's jurisdictional powers; the Conservatives will be, after October 21, 2019.Income tax returnsOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookeAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Single Tax Return in Quebec]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is this party which has repatriated the Constitution without the Quebec National Assembly. It is the Trudeau father who put huge pressure on Newfoundland not to open on the day of the Meech Lake vote. This is the reality of history.Income tax returnsOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Taxes]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1655)[Translation] Madam Speaker, the member for Louis-Hébert said that we were giving tax credits to wealthy families. After knocking on 40,000 doors in my riding, I found that, on the contrary, the families using our tax credits were not wealthy. Under the member's government, 46% of these families are $200 away from insolvency at the end of the month. Perhaps they could have used some tax credits.I have a very specific question for the member. We signed Canada onto the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the CETA, which are major forward-looking projects. We also developed a shipbuilding strategy to ensure that Canada is prepared to defend itself in the world.Can the member name a single visionary project, not for today, but for 50 years from now, that his government could have developed? I would like to hear him name just one.Opposition motionsTaxationJoëlLightboundLouis-HébertJoëlLightboundLouis-Hébert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by Members50th Anniversary of the Official Languages ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1405)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act.As everyone knows, it is no ordinary act or simple guideline for the development of our public policy. On the contrary, not only does this act reflect the history of our Canadian identity, but it should also reflect our current society, specifically by meeting the present-day needs of minority language communities.That is why anglophones and francophones across the country expect their legislators, everyone in this place, to commit to modernizing the act immediately.The Official Languages Act will guarantee the continuity of what has defined us as Canadians since 1867. In doing so, the act will undoubtedly ensure the peaceful coexistence of our founding peoples and unite our great federation. That is why the Conservative Party of Canada and our leader are firmly committed to modernizing the act. AnniversaryOfficial Languages ActOfficial languages policyStatements by MembersJulieDzerowiczDavenportJenniferO'ConnellPickering—Uxbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Federal Deficit]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1625)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here in the new House of Commons. Looking down, it feels like we are in the old chamber, but looking up, that is clearly not the case. It is certainly a lot brighter here than in the old chamber, so bright that it is difficult to look up at the sky.I am honoured to rise on behalf of the 100,000 people of my riding, Beauport—Limoilou. Now that it is 2019, we are slowly but surely gearing up for an election campaign. Personally, I intend to be re-elected, if my constituents would once again do me the honour, but since we can neither know what fate has in store nor determine the outcome, I will, of course, work very hard. For that reason, I am savouring this honour and this opportunity to speak here for yet another parliamentary session.Today, I would like to clarify something very important for the people of my riding. This morning, the member for Carleton moved a motion in the House of Commons, a fairly simple motion that reads as follows:That, given the Prime Minister broke his promise to eliminate the deficit this year and that perpetual and growing deficits lead to massive tax increases, the House call on the Prime Minister to table a plan in Budget 2019 to eliminate the deficit quickly with a written commitment that he will never raise taxes of any kind.My constituents may find it rather strange to ask a Prime Minister to promise not to raise taxes after the next election, if he is re-elected. He might even raise taxes before the election. After all, the Liberals tried to raise taxes many times over the past three years. I will say more about that in my speech. However, we are asking the Prime Minister to make this promise because we see that public finances are in total disarray.In addition, the Prime Minister has broken several of the key promises he made to Canadians and Quebeckers. Some of them were national in scope. For example, he promised to return to a balanced budget by 2019, which did not happen. Instead, our deficit is nearly $30 billion. The budget the Liberals presented a few months ago forecast an $18-billion deficit, but according to the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer—an institution that forces the government to be more transparent to Canadians and that was created by Mr. Harper, a great Prime Minister—the deficit would actually be around $29 billion instead of $18 billion.The Prime Minister quite shamelessly broke his promise to rebalance the budget, since this is the first time in the history of Canada that a government has racked up a deficit outside of a war or serious economic crisis. There was a big economic recession when the Conservatives were in power between 2008 and 2012. I like to remind Canadians who may be listening to us that accountability is a key part of the Westminster system. That is why we talk about the notion of government accountability and why we have question period every day. It is not all about the theatrics, I might add. We ask the same ministers, although sometimes other ministers, questions every day because one day they are going to slip up and tell us the truth. Then we can talk about responsibility and accountability.In short, the Prime Minister broke his promise to balance the budget by 2019. He also broke his promise to change our electoral system, which was very important to a huge segment of the Canadian left and Canadian youth. He also broke his promise about the Canada Post community mailboxes. Although we believe that Canada Post's five-point action plan was important for ensuring the corporation's survival in the long term, the Prime Minister nevertheless promised the return of community mailboxes. I travelled across the country with my colleague from Edmonton and other members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. All Canadians told Liberal members of the committee that they hoped the government would restore community mailboxes. However, the Liberals only put in place a moratorium.(1630)The member from Quebec City and Minister of Families, Children and Social Development said that the state of the Quebec Bridge was deplorable, that the bridge was covered in rust and that some citizens were concerned about security and public safety.I would like to reassure them. Our engineers' reports states that the bridge is not dangerous. That said, it is a disgrace that this historic bridge is completely rusty. The Liberals promised that this would be taken care of by June 30, 2016. That was over two years ago.They also promised to help the middle class. In fact, to some extent, they followed in the footsteps of Mr. Harper's Conservative government, which also focused on helping Canadian families as much as possible. I held three public consultations in 2018. It is already 2019. Time flies. I called those public consultations, “Alupa à l'écoute”.I will table my report in a month and a half. It will express my willingness to suggest to my leader to either table a bill or include in his election platform measures to address the labour shortage and to help seniors return to the labour market without being further penalized. I go door to door every month. What is more, during my public consultations, what I heard most often from my constituents, who I thank for coming, is that they are surviving. Their lives have not improved at all in three and a half years. On the contrary, they are facing challenges as a result of the Prime Minister's repeated failures.I said we needed the Prime Minister to promise not to raise taxes either before the election or, if he wins, after. We all know what he has done over the past three years. He tried to tax dental benefits. He tried to tax employee benefits and bonuses. For example, some restaurant owners give their servers free meals. That is what happened when I was a server. The Liberals wanted to tax that benefit. They tried to tax small and medium-sized businesses by taxing their revenue as capital gains, and that was a total disaster. They wanted to tax every source of income businesses could use to prepare for bad times or retirement so they would eventually be less of a burden on the state.The Liberals also significantly increased taxes. Studies show that 81% of Canadians have to pay more than $800 a year in taxes because the Liberals got rid of almost all of the tax credits the Conservatives had implemented, such as those for textbooks or public transit. They got rid of the tax credits for sports and for families. The Prime Minister and his Liberal team got rid of all kinds of family credits, which significantly increased taxes. Furthermore, they tried many times to significantly increase other taxes. They also tried payroll deductions, like the increase to the Canada pension plan. If we really take a look at the various benefits or income streams Canadians receive, we can see that their taxes have increased.We do not trust the Prime Minister when he says he will not raise taxes after the next election if he is re-elected. We know he will have to raise taxes because of his repeated failures. In economic terms, there is an additional $60 billion in deficits on top of the debt. His deficits now total $80 billion after three and a half years. I am also thinking of his failures on immigration and on managing border crossings. Quebec is asking for $300 million to make up for the shortfall it has suffered because of illegal refugees. I am also thinking of all the problems related to international relations. I am also thinking of infrastructure.How is it possible that the Prime Minister, still to this day, refuses tell the people of Beauport—Limoilou and Quebec City that he will agree to go ahead and help the CAQ government build the third link? All around the world, huge infrastructure projects are under way, yet over the past three years, the Liberal government has been incapable of allocating more than a few billion dollars of the $187 billion infrastructure fund.(1635)Canadians are going to pay for the Prime Minister's mistakes. We want him to commit in writing that he will not raise taxes if he is re-elected.AccountabilityBalanced budgetBordersBudget deficitCanada Pension PlanCorporate income taxDoor-to-door postal deliveryElectoral reformEmployment benefitsFamilies and childrenGovernment performanceIllegal migrantsIncome taxLabour forceOpposition motionsPont de QuébecPublic consultationSmall and medium-sized enterprisesTaxationTransfers to provinces and territoriesTransportation infrastructureCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMikeBossioHastings—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Federal Deficit]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, it is quite simple. We will do as we did before: We will have responsible management of our finances here in Canada. We will never cut services to Canadians; we will cut and stop the increase of money flowing to the bureaucrats. We have never seen in the history of Canada so much money being spent on deficits by a government, with so little result for Canadians individually. We gave the Liberals a surplus of $3 billion while having child benefit measures and one of the best OECD numbers of economic development and while being the first country to get out of the financial crisis of 2008. Budget cutsBudget deficitCanada Workers BenefitFamilies and childrenOpposition motionsTaxationMikeBossioHastings—Lennox and AddingtonPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Federal Deficit]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1640)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I go door-knocking every month and I can tell you that Quebeckers have no appetite to see their tax bill constantly go up and their quality of life go down.I would like us to focus on more important things. When we look at the state of international relations, whether with China, Southeast Asia, South America, Africa, Asia or Europe, we see countries that have plans to address the great challenges of the 21st century. Here, the government is barely capable of drafting a plan to balance the budget.How will this government prepare for the great challenges of the 21st century when it cannot even come up with a plan to balance the budget?If my NDP colleague conducted a survey in his riding, I am sure that everyone would tell him that the government has to stop raising taxes. That is what is important.Budget deficitCorporate income taxIncome levelsOpposition motionsTaxationPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookeCherylHardcastleWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Federal Deficit]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1640)[English]Madam Speaker, I do not know what world the member lives in, but maybe she should cross the floor, because she seems to be attracted to the way they manage the economy on the Liberal benches.I want to speak about the veterans file. To the contrary, my colleague was the minister before the last election and did an amazing job making sure that we had new benefits. There were dozens of new benefits given to veterans under the Conservative government, and that is the truth. It is just outrageous to see the Liberals lying like that on the backs of veterans. Budget deficitGovernment revenuesOpposition motionsTaxationCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersElections Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1305)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I had the honour and privilege to be chosen, among the 338 members of Parliament, to speak today on the last day we will be sitting in this building, the Centre Block, in the House of Commons, in our wonderful Parliament, in our great federation.Before I go any further and talk a bit about Centre Block, I should say that I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, one of my esteemed colleagues, whose riding is quite close to my own. We share a border, between Sainte-Brigitte-de-Laval and Beauport. I am very happy to work with him on various issues that affect our respective constituents.I would like to wish a very merry Christmas to everyone in Beauport—Limoilou who is watching us right now or who might watch this evening on Facebook, Twitter or other social media. I wish everyone a wonderful time with their family, and I hope they take some time to rest and relax. That is important. This season can be a time to focus a little more on ourselves and our families, and to spend time together, to catch up and to rest up. I wish all my constituents the very best for 2019. Of course we will be seeing one another next week in our riding. I will be in my office and out in the community all week. I invite all my constituents to the Christmas party I am hosting on Wednesday, December 19, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., at my office, which is located at 2000 Sanfaçon Avenue. Refreshments will be served and we will celebrate Christmas together. Over 200 people attended the event last year. I hope to see just as many people out this year. Merry Christmas and happy new year to everyone. Today I want to talk about Bill C-76. I think this is the third time I speak to this bill. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak at all three readings of the same bill, and I am delighted I have been able do so.This is somewhat ironic, because we have every reason to feel nostalgic today. The Centre Block of the House of Commons has been the centre of Canadian democracy since 1916, or rather, since its reconstruction, which was completed in 1920 after the fire. We have been sitting in this place for over a century, for 102 years. We serve to ensure the well-being of our constituents and to discuss democracy, to discuss legislation and the issues that matter to our country every day.Today, rather ironically, we are discussing Bill C-76, which seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act. This is the legislation that sets the guidelines, standards, conditions and guarantees by which we, the 338 members of Parliament, were elected by constituents to sit here in the House of Commons. It is an interesting bill that we are discussing on our last day here, but this situation is indeed somewhat ironic, as my NDP colleague so rightly said in his question to the parliamentary secretary. He asked why, if this bill is so important to the Liberals, they waited until the last minute to rush it through after three years in power. The same version appeared in Bill C-33 in 2015-16, and the Liberals delayed implementation of that bill.Since we are talking about Bill C-76, which affects the Elections Act and democracy, I must say I find it a shame that only six out of the 200 amendments the Conservatives proposed in committee were accepted.We have concrete grievances based on real concerns and even the opinion of the majority. I will share with the House some of the surveys I have here. I just want to take a minute to say to all those watching us on CPAC or elsewhere right now, that it has been my dream ever since I was 15 to serve Canadians first and foremost. That is why I enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is why I dreamed of becoming an MP since I was 15. In 2015, I had the exceptional honour of earning the confidence of the majority of the 92,000 constituents of Beauport—Limoilou. I would like to tell them that, in my view, the House of Commons represents the opposite of what the Prime Minister said yesterday. He said it was just a room.I did not like that because the House of Commons, which will close for renovations for 15 years in a few days, is not just a room, as the Prime Minister said. I find it unfortunate that he used that term. It is the chamber of the people. That is why it is green. The colour green represents the people and the colour red represents aristocracy. Hence the Senate chamber is red.(1310)I hope I am not mistaken. Perhaps the parliamentary guides could talk to me about this. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister said that it is not the centre of democracy, because that is not true. I will explain to Canadians why it is wrong to say that Parliament is not the centre of democracy. The Prime Minister was right when he said that democracy resides everywhere, whether in protests in the streets, meetings of political associations or union meetings. Of course, democracy happens there. However, the centre of democracy is here, because it is here that elected members sit and vote on the laws that govern absolutely everything in the country. It is also here that we can even change Canada's Constitution. The country's Constitution cannot be changed anywhere else or as part of political debates by a political association or a protest. No, it can only be done here or in the other legislative assemblies of the provinces in Canada. It is only in those places that we can make amendments and change how democracy works or deal with problems to address current issues. Yes, by definition, in a practical manner, the centre of democracy is right here. It is not, as the Prime Minister said, just a room like so many others. No, it is the House of Commons.Just briefly, before I get back to Bill C-76, I want to talk about the six sculptures on the east wall. The first represents civil law; the second, freedom of speech; the third, the Senate; the fourth, the governor general; the fifth, Confederation; and the sixth, the vote. On the west wall, there are sculptures representing bilingualism, education, the House of Commons, taxation—it says “IMPÔT — TAX” up top—criminal law and, lastly, communications. Those sculptures are here because we are at the centre of democracy. The 12 sculptures represent elements of how our federation works.With respect to Bill C-67, we have three main complaints.First, Bill C-76 would make it possible for a Canadian to use a voter card as their only document at a polling station. To be clear, the voter card is the paper people get for registering as an eligible voter. From now on, the Liberals will let people vote using that card only. Currently, and until this bill is passed, voters have to present a piece of identification to vote.There are risks in letting people vote without an ID card like a driver's licence, health card or passport. First, in 2015, the information on over one million voter identification cards was incorrect. That is a major concern. Second, it is easy to vote with a card displaying incorrect information. That creates a significant problem. It is serious. We need to make sure that voting remains a protected, powerful and serious privilege in Canada.Our second concern—and this is why we have no choice but to vote against the bill and what upsets me the most personally—is that the government is going to allow Canadians who live outside the country to vote, regardless of how long they have been living abroad. There used to be a five-year limit. In Australia, it is six years. Many countries have limits.Now, the Liberals want to allow 1.4 million Canadians who live abroad to participate in Canadian elections, even if they have not lived in Canada for 20 or 30 years. They will even be allowed to choose what riding they want to vote in.Do the Liberals realize the incredible power they are giving to Canadian citizens who have not lived in Canada for 20 years? Those individuals could potentially choose a riding where the polls indicate that the race is very close and change which party is chosen to govern.Our third concern about this bill is that the Liberals want to prevent third parties, such as labour groups, from accepting money from individuals or groups outside the country during the pre-writ period.(1315)That is good, but there is nothing stopping this from happening before the pre-writ period. People will be able to take in money and receive money from groups outside the country before the start of the pre-writ period.I thank all Canadians who are watching us for their trust. I look forward to seeing them in the riding next week.C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendmentsConsideration of Senate amendmentsElectoral systemGovernment billsAnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingBernadetteJordanSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersElections Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am glad to know the member opposite had the same dream as I did, starting at age 15. I am glad to see that she went all the way to realizing this dream. Good for her. Marvellous.The Liberals speak about this bill as if it is something fundamental, so why did they wait three years? We are three years into their mandate right now, three years of failures. We have three years of failure on the border, where we have almost 100,000 illegal border crossings happening right now. There is huge financial pressure on provincial governments to deal with this crisis. We have three years of failure concerning deficits. They promised that they would run a small $10-billion deficit, and now the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an institution created by Mr. Harper, something we should never forget, who brings accountability to the government every day he acts, has informed us this week that the deficit is way larger than what was announced two weeks ago. It will be about $26 billion just for 2018-19.I completely disagree with the member. Yes, the right to vote is fundamental. However, the responsibility of the government is to make sure that voting is respected and protected for everyone.C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendmentsConsideration of Senate amendmentsElectoral systemGovernment billsBernadetteJordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersElections Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I said, from day one we contributed to this bill. We proposed over 200 amendments, and only six of them were accepted. It is disappointing to see that now the Liberals will be going forward without the acceptance of all members. We are talking about a bill that would have an impact on future elections. We should require all members to stand behind such an important bill. We think it should have been a must for the government to accept many more of our amendments.Yes, with respect to what the member just told us, if those kinds of situations happened during the last election, which was completely unacceptable, why not give more powers to the election directorate if we are able to? Why was the government so negative toward all the other amendments we brought forward?C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendmentsConsideration of Senate amendmentsElectoral systemGovernment billsLloydLongfieldGuelphJoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-Cartier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFinanceInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I also really like history. During the financial crisis between 2008 and 2015, we released $80 billion from our economic action plan, we safeguarded 250,000 jobs and we posted the best performance of the OECD.In 2015, the Prime Minister could not have been clearer when he said that the budget would be balanced in 2019. Not only did that not happen—which makes it a broken promise—but also the Liberals have no idea when the budget will be balanced. No government since 1867 has ever been so irresponsible with the public purse.When will we see a balanced budget?Balanced budgetBudget deficitOral questionsJoëlLightboundLouis-HébertJoëlLightboundLouis-Hébert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1640)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a bit unfortunate to notice that the parliamentary secretary cannot spontaneously speak without any notes about their supposedly great budget engagement.I went out for a few seconds and I am sure I missed the point where the member said when his government would balance the budget. I am sure I missed that. The Liberals seem to want to be a responsible government, so I am sure I missed that point.Could the member just repeat to me in which year the government will balance the budget?Balanced budgetBudget 2018 (February 27, 2018)Budget deficitC-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measuresGovernment billsReport stageAndyFillmoreHalifaxAndyFillmoreHalifax//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1645)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to something the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said. She said the government always has iconic and historical engagement announcements. I have come to think that it is all the government is about. It is always historical, amazing, so great, but we have never in Canadian history seen a government spend so much money to do so little. [Translation]I am very happy to speak today in the House of Commons on behalf of the citizens of Beauport—Limoilou.Centre Block will soon be closing for complete renovations for 10 or 15 years. I wanted to mention that. There is no cause for concern, however, because we will be moving to West Block. I will therefore be able to continue to speak on behalf of my constituents.Today I am discussing Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.I will focus on the fact that the members of the Conservative Party are extremely disappointed with the bill. We have witnessed a string of broken promises over the past three years. It is a little ironic that the hon. member for Papineau, the current head of the Liberal government, said during the election campaign that he wanted to do something to make people less cynical of politics, to help them have more confidence in politicians, in the ability of the executive branch, the legislative branch and members of Parliament to do things that are good for Canadians and especially to respect the major promises formally made during the campaign.A group of researchers at Laval University have created what they call the Vote Compass. It shows the number of promises kept and broken by the provincial and federal governments.I remember that, to their chagrin, a few months before the 2015 election, the research institute had to acknowledge that 97% of all promises made by Mr. Harper during the 2011 election campaign had been kept.The Liberal government elected in 2015 broke three major promises and is continuing to break them in the 2018 budget. These were not trifling promises. They were major promises that were to set the guidelines for how the government was to behave and for the results Canadians would see.The Canadians we talk to are familiar with the three major promises, since I often repeat them. I have to, because this is serious.The Liberals promised to limit themselves to minor $10-billion deficits in the first two years and a $6-billion deficit in the third year.What did they do? The first year, they posted a deficit of $30 billion. The second year, they posted a deficit of $20 billion. This year, the deficit is $18 billion, or three times what was announced.That is the first broken promise, and it was not just some promise that was jotted down on the back of a napkin. In any case, I hope not. In fact, I remember quite well that the promise was made from a crane in the midst of the election campaign. The member for Papineau was in Toronto, standing on a crane when he said that he would run deficits to pay for infrastructure. That is the second broken promise. He said that the $10 billion a year in deficits would be used to inject more money into infrastructure. However, of the $60 billion in deficits this government has racked up to date, only $9 billion has gone to infrastructure. That is another problem, another broken promise.That is why I was saying earlier that we have rarely seen, in the history of Canada, a government spend so much money for so few results. This is probably the first time we have seen this sort of thing.I will give an example. He said that he would invest $10 billion in infrastructure in 2017, but he invested only $3 billion and yet racked up a deficit of $20 billion. Where did the other $17 billion go? It was used for all sorts of different things in order to satisfy very specific interest groups who take great pleasure in and boast ad nauseam about the Liberal ideology.The third broken promise is an extremely important and strategic one. In fact, it was so obvious that we did not even really think of it as a promise before. (1650)All Canadian governments, in a totally responsible manner and without questioning it, traditionally endorsed this practice. If there was a deficit, the document would indicate the date by which the budget would be balanced. There was a repayment date, just as there is for anyone in Canada. When the families of Beauport—Limoilou, many of whom are watching today, want to buy a car or appliance, such as a washer or dryer, not only does the seller ask them to get a bank loan, but he also asks them to sign a paper that indicates when the debt will be repaid in full.Thus, it is quite normal to indicate when the budget will be balanced. We have been asking that question for three years, but what is even more interesting is that the Liberals had promised that the budget would be balanced in 2019, and now there are 45 days remaining in 2018. Telling us when the budget will be balanced is the least the Liberals could do.There are consequences to running up large deficits, however. The Liberal government has been accumulating gigantic deficits at a time when the global economy is doing rather well, although forecasts indicate that we will enter a recession in the next 12 months. Although times are tough in Alberta and Ontario, where General Motors just closed a plant, the situation is positive. There are regions in Canada that are suffering tremendously, but the global economic context is nevertheless healthy. Knock on wood, which is everywhere in the House of Commons.The first serious mistake is to run up deficits when times are good. When the global economy is doing well and our financial institutions are making money, we have to put money aside for an emergency fund and an assistance fund, especially for the employees of General Motors who lost their jobs and for all families in the riding of my Alberta colleague who have lost their jobs in the oil sector.We have to have an emergency fund for the next economic crisis because that is how our capitalist system works. There are ups and downs. That is human nature. It is random. Agreements are signed, things are done, progress is made, and there are ups and downs. The current positive situation has been going on for five or six years now, so we need to be prepared. That is why growing the deficit during good economic times can have very serious consequences.I would like to talk about another serious consequence, and I am sure this will strike a chord with the people of Beauport—Limoilou who are listening to us now. Does anyone know how many billions of dollars the government spends on federal health transfers? It is $33 billion per year. To service the debt, to pay back people around the world who lend us money, we spent $37 billion last year. We spent $4 billion more on servicing our debt than on health transfers.An hon. member: That is shameful.Mr. Alupa Clarke: Yes, Madam Speaker, it is shameful. It sure looks like bad management of public affairs. It makes no sense, and I am sure Canadians agree. I am sure they are sick and tired of hearing us talk about $10-billion, $20-billion, $30-billion deficits and so on.Canada's total debt is now $670 billion. My fellow Canadians, that means that, at this point in time, your family owes $47,000. That is a debt you will have to pay.The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage was very proud to announce that the government was giving nearly $6,000 a year per child, through the Canada child benefit, to people earning less than $45,000 a year. They are not giving money away, however; they are buying votes, which is unfortunate, since the very children this money is helping will end up having to pay it back. This is completely unacceptable on the part of the government.(1655)I am proud to be part of a former Conservative government that was responsible, that granted benefits without running deficits and that also managed to balance the budget.Balanced budgetBenefits for childrenBudget 2018 (February 27, 2018)Budget deficitC-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measuresGovernment billsInfrastructurePublic debtReport stageAndyFillmoreHalifaxCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1655)[English]Madam Speaker, I will respond to that, because the Conservatives do not hide and we are not afraid of the truth. The fact is that the MP for Papineau, the Liberals' leader, the Prime Minister presently, said during the last campaign that never in the world would he present an omnibus bill. There was no nuance. It was, “no omnibus bill, ever”. The fact is that it is the biggest omnibus bill we have ever seen in this Parliament. It is bigger than an elephant. Seriously, it is huge. It is over 800 pages. The blunt fact is that we were not ashamed of putting forward omnibus bills, because Canadians wanted the House to be efficient. Canadians wanted the House to go forward to make changes when necessary. Sometimes, when we had to debate every article, it did not go fast enough for the quickly changing pace of the world and all the needs of the Canadian people.Right now the member is trying to engage with people to try to hide the fact that the Liberals are doing omnibus bills. They are ashamed of it.Budget 2018 (February 27, 2018)C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measuresGovernment billsReport stageLarryBagnellHon.YukonCherylHardcastleWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1700)[English]Madam Speaker, I personally believe we should ensure that workers pensions are protected when a company files for bankruptcy.[Translation] As a society, we cannot tell workers who have worked for 30 or 40 years and who were counting on a pension that, all of a sudden, for purely capitalist reasons, their pension will be slashed. There are people in my riding who suffered a great deal when White Birch Paper almost went under. There were unbelievable cuts to employees’ pensions. The only comfort I could find when I met with the people on the board of White Birch Paper, which employed 400 people, was when they told me that their pensions had been cut as well. The NDP is working hard on this. Good for them, because it is an important issue.BankruptcyBudget 2018 (February 27, 2018)C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measuresGovernment billsPensions and pensionersReport stageCherylHardcastleWindsor—TecumsehCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1715)[English]Madam Speaker, I am sure that the member must have skipped one of the paragraphs in his speech where he was intending to announce when the government would balance the budget. That has always been the case in Canada's history. Maybe he could check his speech once more. All of my constituents are calling non-stop every single day about when the budget will be balanced. Balanced budgetBudget 2018 (February 27, 2018)Budget deficitC-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measuresGovernment billsReport stageCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodOfficial LanguagesInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie should stop misleading the House.The Prime Minister said that he has spoken with the Premier of Ontario about this critical situation GM employees find themselves in.After playing partisan games on the backs of Franco-Ontarians for a week, did he at least address this language issue with the Premier of Ontario?Franco-OntariansFrancophonesGovernment of OntarioOfficial languages policyOral questionsMélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-CartiervilleJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodInfrastructureInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1155)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the third link project is very important, not only for traffic, but also for the economic development of the greater Quebec City region.I do not think I am mistaken in saying that the hon. member for Louis-Hébert has said on the radio many times that he supports the third link project. However, his leader has just appointed a new advisor, Steven Guilbeault, who is fiercely opposed to the third link project.I would like to give the hon. member for Louis-Hébert the opportunity to tell us today whether he has concerns in that regard and whether he still supports the third link, as he has done on the radio.City of QuébecLévisOral questionsTransportation infrastructureFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodInfrastructureInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1155)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is a shame the member for Louis-Hébert was unable to answer the question. The minister said he would take a very close look at it. This is no longer hypothetical. It is going to happen. It is on the CAQ government's agenda.Will they support the project once it is ready to go? Can they tell us right now if they support it, yes or no?City of QuébecLévisOral questionsTransportation infrastructureFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPoint of Order [Statements by Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie Regarding Services for Franco-Ontarians]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1210)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the following statements made by the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie. On Thursday, November 22, she said:It has been seven days since Ontario's Conservative government cut services for Franco-Ontarians, but so far, no one in the Conservative Party has condemned what is happening in Ontario. That is unacceptable. Page 63, 22nd edition of Erskine May, refers to a resolution passed by the U.K. House of Commons: ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and to be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments; it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament. Erskine May then states that ministers must correct the record at the earliest opportunity.I would also like to draw the Speaker's attention to the Prime Minister's message to his cabinet ministers in the document “Open and Accountable Government”.[Ministers must] answer honestly and accurately about [their] areas of responsibility [and] correct any inadvertent errors in answering to Parliament at the earliest opportunity...The Minister's statement fails to reference my public condemnation and that of the political lieutenant—Franco-OntariansFrancophonesGovernment of OntarioJoly, MélanieMembers' remarksMinister of Tourism, Official Languages and La FrancophonieOfficial languages policyPoints of orderReferences to membersGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodInfrastructureInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1455)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, for the past year, the members for Québec and Louis-Hébert have been parading around Quebec City talking about how they are going to help create a third link. Yesterday, the Liberals hired an adviser, Steven Guilbeault, who has said he is officially against the third link. A third link is important to Beauport—Limoilou, Quebec City, and the economic development of the whole region. Are the Liberals for or against a third link in Quebec City?City of QuébecLévisOral questionsTransportation infrastructureCatherineMcKennaHon.Ottawa CentreCatherineMcKennaHon.Ottawa Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1505)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I have an obligation to tell you that the Minister of Official Languages misled the House today in question period when she claimed that no Conservative members of the House have publicly criticized the Ford government's actions in front of the cameras.I did so, as did several members—Members' remarksPoints of orderGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Finance]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, I must be mistaken, or maybe I went outside to the lobby, but I must have missed the part of the hon. member's speech when he was talking about when the government will balance the budget. I have never seen a budget speech that did not include a date, or anything like a date, confirming when the budget would be balanced. Therefore, I would like the member to rectify the situation. I must have been somewhere else or not listening. I am very sorry. When will the government balance the budget?Balanced budgetEconomic statement 2018 (November 21, 2018)Opposition motionsFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Finance]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1600)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as usual, I am very pleased to rise today.Without further delay, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.As always, I extend my warmest greetings to the many people in Beauport—Limoilou who are watching us today.Today's debate is very interesting. An opposition motion was moved in the House by the Conservative Party, of which I am of course a member. It reads as follows, and I quote: That the House call on the government to tell Canadians in what year the budget will be balanced, and to do so in this week’s Fall Economic Statement. Canadians may be wondering what is happening and how it is possible that we still do not know when the government will balance the budget. That has always been a basic concept for me, even before I got into politics.It seems to me that any reasonable, responsible government, whether it be Liberal or Conservative—and I was going to add NDP, but that has not happened yet at the federal level—with nothing to hide should indicate in its policy statement, budget, and everyday political messaging a date on which it will balance the budget, or at least a concrete timeframe for doing so.There are two rather surprising things about the Liberals' refusal to give us a timeframe for returning to a balanced budget. There are two historic elements with regard to the practice that they are currently using.As the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent keeps saying, we have never seen a government run a deficit outside wartime or outside an economic crisis.According to Keynesian economics, it is normal to run deficits. Keynes made some mistakes in several of his analyses, but there is one analysis he did that several governments have been adhering to for 60 years now. According to his analysis, when an international economic crisis is having an impact on every industrialized country in the world, it is not a bad idea for the government to invest heavily in its community, in its largest industries, in every industrial region of the country, to ensure that jobs are maintained and that there is some economic vitality despite the crisis. For example, we Conservatives ran a few deficits in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 because the country was going through the worst economic crisis ever, the greatest recession since the 1930s.Our reaction was responsible. Why? First, because there was a major global recession. Second, because even though we were a Conservative government, we embraced Keynesianism because we felt it made good economic sense. Through our strategic reinvestment plan, we managed to maintain 200,000 jobs. Not only did we maintain jobs across Canada, but we also repaired infrastructure, bridges and overpasses.Two years ago, when I was a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, I read a report that noted this was the first time an economic recovery and stimulus plan had been implemented so quickly. In three or four years, we invested $80 billion in infrastructure to help Canada weather some rough economic times.The first surprise from the Liberals was that they ran up massive deficits of $20 billion this year, $20 billion last year, and $30 billion in 2015-16, even though there is no major crisis or war going on.There is a second surprising thing. Let us go back to the time when lords were waging wars against the king of England, which is in the 13th century. In 1215, the Magna Carta resulted from several confrontations between the lords, the capitalist bourgeoisie and the aristocracy, all pleading for their interests with the king. The idea was to create an assembly where they could present their admonitions and complaints to the king and could limit the outrageous sums the king wanted to spend on the holy crusades. That is when our parliamentary system was born.When I was first elected to the House of Commons, I learned Parliament's primary function. My university professors knew I liked philosophy, but they said I would soon come to realize that, in the House of Commons, discussions are about money, the economy, the country's economic situation and public finances. I learned that, in the House of Commons, debates are almost entirely about public finances.(1605)That is as it should be, since the philosophical and political foundations of the British parliamentary system are accountability and the principle of responsible government allowing citizens to know what their money is used for. In those days, it was the capitalist bourgeoisie who wanted to know, whereas nowadays all citizens expect it. Nevertheless, the process and the principle remain the same. We want to know what happens with our money. Why are there deficits, if any, and most importantly when is the government going to balance the budget? Deficits involve our money, and it is commendable and reasonable to know when the budget will be balanced. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert was just saying how absurd this is. What would a government MP do if an ordinary Canadian asked him to simply tell him when his party would balance the budget? For three years, members of Parliament have not really been allowed to answer such a question, yet it is quite a normal question. They have to come up with foolish answers, think about something else or say that everything is fine because they have been cutting taxes, when in fact each citizen in Beauport—Limoilou pays $800 more every year in income tax. That amounts to almost $2,000 per family, not to mention the tax credits they axed, the oil that is not being shipped out of the country, all the cuts in exports to the U.S., all the U.S. investment in Canada that has been lost while Canadian investment in the U.S. has increased, not to mention the fact that household debt is at an all-time high. The OECD remarked on this recently. In short, I could go on for a long time without even talking about the USMCA.Nonetheless, there are some surprising things. What is incredible, and I repeat this every time I give a speech about Canada's economy, is that, in 2015, the Liberals were smart enough and had enough honour to explain why they were running a deficit even though we were not at war or in an economic crisis. At the time, the member for Papineau, under a gigantic crane in Toronto—I remember watching on television from my campaign office in Beauport—Limoilou and that it was partly cloudy and it rained a little—announced to Canadians that the Liberals would run a deficit of $10 billion in the first two years and then a deficit of $6 billion in the third year. He promised a deficit. Everyone was surprised that he was promising a deficit. It was a first.He added that the Liberals would run a deficit in order to invest in infrastructure, which, he said, had been abandoned, and to invest more in infrastructure in general across the country. At least he was consistent in his comments once he was elected. He announced that they were creating a historic infrastructure plan—everything is always historic with them—worth $187 billion, which is not bad either. That was a continuation of what we had done. We had invested $80 billion over the course of the six previous years. It is only natural to continue to invest in infrastructure in Canada. Some even claim that Canada exists thanks to the railroad. Infrastructure has always been foundational here in Canada.However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer—which, I repeat every time, as we must not forget, is an institution created by Mr. Harper, a great democrat who wanted there to be an independent body in Parliament to constantly hold the government to account—informed us in a report that, of the $187 billion invested in infrastructure, only $9 billion has actually been spent over the past three years. If I am not mistaken, $9 billion divided by three is $3 billion. The Liberals have invested $3 billion a year in infrastructure, and yet, they ran a $30-billion deficit in the first year.Let us not forget that the $10-billion deficit was supposed to be for infrastructure. However, in their first year in office, the Liberals ran a $30-billion deficit and only $3 billion of that went to infrastructure. The second year, they ran a $20-billion deficit with only $3 billion for infrastructure, and they did the same again this year. Obviously, we have never seen a government put so much energy into spending so much money in such a reckless and dishonourable way while achieving so little for the economic well-being of the country and Canadians at home.In closing, setting a deadline for paying off debt is something that Canadian families do at home all the time, for example when paying off their mortgages or their car loans. When people borrow money for a car, the dealer does not just say, “Have a good day, sir. See you around.” He tells them that they need to take out a bank loan and that they have four years to pay it back. There is a deadline for all sorts of things like that.When will a balanced budget be achieved?AccountabilityBalanced budgetBudget deficitEconomic statement 2018 (November 21, 2018)Government expendituresInfrastructureOpposition motionsSplitting speaking timeTax policyFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeDarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—Chezzetcook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Finance]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1615)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the hon. member completely misconstrued what I said. I was not talking about investments. These are deficits.SMEs at the heart of job creation in my riding, Beauport—Limoilou, do not borrow money to invest in their projects, they use their profits for that. It is important to reinvest budgetary surpluses. In 2015, we left $3 billion to the Liberals when they came to power and they spent it all in just a few months.If investment is truly what the government is after, then why did the Liberals say that they would run a $10-billion infrastructure deficit? Why are the deficits not being used to invest in infrastructure, as the Liberals claimed they wanted to do in 2015? It is because the Liberals' deficits are not being used to improve infrastructure or Canadians' lives. They are being used to please the lobby groups that have always supported the Liberals.Balanced budgetEconomic statement 2018 (November 21, 2018)Opposition motionsTax policyDarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—ChezzetcookPierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Finance]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1615)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say the government could be more transparent, but that would surprise me. There is a lot of back and forth between the Liberals and the Office of the Ethics Commissioner. Transparency is not this government's strong suit.My colleague talked about investments, but why is the army underfunded? According to another recently released report, the Canadian Forces had a $2-billion shortfall last year alone.Also, why is the government not doing anything to reduce delays associated with the national shipbuilding strategy? The price tag for the 15 Iroquois-class frigates that are scheduled to be built in Halifax has gone up from $30 billion to $60 billion.When will the Liberals give us the date the budget will be balanced? That is a simple question, and it boils down to being accountable to Parliament. Balanced budgetEconomic statement 2018 (November 21, 2018)Opposition motionsPierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-HubertJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersRemembrance DayInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1405)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, November 11, thousands of Canadians will gather at various war memorials in Canada to commemorate the ultimate sacrifice made by so many of our ancestors and our contemporaries.Our soldiers sacrificed their lives not only during both world wars, but also more recently, in UN peacekeeping missions and in Afghanistan, where Canada served to combat terrorism. Let us not forget the 158 soldiers we lost in this recent and major war in Afghanistan. Corporal Jean-François Drouin, from my region of Beauport, bravely served his country in Afghanistan and lost his life on September 6, 2009. Since then, his courageous parents have laid a wreath in Beauport every year in memory of their son. Let us keep them in our hearts and thoughts.Let us never forget the ultimate sacrifice that Corporal Jean-François Drouin made for our great federation. Lest we forget.Canadian Forces mission in AfghanistanDrouin, Jean-FrançoisRemembrance DayStatements by MembersWar casualtiesMattDeCourceyFrederictonMarcMillerVille-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1445)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is not just a matter of investments. This goes beyond the government's broken promises to veterans. We are talking about red tape and a lack of respect within Veterans Affairs Canada itself for the calls it receives from our brave men and women in uniform. I have heard stories from people who, every year anew, have to provide proof of having lost their arm in Afghanistan.Does the government think it is right or fair to do that to our dedicated soldiers who often continue to serve here or abroad?The Prime Minister needs to understand and commit today to reduce the department's red tape and burdensome rules.BureaucracyDepartment of Veterans AffairsOral questionsVeteransStéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-NationStéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-Nation//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC)(1600)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise. As usual, I would like to say hello to the many people of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching us live on CPAC or on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter later.I would like to comment on the speech by the Minister of Status of Women. I found it somewhat hypocritical when she said that she hopes her opposition colleagues will support the bill and the budget's feminist measures, which she presented, when the Liberals actually and strategically included all these measures in an omnibus bill, the 2018 budget implementation bill. Clearly, we, the Conservatives, will not vote in favour of Bill C-86 because it once again presents a deficit budget that is devastating for Canada's economy and for Canadian taxpayers. It is somewhat hypocritical for the minister to tell us that she hopes we will support the measures to give women more power when she herself was involved in hiding these measures in an omnibus bill.I would like say, as I often say, that it is a privilege for me to speak today, but not for the same reason this time. I might have been denied the opportunity to speak to Bill C-86 because this morning, the Liberal government imposed closure on the House. It imposed time allocation on the speeches on the budget. This is the first time in three years that I am seeing this in the House. Since 2015, we have had three budget presentations. This is the sixth time we are debating a budget since 2015 during this 42nd Parliament. This is the first time I have seen the majority of my Conservative colleagues and the majority of my NDP colleagues being denied speaking time to discuss something as important as Bill C-86 to implement budgetary measures. The budget implementation legislation is what formalizes the budget the government brought down in February. Implementation is done in two phases. This is the second phase and it implements the Liberal government's budget. By chance, I have the opportunity to speak about the budget today and I want to do so because I would like to remind those listening about some key elements of this budget which, in our view, are going in the wrong direction. First, the Liberals are continuing with their habit, which has become ingrained in their psyches. They are continuing with their deficit approach. It appears that they are in a financial bind. That is why they are creating new taxes like the carbon tax. They also lack the personal ability to govern. You might say that it is not in their genes to balance a budget. The Liberals' budget measures are bad and their economic plan is bad. They are so incapable of balancing the budget that they cannot even give us a timeline. They cannot even tell us when they think they will balance the budget.This is the first time that we have seen this in the history of our great Canadian parliamentary democracy, established in 1867, and probably before that, in the parliaments of the United Canadas. This is the first time since 1867 that a government has not been able to say when they will balance the budget. I am not one for political rhetoric, but this is not rhetoric, this is a fact.The Liberals made big promises to us in that regard during the 2015 election. Unfortunately, the Liberals put off keeping those promises. They promised to balance the budget by 2019. Now, they have put that off indefinitely, or until 2045, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a position that, let us not forget, was created by Mr. Harper. That great democrat wanted to ensure that there was budgetary accountability in Parliament. The Liberals also promised that they would run small deficits of $10 billion for the first three years and then balance the budget. The first year, they ran a deficit of $30 billion. The second year, they ran a deficit of $20 billion. The third year, they ran a deficit of $19 billion. Just a week or two ago, we found out from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the Liberals miscalculated and another $4 billion in debt has been added to that amount. The Liberals have racked up a deficit of $22 billion. That is 6.5 times more than what they set out in their plan to balance the budget.The other key budget promise the Liberals made was that the small deficits of $10 billion would be used to build new infrastructure as part of a $187-billion program.(1605)To date, only $9 billion has flowed from the coffers to pay for infrastructure projects. Where is the other $170 billion? The Prime Minister is so acutely aware of the problem that he shuffled his cabinet this summer. He appointed the former international trade minister to the infrastructure portfolio, and the new infrastructure minister's mandate letter says he absolutely has to get on this troublesome issue of money not being used to fund infrastructure projects.There is a reason the Liberals do not want to give us more than two or three days to discuss the budget. They do not want the Conservatives and the NDP to say quite as much about the budget as they would like to say because we have a lot of bad things to tell them and Canadians.Fortunately, we live in a democracy, and we can express ourselves in the media, so all Canadians can hear what I have to say. However, it is important for us to express our ideas in the House too because listening to what we say here is how Canadians learn what happened in history.Things are not as rosy as the Liberals claim when it comes to the economy and their plan. For instance, in terms of exports, they have not been able to export Canadian oil as they should. We have one of the largest reserves in the world, but the Liberals tightened rules surrounding the National Energy Board in recent years. As a result, several projects have died, such as the northern gateway project and energy east, and the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain project, which the Liberals managed to save in the end using $4.5 billion of taxpayers money. In short, our exports are not doing very well.As for investments, from 2015 to 2017, Canadian investments in the U.S. increased by 65%, while American investments in Canada dropped by 52%.On top of that, one thing that affects the daily lives of Canadians even more is the massive debt, which could jeopardize all our future projects for our glorious federation. In 2018, the total accumulated debt is $670 billion. That comes out to $47,000 per family. Not counting any student debt, car payments or mortgage, every family already has a debt of $47,000, and a good percentage of that has increased over the past three years because of the Liberals' fiscal mismanagement.That is not to mention the interest on the debt. I am sure that Canadians watching at home are outraged by this. In 2020, the interest on the debt will be $39 billion a year. That is $3 billion more than we invest every year in health.The government boasts about how it came up with a wonderful plan for federal health transfers with the provinces, but that plan does not respect provincial jurisdictions. What is more, it imposes conditions on the provinces that they must meet in order to be able to access those transfers. We did not do that in the Harper era. We are investing $36 billion per year in health care and spending $39 billion servicing debt. Imagine what we could have done with that money.I will close by talking about the labour shortage. I would have liked to have 20 minutes so I could say more, but we cannot take the time we want because of the gag order. It is sad that I cannot keep going.Quebec needs approximately 150,000 more workers. I am appalled that the minister would make a mockery of my questions on three occasions. Meanwhile, the member for Louis-Hébert had the nerve to say that the Conservatives oppose immigration. That has nothing to do with it. We support immigration, but that represents only 25% of the solution to the labour shortage. This is a serious crisis in Quebec.There are many things under federal jurisdiction that the government could do and that, in combination with immigration, would help fill labour shortages. However, all the Liberals can do is make fun of me, simply because I am a member of the opposition. I hosted economic round tables in Quebec City with my colleagues, and all business owners were telling us that this is a serious crisis. The Liberals should act like a good government and stop making fun of us every time we speak. Actually, it is even worse; they want to prevent us from speaking.Balanced budgetBudget 2018 (February 27, 2018)Budget deficitC-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measuresGovernment billsInfrastructureLabour shortageOil and gasPersonal debtProvince of QuebecSecond readingMaryamMonsefHon.Peterborough—KawarthaDavidLamettiLaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1615)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, that is such a dishonourable question. He is doing exactly what I just criticized his colleague from Louis-Hébert for doing. That is fearmongering. The Liberals are doing exactly what they are accusing us of doing. They are making a mockery of what we are saying and the work we are doing as Her Majesty's opposition.When we were in power, over 300,000 immigrants entered Canada every year, and there were no crises at our borders because we made sure that the our immigration system was orderly, fair and peaceful.At an economic round table, the executive director of the Association des économistes du Québec told us that immigration was only 25% of the solution to the labour shortage. Even if we welcomed 500,000 immigrants a year, that would still not completely solve the labour shortage.We need to help seniors who want to return to the workforce. We need to allow foreign students in our universities to stay longer. We need to make sure that fewer young men in Quebec drop out of high school. All kinds of action could be taken, but all the Liberals are capable of doing is launching completely false insinuations and hyper-partisan attacks on us.Budget 2018 (February 27, 2018)C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measuresGovernment billsLabour shortageProvince of QuebecSecond readingDavidLamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunStevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1615)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the government needs to be serious and show some leadership. That means being capable of making decisions for the future well being of Canadian society.Why are the Liberals coming up with a carbon tax and bogus plans to fight climate change when they know a recession is coming? Everyone is talking about it. There will be a recession by 2020. What are they going to do in a recession with a $30-billion deficit? They have run up deficits or more than $100 billion in three and a half years. When the next recession hits, what are they going to do to get the economy moving again without any money? We know what to do. From 2006 to 2015, the Conservative government managed to get through the worst economic crisis in history since the recession of the 1930s. We had the best result in the G7 and the OECD. Budget 2018 (February 27, 2018)Budget deficitC-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measuresGovernment billsSecond readingStevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is the expression that Conservatives times are tough times. Why is that? We always have to clean up the Liberals' mess every single time. They were in power more often than us because they do not have principles. All they want is power. We stand up for the people and principles.Budget 2018 (February 27, 2018)Budget deficitC-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measuresGovernment billsSecond readingMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2<Sup></Sup>InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1130)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Hébert for his speech.At the beginning of his speech he talked about historic investments in infrastructure. Sadly, it is historic in theory only, since we have seen just $9.3 billion of the $187 billion announced a few years ago.Between 2010 and 2015, the Conservative government not only released the $80 billion from our economic action plan, but we also spent it in real time. Many observers even talked about how effective the plan was, since the money was getting out. I just wanted to set the record straight.I would also like to ask my hon. colleague when the government plans to balance the budget. He did not mention that in his speech. One of the Liberal government's key promises in 2015 was to balance the budget by 2020. Promises must be kept if we want to reduce cynicism among Canadians instead of fuelling it. This is important to our democracy, and yet, it is clear that the government has shelved this promise and that it has absolutely no intention of keeping it.When will the government balance the budget?Balanced budgetBudget 2018 (February 27, 2018)C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measuresGovernment billsGovernment expendituresInfrastructureSecond readingJoëlLightboundLouis-HébertJoëlLightboundLouis-Hébert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersElections Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1045)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise to speak in the House. I would like to say hello to the people of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching us now on CPAC or watching a rebroadcast on Facebook or Twitter.Without further delay, I would like to address the previous speaker's comments. I find it interesting that he said their objective was to prevent foreign influence from third parties.The bill will pass, since the Liberals have a majority. However, one problem I have with the bill is that it will allow more than 1.5 million Canadians who have been living outside of Canada for more than five years to vote in general elections, even if they have been outside Canada for 10 or 15 years.These people have a privilege that even Canadians who have never left the country do not even have. The Liberals will let them randomly choose which riding they want to vote in. This is a massive privilege.If I were living in the United States for 10 years and saw that the vote was really close in a certain riding, thanks to the new amendments made to the bill, I could decide to vote for the Liberal Party in order to ensure that a Liberal member gets elected. That seems like a very dangerous measure to me. It will give a lot of power to people who have been living abroad for a very long time. That still does not make them foreigners, since they are Canadian citizens.For those watching us, I want to note that we are talking about Bill C-76 to modernize the Canada Elections Act.This is an extremely important issue because it is the Canada Elections Act that sets the guidelines for our elections in our democracy. These elections determine the party that will form the next government of Canada.I am sure that the people of Beauport—Limoilou watching us right now can hardly believe the Liberal government when it says that it wants to improve democracy or Canada's electoral system or allow a lot of people to exercise their right to vote. The Liberals' record on different elements of democracy has been deplorable the past three years.Two years ago when the House was debating the issue, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The Liberals introduced a parliamentary reform that included some rather surprising elements. They wanted to weaken the opposition, thereby weakening roughly 10 million Canadians who voted for the opposition parties, including the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, and the Green Party.They wanted to cut speaking times in the House, which is completely ridiculous. I have said it many times before and I will say it again. An MP currently has the right to speak for 20 minutes. Most of the time, each MP speaks for 10 minutes. Through the reform, the Liberals wanted to cut speaking times from 20 minutes to 10 minutes at all times. The 20-minute speaking slot would no longer exist.I have a book at home that I love called The Confederation Debates. It features speeches by Papineau, Doyon, George-Étienne Cartier, John A. MacDonald, Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine, among many others that I could name. These great MPs would speak for four, five, six, seven or eight hours without stopping, long into the night.With their parliamentary reforms, the Liberals wanted to reduce MPs' speaking time to 10 minutes. They wanted to take away our right to speak for 20 minutes. All this was intended to minimize the opposition's speaking time, to stifle debate on various issues.What they did yesterday was even worse. It was a clear-cut example of their attitude towards parliamentary democracy. They imposed time allocation. In layman's terms, they placed a gag order on a debate on the modernization of the Canada Elections Act. No example could more blatantly demonstrate their ultimate intent, which is to ram the bill through as fast as possible. It is really a shame. They want to ram this down our throats.There is also what they did in 2015 and 2016 with their practice of cash for access.(1050)When big-time lobbyists want to meet with a minister or the Prime Minister to discuss an issue, they just have to register and pay $1,500, or $1,575 now, for the opportunity to influence them.These are not get-togethers with ordinary constituents. These are get-togethers arranged for the express purpose of giving prominent lobbyists access to top government officials and enabling them to influence decisions.Here is a great example. The Minister of Finance attended a get-together with Port of Halifax officials and people closely connected to the Port of Halifax. No other Liberal Party MP was there. That is a blatant conflict of interest and cash for access.If Canadians have a hard time trusting the Liberals when they say they introduced this bill because they want to enfranchise people or improve democracy and civic engagement, it is also because of all of the promises the Liberals have broken since their election in 2015.Elections and electoral platforms form the foundations of Canadian democracy. Each party's political platform contains election promises. Personally, I prefer to call them commitments. The Liberals made some big promises. They said they would run small $10-billion deficits for the first two years and then reduce the deficits. Year after year, however, as they are in their third year of a four-year mandate, they have been running deficits that are much worse: $30 billion, $20 billion and, this year, $19 billion, although their plan projected a $6-billion deficit.They broke that promise, but worse still, they broke their promise to return to a balanced budget. As my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent has put it so well often enough, this is the first time we are seeing structural deficits outside wartime or a major recession. What is worse, this is the first time a government has had no plan to return to a balanced budget. It defies reason. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, an institution created by the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, said again recently that it is unbelievable to see a government not taking affairs of the state more seriously.Meanwhile, with respect to infrastructure, the Liberals said they were introducing the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history—everything is always historic with them—worth $187 billion. What is the total amount spent to date? They have spent, at most, $7 billion on a few projects here and there, although this was supposed to be a pan-Canadian, structured and large-scale program. The Liberals also broke their promise to reform the electoral system. They wanted a preferential balloting system because, according to analyses, surveys and their strategists, it would have benefited them. I did not support that promise, but it is probably why so many Canadians voted for the Liberals.There is then a string of broken promises, but electoral reform was a fundamental promise and the Liberals reneged on it. It would have made changes to the Election Act and to how Canadians choose their government. That clearly shows once again that Canadians cannot trust the Liberals when they say they will reform the Election Act in order to strengthen democracy in Canada.Let us now get back to the matter at hand, Bill C-76, which makes major fundamental changes that I find deplorable.First, Bill C-76 would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to authorize the use of the voter information card as a piece of identification for voting. As one of my Conservative colleagues said recently, whether we like it or not, voter cards show up all over, even in recycling boxes. Sometimes voter cards are found sticking out of community mailboxes. There are all kinds of ways that an individual can get hold of a voter card and go to the polling station with it. It is not that difficult. This Liberal bill enables that individual to vote, although there is no way of knowing if they are that person, unless they are asked to provide identification—and that is not even the biggest problem.(1055)It does not happen often, thank goodness, but when I go to the CHUL in Quebec City—which is the hospital where I am registered—not only do I have to provide the doctor's requisition for blood work, but I also have to show a piece of ID and my hospital card. Budget deficitC-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendmentsCanadians in foreign countriesConflict of interestElectoral reformElectoral systemFundraising and fundraisersGovernment billsInfrastructureLobbying and lobbyistsParliamentary democracyParliamentary reformPolitical partiesPolitical programsReport stageVoter identificationVoting and votersGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodOfficial LanguagesInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1200)[Translation]Madam Speaker, for the past two years, official language minority communities have been speaking out loud and clear to demand an in-depth review and modernization of the Official Languages Act.The act was last reviewed in 1988 by us, the Conservatives.Yesterday, the Senate tabled a report that reached the same conclusion. That conclusion was echoed by the Commissioner of Official Languages last week before the Standing Committee on Official Languages.The Liberals announced some interesting measures yesterday, but they will not come into effect until 2023.When will the Liberals stop taking linguistic communities hostage? When will they finally take action and start modernizing the Official Languages Act?Linguistic minoritiesOfficial Languages ActOfficial languages policyOral questionsMattDeCourceyFrederictonAlainaLockhartFundy Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersElections Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1205)[Translation]Madam Speaker, just to check, I would like to know whether I have five minutes left. I am not sure.CelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitbyCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersElections Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1205)[Translation]I believe you, of course, Madam Speaker.That is completely ridiculous in the current context. My colleague is talking about something that happened a number of years ago. However, in the current context, there are practically no bills. The government's legislative agenda is practically non-existent. What is it introducing right now? The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership has been signed. We are waiting for the USMCA to be examined here in the House so that it can be ratified. We voted only once this week. We are beginning to wonder what we are doing here. The Liberal government is not introducing any meaningful legislation. This week, we had the opportunity to debate an extremely important bill, and the government imposed a gag order on us. Looking at the government's legislative agenda, it seems that we should have been able to take as much time as we needed to discuss that bill.C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendmentsElectoral systemGovernment billsReport stageCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersElections Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, our critic for democratic institutions and other Conservative colleagues on the committee presented and tabled 200 possible amendments to the bill. These amendments would not only have strengthened the bill but possibly also given the Conservatives the privilege and honour of voting for the bill. Concerning the citizens' voting cards, one million cards sent to citizens in the last election contained erroneous information. Also, as an Ipsos Reid poll indicates, 87% of Canadians do not see why it is a problem for them to be required to have another identification card when they present themselves at the polling booths. It is at the basis of democracy that we make sure that the right person is on the card when someone goes to the polls to vote to choose the next government. C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendmentsElectoral systemGovernment billsReport stageCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingDarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—Chezzetcook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEmploymentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1455)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal members from Quebec, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business believes that there is indeed a labour shortage in Quebec.Ms. Hébert, vice-president of the CFIB, noted that some businesses have had to scale back their operations or even shut down temporarily.In other words, in Quebec City and around the province, the labour shortage is definitely having an impact on the ground. A wide range of possible solutions are within the purview of the federal government.Why, then, is the Liberal government not taking immediate concrete action to come up with a concrete solution to this serious problem?Labour shortageOral questionsProvince of QuebecAmarjeetSohiHon.Edmonton Mill WoodsPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Terrorism]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1740)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to clear something up. I think the way the Liberals and Canadians use the word “radicalization” is dangerous. Let me explain why. It is a way to deny an important reality. One hundred and ninety Canadians have travelled overseas to commit acts of terrorism and contribute to a political movement.Let us not forget that there are concrete ideologies based on arguments that can seem rational and objective to some. They want to create an Islamic state, and there is a political will to achieve that goal.Some of those 190 Canadians went there not because they were reckless, had a troubled soul, or had been radicalized or brainwashed. We need to acknowledge that, on the contrary, some of them were fully conscious of what they were doing and knew exactly what they were going to be doing there. Their actions were objective and rational. They wanted to be part of a political movement that is probably anti-capitalist, anti-liberal democracy, and even anti-Christian.My colleague from Winnipeg North needs to realize that some Canadians went there not because they were crazy, mentally ill or radicalized, but for rational reasons, because they were against our political system.What does he have to say to that?How would he suggest that we deal with these individuals?Canadians in foreign countriesExtremismIslamic State of Iraq and the LevantNational securityOpposition motionsTerrorism and terroristsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Terrorism]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1800)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening. I want to acknowledge the people of Beauport—Limoilou watching us in real time or watching a rebroadcast on Twitter or Facebook.Dear citizens, this evening we are debating a very important motion on a topic that is very sensitive for all Canadians given that we are talking about other Canadians. We are talking about Canadian combatants who have joined the Islamic State since 2013. More than 190 Canadians have made the solemn decision to join the ranks of the Islamic State, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes fully consciously. We condemn their decision to go overseas to join Daesh, better known as the Islamic State, which shrank in size considerably following the western coalition attacks. The group is located primarily in Syria and Iraq, in the Middle East.These 190 Canadians decided to go overseas to join the Islamic State, which fights western countries and their values, including liberal democracy and gender equality. These are values that are dear to Canadian parliamentary democracy.Today, the member for Winnipeg North and a number of his Liberal colleagues stated that these 190 Canadians were radicalized on the Internet, by reading literature or by ISIS propagandists on social networks. The Liberals are telling us that we should help Canadians who went to fight against Canada's military members and liberal democracy. Who knows. Perhaps they went to fight in order to one day destroy Canada's political system because they espouse different views. Every time, the Liberals tell us that we need to take pity on them and hold their hands because they were radicalized. Today, we have moved our motion to address the following reality. Some of them were radicalized. However, I would venture that the vast majority of Canadians who went overseas to join Daesh did so of their own volition and for reasons that are rational, objective and politically motivated and that they believe are good reasons. They did not do so because they were alienated or radicalized. They perhaps want to destroy liberal democracy and gender equality around the world. They had several reasons for joining ISIS. They are not necessarily crazy or alienated.How are we going to deal with those Canadians who return to Canada? I am not talking about those who left because they were suffering from mental illness or alienation, but rather those who went to the areas where ISIS attacks and counterattacks were taking place, and went of their own free will, to fight Canadian soldiers and soldiers of our allied military partners.Today the Liberals are saying that the Conservatives are inventing numbers. Journalist Manon Cornellier, a director with the parliamentary press gallery, is highly regarded in the journalism community. She is very professional. In her article in Le Devoir this morning, she writes: Some 190 Canadians are active in overseas terrorist groups such as Islamic State, also known as Daesh, mostly in Syria and Iraq. About 60 have returned to Canada, but only four have faced charges to date.A professional journalist, employed by a highly respected newspaper that has been around for decades in Canada, must check her sources and facts before publishing any articles. Ms. Cornellier is reporting exactly the same figures as the official opposition. These are concrete numbers: 190 Canadians left; 60 of those terrorists, who have deliberately committed horrific crimes like raping women and killing children, have returned to Canada; four of them have faced criminal charges; and no one knows where the other 56 are. (1805)What we are asking for is perfectly reasonable and normal in a country governed by the rule of law like Canada. We are asking the government to bring forward a plan within 45 days for determining the whereabouts of the 56 terrorists, both known and unknown, and others who may be coming, finding out what they are doing, and making sure that in the days, weeks or months to come, they are formally charged for what they did. Many of them did what they did for objective, political reasons. They were on a kind of campaign or crusade that went against Canadian and international law.I will continue quoting from Ms. Cornellier article's in Le Devoir: Daesh meets the definition of a terrorist organization, and its actions meet the definition of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Under the international law that Canada helped formulate, a country can prosecute anyone who committed such crimes and is physically present on its territory, regardless of where the acts were committed. Furthermore, Canada passed its own universal jurisdiction law in 2000 after ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It used that law in 2005 to prosecute Désiré Munyaneza for crimes against humanity for his role in the Rwandan genocide. This is not a first. She also writes: According to Kyle Matthews, executive director of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, Canada must not allow Canadian fighters to return to Canada or be repatriated without holding them responsible for the atrocities they helped perpetrate. They must be prosecuted to deter others from committing such crimes.In other words, Ms. Cornellier and the executive director of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies are saying exactly what we, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, are saying: these crimes must be punished by the courts.Here is one final excellent quote from her article that shines a light on what we are saying today: Investigations and the gathering of admissible evidence are indeed difficult, but the government is responsible for finding a solution. It must devise a legal process that operates in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice and overcomes the unique constraints that interfere with punishing these crimes. Without that, there can be no justice, and barbaric acts will continue to go unpunished. That was written by Manon Cornellier, who is with a rather left-wing paper, Le Devoir, and is a director of the Parliamentary Press Gallery here in Ottawa. That was not the Conservatives talking. It was a professional journalist who provided the same figures we did and who, like us, says that these 190 Canadians who participated in attacks in Syria or Iraq with ISIS committed barbaric acts. She is saying that the government must absolutely bring these people to justice when they return to Canada, that it is a matter of fundamental principles and Canadian history.I would like to read the motion we moved today and that the Liberals have agreed to support. That said, they have decided to support our motion on a number of occasions and then failed to produce any meaningful action. The motion reads as follows: That the House support the sentiments expressed by Nadia Murad, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, who in her book entitled The Last Girl: My Story of Captivity, and My Fight Against the Islamic State, stated: “I dream about one day bringing all the militants to justice, not just the leaders like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi but all the guards and slave owners, every man who pulled a trigger and pushed my brothers’ bodies into their mass grave, every fighter who tried to brainwash young boys into hating their mothers for being Yazidi, every Iraqi who welcomed the terrorists into their cities and helped them, thinking to themselves, Finally we can be rid of those nonbelievers. They should all be put on trial before the entire world, like the Nazi leaders after World War II, and not given the chance to hide.”; and call on the government to: (a) refrain from repeating the past mistakes of paying terrorists with taxpayers’ dollars or trying to reintegrate returning terrorists back into Canadian society; and (b) table within 45 days after the adoption of this motion a plan to immediately bring to justice anyone who has fought as an ISIS terrorist or participated in any terrorist activity, including those who are in Canada or have Canadian citizenship. That is the motion that we moved this morning and that we will soon be voting on.(1810)Starting next week, if possible, we want the Liberal government to focus on bringing perpetrators of genocide and terrorist acts to justice and ensuring that courts have access to evidence gathered against suspected terrorists. We want the Liberal government to keep Canadians safe from those who are suspected of committing acts of terrorism and to take special measures, like our previous Conservative government did in the wake of the terrorist attacks that took place here on Parliament Hill and nearby in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. We responded by bringing forward Bill C-51. We want the Liberals to encourage greater use of the tools to place conditions on those suspected of committing terrorist acts or genocide, as we did with Bill C-51. We want the Liberals to institute processes for bringing perpetrators of atrocities to justice, since the current process is too slow, fails victims and prevents them from going home. Lastly, we want the Liberals to support initiatives like those proposed by Premier Doug Ford, to ensure that terrorists returning to Canada are restricted from taking advantage of Canada's generous social programs as part of their reintegration. In my riding, every weekend, whether I am at a spaghetti dinner or going door to door, my constituents ask me how it is possible that the Liberal government's primary goal continues to be helping people who are not yet citizens or helping Canadians who have fought against our own soldiers.In Canada, above all we should help Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet or to find employment, as well as those having a hard time joining the workforce because of disability or other reasons.We hope that beyond their support for our motion, the Liberals will come up with a real plan to address the problem of returning Islamic combatants, those Canadians who sadly decided to fight our values and our country.Canadians in foreign countriesCriminal liabilityCriminal prosecutionsEvidence gatheringExtremismIslamic State of Iraq and the LevantLegal proceduresNational securityOpposition motionsProgramsPublic consultationRecognizance with conditionsSocial integrationTerrorism and terroristsAngeloIaconoAlfred-PellanAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1130)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I understand what my colleague is saying when he talks about a sham and the protection of prisoners as a basic right. All that is entirely legitimate. However, we Conservatives have concerns, which we share with unionized prison guards. Historically, I think that the NDP has always promoted unionism and, more often than not, supported labour demands in our country.I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the concerns and objections expressed publicly by prison guards, who say that the segregation of certain inmates helps them maintain discipline inside prisons, which is important. It is an exceptional measure, but a measure that is needed in order to remind inmates that there are serious consequences to some of their actions inside the prison walls when they are arrested and incarcerated. What does my colleague think about the concerns expressed by the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingMatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1150)[English]Madam Speaker, in the last two years, we have seen time and again that the Liberal government has a propensity to always walk along the line of a court judgment. The role of the House of Commons is to reiterate, sometimes through the preamble of a new bill, to the courts and the judge the intent of a bill of a rule that was put forward, accepted and voted on in the House. Jean Chrétien did that many times. He did it for advertising in the tobacco sector. Companies wanted the Supreme Court decision and Jean Chrétien tabled a bill with a preamble saying that the judges were wrong.In this instance, why are the Liberals again and again following the judgment when they could have just reiterated the intent of our purpose in the House of Commons, to protect the citizens of Canada and to ensure that guards had the necessary tools to apply discipline?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernanceGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1205)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.As always, I will begin by saying hello to my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou, many of whom are watching today, as I am told every time I go door to door.I also want to tell them that the issue we are discussing today is a very delicate subject. We are talking about the prison environment and about people's lives, namely, the lives of victims of crime and the lives of criminals in prison. This subject can be unsettling, and people often have very strong views on one side or the other. Some people want a really tough-on-crime approach, while others want a softer approach, for reasons that are equally legitimate on both sides.I would like to ease into the debate and explain the Conservative caucus's take on Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, our public safety critic, was the commanding officer of the Régiment de la Chaudière. I have a lot of faith in him. Today he moved a motion calling on the House to simply end the debate on Bill C-83. My colleague believes that the bill is so botched that we need to shut down debate. In other words, we want to stop this bill and keep it from moving forward or being voted on in this place.What I find interesting is that the NDP members have said that the bill does not go far enough in terms of protecting people who are incarcerated, while we are saying that it goes too far because it compromises the safety of prison guards and Canadians in general. Given that the motion moved by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles will not be voted on right away, I will address some of the main aspects of this bill.I want to address my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou. The bill would eliminate the use of administrative segregation in correctional facilities. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on administrative segregation. These opinions are often based on Hollywood movies. Administrative segregation is used when an inmate is imprisoned for life, or for 10 or 2 years. Inmates serving a life sentence already know that they are not getting out of prison and that they will probably die there, even though there is a provision allowing them to request a discharge after 25 years and leave prison, even in very serious cases of premeditated murder.Nevertheless, life in prison is a very long period of time for someone who is incarcerated. How can the correctional facility and the guards compel or force this prisoner to comply with disciplinary guidelines? The prison guards are ordinary men and women, with normal lives, who go home at night, who have children, and all that. How are they meant to impose order every day in prison when there are inmates who will be there for the rest of their lives? These lifers could go so far as to kill another inmate since they will be in prison either way.What I am saying is that correctional facilities need access to measures that are psychologically difficult for prisoners, like segregation, otherwise known as the hole. I do not think that is a good word, since they are no longer holes. They are real and proper cells, just used as a means of segregation. (1210)The inmates eat well enough, and they have access to sanitation facilities. Prisons are not like Alcatraz in the 19th century. We are talking about orderly, coordinated disciplinary segregation that gives correctional officers some measure of control over hardened criminals who do not follow the rules unless they are afraid of ending up in segregation.This bill would eliminate that. Considering the argument I just laid out, we think that is totally ridiculous. The bill would also replace those facilities with structured intervention units, but it does not tell us exactly what those units are or how they will work.The bill also talks about using a body scanner, and that is one part of the bill we support, as do corrections professionals and unions. Visitors often find ways that I will not describe in detail to bring drugs and other objects, such as cell phones, to prisoners. That is not allowed. Using a body scanner could make life easier for corrections officers, visitors and prisoners because there would be no need to conduct uncomfortable searches.The bill specifies that exceptions for indigenous offenders, women offenders and offenders diagnosed with mental health issues need to be formalized. It is about time.Speaking for myself, there is something I find intriguing. The bill comes in response to recent superior court decisions that found that indefinite segregation was unacceptable under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.I want to respond to something my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood said in answer to a question I asked 15 or 20 minutes ago. He told me that we make law, but the courts and judges interpret the law.Nowhere in the Canadian Constitution does it say that lawmakers do not have the right to interpret the law. It is ironic to hear a lawmaker say something so absurd, because we interpret laws every day in the House of Commons. We interpret them in debate and in committee. We review laws, we rewrite laws, we pass laws and we repeal laws. The role of interpreting law belongs as much to the legislative branch as to the executive branch. The executive branch is even required to apply the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to evaluate every bill through the lens of the charter.Distinguished Professor Christopher Manfredi of McGill University, who is recognized by his peers around the world, said that the interpretation of each of the three branches is important because they each have their own interpretation of Canadian law and that we achieve better results for Canadians when there is vigorous competition between the powers.In conclusion, I will say that we could have a philosophical debate about the existence of prisons. No one thinks that prisons are wonderful. At a human level, I believe prisons are probably the most horrible thing there is. However, the historical evolution of humanity shows that this is the only known way to ensure that the most dangerous members of our society will not have any further criminal impact on others. The objective is public safety. The Canadian government's main objective is Canadians' safety. That is why I told the member from Scarborough—Guildwood that he should have instead introduced another bill that emphasizes the government's role in protecting Canadians and that tells the court that it is absolutely wrong about administrative segregation in prison. It is unfortunate, but we must have prisons.As I reiterated in my arguments, administrative segregation is the only real tool that ensures that prisoners serving a life sentence, for example, have a psychological constraint preventing them from harming other inmates in jail. How can we control a lifer without administrative segregation? It is good for the effectiveness of prisons and for the safety of guards. We hope that the government will reverse course on this bill. I do not understand why the NDP does not want to support the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, which believes that ending the practice of administrative segregation will jeopardize the safety of correctional officers.I thank the citizens of Beauport—Limoilou for listening.(1215)C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthMillimetre wave scannersSafetySecond readingSolitary confinementRameshSanghaBrampton CentreFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1220)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, inmates who are disciplined by being sent to these units that the bill seeks to create—and that we hope will never see the light of day—will have access to a television and anything else they usually have in their cells. What we are saying is that administrative segregation, as it now exists, is a psychological deterrent for inmates serving life sentences, for example, who would otherwise not hesitate to harm other inmates or guards. They do not care because they are already in prison for life. The only way to dissuade them from engaging in that type of behaviour is to threaten to send them to solitary confinement with no television or anything else. That psychological element is needed to maintain discipline in prisons.It is unfortunate, and perhaps prisons should not exist, but that is the only way to protect Canadians, and the only way to maintain discipline is administrative segregation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinementFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellSylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1220)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. The Liberals like to base bills on individual cases. That is understandable in some ways because the fundamental objective of a liberal democracy is to protect the minority from the majority. However, the Canadian majority is beginning to get fed up with never having a voice in this government and never having its wishes and desires represented.That is very dangerous for social harmony, because the majority also needs to have a say. One of the complaints that we as MPs hear most often in our ridings is that the government is always kowtowing to the Canadian judiciary.To show my good faith, I will say that I will always be proud of Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin—perhaps a little less so of Mr. Martin. Mr. Chrétien carried on the tradition of other prime ministers. When he and his caucus did not agree with a Supreme Court ruling, they reintroduced the same bill in the House of Commons with a preamble.That is called an “in your face” reply. I suggest that my colleagues go see all the eminent law professors at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. They know all about that kind of thing, and they detest it. An “in your face” reply is when legislators tell the Supreme Court justices that they are wrong, that they do not understand the government's objective, and that they misinterpreted Canadian law.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixJoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-Cartier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodLabourInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[Translation]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 Beauport—Limoilou, 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?Economic slowdownLabour shortageOral questionsAndyFillmoreHalifaxPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada Labour CodeInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1615)[English]Madam Speaker, this a very important debate today, as we are speaking about increasing safeguards at the workplace for males and females, concerning discrimination, harassment, be it sexual or other types of harassment.It struck me today that, on an ongoing basis, my colleagues have been asking members on the other side of this House about the actions that were alleged this summer, through the media, that the Prime Minister inappropriately touched a journalist 20 years ago. The PM has not addressed this situation in an appropriate way.What does the member have to say about this?C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Consideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsHarassmentInquiries and public inquiriesPrime MinisterReferences to membersStandards in public lifeTrudeau, JustinWorkplace health and safetyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada Labour CodeInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1625)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague who just spoke has been here for a long time, so she has really seen first-hand how things have changed in the House of Commons.I would like to know if she thinks this bill is part of a long-term evolution that might lead to other legislation that would continue to strengthen the workplace and make it safe.Does she think this bill will, as we hope, eliminate the slightest possibility of harassment on Parliament Hill? Is she convinced that this bill contains all the necessary measures and provisions to finally keep everyone safe from harassment and discrimination in our workplace here on Parliament Hill?C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Consideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsHarassmentParliamentary staffWorkplace health and safetyHedyFryHon.Vancouver CentreHedyFryHon.Vancouver Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada Labour CodeInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1630)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her reasoned and reasonable answer, because constantly reviewing legislation describes our constitutional and political role in the House of Commons to a tee. That is why it is important for Canadians to understand that nothing is ever perfect and that they must not get too cynical and disillusioned about politics. The fact is that everyone here is always working to improve Canadian society.C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Consideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsWorkplace health and safetyHedyFryHon.Vancouver CentreHedyFryHon.Vancouver Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada Labour CodeInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1630)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my very hon. colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, in northern B.C.As usual, I want to say hello to the people of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching us live on CPAC. I know that many of them do watch us, because they tell me so when I go door to door. They tell me that they watched me the week before. I want to say hello to all of them.Today's debate is a very important one, since we are talking about harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Some may be surprised to hear me say this, and I am no expert, but it seems to me that the Canada Labour Code does not apply to employees who work in MPs' offices on Parliament Hill. This means that the code would not apply to me or my employees. This is rather surprising, in 2018.I want to quickly touch on last week, which I spent in my riding. You will see why. I hosted two economic round tables. The first round table was for the Beauport business network, which I created a year and a half ago. There are some 50 business owners in this network, who get together once a month to talk about business-related issues and priorities in the riding. On Friday morning, I also held a round table called “Conservatives are listening to Quebecers”. This round table was attended by social, community and business stakeholders, among others. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour a question. After all, we are talking about workplaces here, with Bill C-65. I asked her if she was aware that we are in a crisis at the moment, especially in Quebec City, but all over Canada, because of the labour shortage. She made a mockery of it, saying that it was proof that the government has created so many jobs in Canada that businesses can no longer find workers. While that may be true from an objective, Socratic and rational standpoint, she is ignoring a real crisis situation that we are in.I want to say one last thing before I get to the bill. At the two round tables I hosted, every time I visit businesses in my riding, in all my discussions with constituents and in all the correspondence I receive every day, to which I reply in writing every time, people mention the labour shortage. Some businesses have had to shut down in Beauport—Limoilou and others are scaling back operations, so I think it is very sad and upsetting that the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour would make a mockery of my question. The people of Quebec City were not happy to see that on Twitter and Facebook.Today we are talking about an important bill, the act to amend the Canada Labour Code regarding harassment and violence, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1. It is clear that Conservatives, New Democrats, Liberals and all Canadians in general support the Liberal government's recently introduced bill. That is certainly not something I say every day, but when it is true, it must be acknowledged. With this important bill, even employees on Parliament Hill will benefit from guidelines and protection to keep them safe from sexual harassment, psychological harassment and every kind of discriminatory behaviour in the workplace.I can say that this affects us all. It could also affect our family, a cousin, a brother or sister and, in my case, it affects my children. My daughter Victoria is four years old and my son Winston is a year and a half. My daughter started kindergarten a few months ago. It is the first time she has attended school. We definitely do not want her to experience discrimination or harassment. It will inevitably happen because good and evil are part of life, and harassment and discrimination will always exist. That is why it is important to have laws that govern, try to control, eliminate or at least reduce this as much as possible in our society.I would like to tell you that I have directly experienced discrimination and psychological harassment, but not sexual harassment, thank God. When I was in grade six, I moved from New Brunswick to Quebec. I can see my colleague laughing because he knows that I grew up in New Brunswick. I am from Quebec, but I grew up in New Brunswick. I moved to Quebec when I was in grade six. Children can be very brutal because they lack empathy and an understanding of the context in which they find themselves.(1635)Kids are often oblivious to the harm they inflict on others. I got beaten up at recess every day for a year, so this is a subject I am not unfamiliar with. In my case, the situation made me stronger. Unfortunately, in other cases, it has ruined lives. What we want to avoid is situations where harassment and discrimination destroy lives. It is terrible to see a life completely destroyed after such an incident.I want to reiterate that, setting politics aside and speaking from a human perspective, all members and all Canadians should support this bill. However, that does not mean there is no need to propose certain amendments, which I will discuss shortly.The bill is meant to strengthen the workplace safety framework on Parliament Hill. When I think of all the young Canadians who work on the Hill, it makes me even more motivated to support this bill. The people working on the Hill are often young Canadians in their twenties who are full of hope, ambition and energy. They love politics, and they love Canada. They are proud to work for a minister, the Prime Minister, a shadow cabinet member or an MP. These young people arrive in Parliament full of energy and enthusiasm.There is no denying that, throughout our country's history, members and ministers have behaved inappropriately or committed inappropriate acts, including sexual harassment, psychological harassment and discrimination.Many of the young victims were surely brilliant, highly motivated and ambitious individuals. Perhaps they were even future Liberal, Conservative or NDP prime ministers, although unfortunately for them, that will never happen now. These were young people who were here for the right reasons, who were not cynical. A lot of young people in Canada are saying they have no use for politics, and that is unfortunate. Those young people should read books on Canadian history to understand what we are doing here today. Some young people have had the courage to get over their cynicism and come to this place, only to become victims of sexual or psychological harassment or discrimination. Careers have been destroyed in some cases, along with their hope and love for Canada. I find that appalling and very upsetting. This bill sets out to fill a legal void. I would like to remind everyone that Parliament Hill was the only place where Canada Labour Code provisions on harassment and discrimination did not apply. There was a legal void, and it is important to acknowledge that that void played a part in destroying young Canadians who came here full of energy to help build a strong and thriving country on both national and international stages. Everyone wants a workplace that contributes to their quality of life, one where safety is important. Employees perform better in such workplaces. Most of the Conservatives' amendments were accepted. We successfully introduced an amendment to prevent political interference during harassment investigations. The Conservatives played an active role in bringing the bill to this stage. We successfully introduced an amendment to ensure strict timelines for investigations into incidents of harassment. We proposed mandatory sexual harassment training, training that all MPs received. We proposed a mandatory review of the bill after five years because it needs to be reviewed at regular intervals, as my colleague said.In closing, since this is Small Business Week, I want to say three cheers for business people. I thank the people of Beauport—Limoilou for the work they do every day. I think they are wonderful, and I look forward to seeing them when I go door to door.C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Consideration of Senate amendmentsEconomic slowdownGovernment billsHarassmentLabour shortageMembers of ParliamentMembers of Parliament staffParliamentary staffPublic consultationSplitting speaking timeWorkplace health and safetyCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada Labour CodeInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1640)[English]Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that this is an important piece of legislation. It is the reason that we as a caucus made sure that we could adjust or increase the benefits of the bill by working thoughtfully throughout the process during committee hearings. I believe there will be other committee hearings also, and maybe other witnesses who will continue to adjust the bill to make sure that it corresponds with the needs of the Canadian people and our employees in our Hill offices. It is an important piece of legislation that we should all be proud to support. C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Consideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsWorkplace health and safetyKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKarineTrudelJonquière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada Labour CodeInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1645)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the member for Jonquière has raised a key issue that I should have raised myself since definitions are very important in legislation, particularly in this case.We agree that the goal is to enhance the security of employees on Parliament Hill, but we also do not want to create an environment where any employee can destroy the life of a parliamentarian because some things, such as sexual harassment, were poorly defined.I hope that what my colleague from Jonquière said will be examined in committee. We need to seriously consider properly defining the problem that we want to address. C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Consideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsHarassmentTerminologyWorkplace health and safetyKarineTrudelJonquièreKarineTrudelJonquière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada Labour CodeInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1645)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I have no opinion on that right now, but I invite my colleague to continue her work and express her concerns. Perhaps she could have a meeting with our critic on the matter.C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Consideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsMental healthWorkplace health and safetyKarineTrudelJonquièreToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEmploymentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, where I come from, small businesses drive job creation, and I thank them for their work.Every month I organize and chair meetings of Beauport's business network. Last week, we held an economic round table, and it will come as no surprise to anyone that the main issues we discussed had to do with the labour shortage.The labour shortage could have a serious impact on our GDP. Every MP has seen businesses in their riding scale back their activities. Some are even closing their doors. This is a very worrisome situation.I would like to know if the Liberal government wants to make this issue its top priority. When will the government take action, and how will it address this situation?Economic slowdownLabour shortageOral questionsMaryNgHon.Markham—ThornhillPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1155)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, in 2015, our Conservative government gave its support to the Beauport 2020 project, which seeks to further develop the Port of Québec. Sixty million dollars were earmarked for the project. This support was contingent on the project clearing public consultations and a Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency assessment.Once these legal hurdles have been cleared, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, along with cabinet, will have to decide whether to give the project the green light.Is the government expecting to reach a decision soon? Can it give us specific time frames? Canadian Environmental Assessment AgencyEnvironmental assessmentOral questionsPort of QuébecSeanFraserCentral NovaSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersDivorce ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, as my colleague for Barrie—Innisfil has stated, we generally support the bill and will see what happens at committee during the hearings and the reading of the different articles.However, I noticed while reading the bill that there is an amendment to the Divorce Act that proposes an obligation on the two spouses who go through a divorce to consult a lawyer. I know some friends who have been divorced and it was perfectly positive. There was no huge discussion, no fears of fighting whatsoever about any of the things that could go badly during a divorce. Is it really necessary to have this amendment that would force the parties to consult a lawyer and spend money when it is not required?C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another ActFamilies and childrenGovernment billsLegal proceedingsMarriage and divorceSecond readingJohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersDivorce ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, while reading the proposed bill, I noticed there is a clause that proposes to make an obligation for spouses going through divorce to consult a lawyer. Even some of my friends whom I know closely have gone through divorce in an amicable way, and sometimes it is possible to do so. Is it really necessary to put forward an obligation to consult a lawyer? I believe this is one of the amendments proposed to the Divorce Act. I wonder what the hon. member thinks about that.C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another ActFamilies and childrenGovernment billsLegal proceedingsMarriage and divorceSecond readingJennyKwanVancouver EastJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersDivorce ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1320)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I could not be more thrilled to rise today on behalf of the 93,000 citizens of Beauport—Limoilou, to whom I send warm, sincere greetings. This is my first time speaking since we came back from the summer break.Today, I will be speaking to my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou about Bill C-78, an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another act. Marriage has always been extremely important to me. From a tender age, I yearned to be married someday. I have always believed that the bond between a married couple is something infinitely precious. Marriage is also a cherished tradition, and as a Conservative, I like keeping up traditions. I say this without prejudice, but unfortunately, I grew up in the social context of Quebec, which no longer values the institution of marriage as it should. I am referring to official marriage, either civil or religious. Marriage, as an institution, is no longer held in respect. Most of my constituents are in civil unions, which is perfectly fine. Nevertheless, marriage is still dear to my heart. As a Conservative, I wanted to perpetuate the tradition of marriage. I have been with my wife, Pascale Laneuville, for 14 years. After living together for seven years, I wanted her to experience a proper marriage proposal. I was happy to do it, and I am delighted to still be married today. I hope my marriage will last until I die, hopefully in the House. I want to be an MP for 40 years. That is my most fervent wish.That said, I would like to talk a bit about the summer I had in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou. Over the three-month summer break, I met with many of my constituents, who are watching us right now on CPAC. I said “summer break” because Parliament was on a break, but we were not on a break from work. Journalists often like to confuse Canadians about this. I was in my office the whole time, except for my two-week vacation to the Le Genévrier campground in Baie-Saint-Paul. That is a little promo. It is a beautiful campground in the Charlevoix region, in my colleague's riding.I celebrated July 1 at Maison Girardin, in Beauport. One thousand people joined me to celebrate Confederation. I hosted my third annual summer party at Domaine Maizerets park. More than 3,500 residents came to my meeting to tell me about their concerns, and I let them know what I can do for them as their MP. There was complimentary corn and hot dogs, generously donated by Provigo on 1st Avenue in Limoilou. I want to thank the owner, Mr. Bourboin, was is very generous to the people of Beauport—Limoilou.I continued to go door to door in my riding two evenings a week, as I do every month. I noticed that my constituents want to learn more about our leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. People are quite impressed by the Conservative Party's openness to Quebec as a distinct society. I was pleased to discover this when chatting with my constituents.I also organized two meetings with Beauport's network of business people. These business luncheons are attended by more than 60 Beauport entrepreneurs every two or three weeks. The next one is scheduled on Wednesday, October 10, at 7 a.m., at the Ambassador Hotel. There will be an economic round table with Mr. Barrucco, executive director of the Association des économistes québécois, who will answer all questions from small and medium-sized business owners from Beauport—Limoilou.I attended almost every event held in my riding this summer. I also held my second “Alupa à l'écoute” public consultation. The third will happen in November. I will then be introducing a bill to address an ever-present concern of my constituents. Naturally, there is also the day-to-day work at my office, with citizens' files and all the rest. Finally, two weeks ago, together with the mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume, and André Drolet, who was then the Liberal candidate for Jean-Lesage, I participated, with great fanfare, in the sod turning for the Medicago production facility. This is going to create more than 400 well-paid, quality jobs in vaccine research. It will also contribute to the revitalization of the Estimauville sector, which is very much needed because since the 1970s and 1980s, it is a sector of Quebec City that has been neglected.(1325)Now back to the subject at hand, Bill C-78. Let me start by saying that the Conservatives plan to support this bill at second reading on some conditions. We are eager to hear from the witnesses at committee and to see how the Liberals react to our concerns and our vision for this bill because, as I will explain in a moment, some of the things in this bill make very little sense to us. I would like to explain the gist of this bill to the people of Beauport—Limoilou. The main goal is to act in children's best interest. My constituents should know that the Divorce Act has not been amended in 20 years, or two decades. In that time, we have seen generation X, generation Y, and the millennials. They have had a major impact on Quebec elections. As the years go by, things change, social mores change, and culture evolves. Two decades, 20 years, is a long time.I might go so far as to compliment the Liberal government on its decision to review this legislation and amend it to better reflect everything children go through when their parents divorce and take into account the situations they find themselves in. The Liberals are absolutely right about the importance of putting children first during the divorce process, just as patients should be at the centre of conversations about health care. The Conservatives agree 100% that this should be the focus of the bill. Yes, children should be central to discussions during the divorce process to keep their suffering to a minimum regardless of what goes on between their parents.As a brief aside, I would like to tell a joke that I always tell my friends and even my family. My parents are divorced, and so are my wife's parents. Quite frankly, it was pretty common for their generation. As I often say jokingly, divorce is not an option for me and my wife, even if we wanted one, because my daughter and son already have four grandfathers and four grandmothers. The situation is already so ridiculous that I would not want to add another four grandfathers and four grandmothers. As members can see, divorce is not an option for me. However, for individuals who need to divorce for unavoidable reasons, it is important that the legislation reflect the mores, customs and conventions of the present day.In addition, the bill brought another thought to mind, and I think members will see its relevance. The United States-Mexico-Canada agreement was reached this week, so I drew a parallel. Since we are talking about marriage, agreements and concerns, we could look at the USMCA as an economic marriage, of sorts, between two countries. In this economic marriage, which has been arranged for sound and objective reasons based on a win-win logic, the aim is to protect the children, which, in this case, are the Canadian economy and our sovereignty.The USMCA is an important agreement between two countries that have decided to open their borders and create a relationship and ties in order to move forward together toward shared growth and an economy that works for both sides. However, we see two big problems with this marriage. First of all, it simply does not cut it economically speaking, because the Prime Minister and member for Papineau failed to ensure its fairness.(1330)For example, the softwood lumber dispute has not been resolved. This is the third or fourth softwood lumber crisis. I visited Rimouski in the Gaspé region. Actually, I know the people who live there would not be happy to hear me say that Rimouski is in the Gaspé, so I will say that I visited Rimouski, which is in the Lower St. Lawrence region, where there are a number of lumber mills. Obviously, they are tired of dealing with one softwood lumber crisis after another. This would have been the perfect opportunity for the government to strengthen Canada's relationship with the United States and resolve the softwood lumber dispute.Let us think too of all of the other regions of Quebec that will be negatively impacted by the imminent breach in supply management on dairy products. Once again, Canada is giving without getting anything in return. I realized that this marriage is not at all fair. When we officially entered into a relationship with the United States in 1989—C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another ActCanada-United States-Mexico AgreementCare for childrenFamilies and childrenFarming and farmersGovernment billsMarriage and divorceSecond readingSupply managementTrade agreementsJennyKwanVancouver EastAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersDivorce ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1330)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I can understand my colleague's concern. I did have a point I was getting at. I want to talk about clauses 54 and 101 of Bill C-78 and how they contradict Bill C-75.However, I was talking about something that is very important to me. I will use a different analogy. Let us leave NAFTA behind for a different analogy.We have a Prime Minister who introduced Bill C-78, telling Canadians that after 20 years, he is proposing important amendments, some fundamental and others more technical, that will strengthen the legislation and the institution of marriage in Canada. Notwithstanding the fact that we Conservative members plan to support this bill, following the committee studies, we feel it is hard to trust the Prime Minister when he says he wants to strengthen marriage, considering his behaviour as the head of government.For example, when Mr. Trudeau was elected in 2015, we might say that it was a marriage between him and the people of Canada. However, after everything that the Prime Minister has done in the past three years, a marriage would not have lasted a year since he broke three major promises. I would even say that these are promises that break up the very core of his marriage with Canada. I will get to the clauses in this bill that have me concerned, but I want to draw a parallel. How can we trust the Prime Minister when it comes to this divorce bill, when he himself does not keep his promises to Canadians?He made three fundamental promises. The first was to run deficits of only $10 billion for the first three years and then cut back on that. He broke that promise. The deficits have been $30 billion every year.The second fundamental broken promise of his marriage with the people of Canada was to achieve a balanced budget by 2020-21. Now we are talking about 2045, my goodness. Is there anything more important than finances in a marriage? Yes, there is love. I get it.However, budgets are essential in a home. Finances are essential for a couple to remain together. I can attest to that. Love has its limits in a home. Bills have to get paid and children have to eat. Budgets need to be balanced, something that Canadian families do all the time. Our Prime Minister is unable to keep that promise.The other promise has to do with our voting system, how we are going to run our home, our political system. Just before they got married, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would reform the voting system. That was a key promise and he broke it. In fact it was one of the first promises he broke and it is a serious broken promise in his marriage with Canadians in my opinion. It is a broken promise to every young person who trusted him.Personally, I completely disagree with reforming the voting system because I believe that the first past the post system is the best guarantee for a parliamentary democracy. That said, it was a key promise that he made to youth and the leftists of Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, who view proportional representation as being better for them, their future and their concerns. However, he broke his promise. The marriage has been on the verge of breaking up for a long time now. I predict that it will only last one more year.I have one last point to make in my analogy and then I will discuss the bill. I want to talk about his infrastructure promise. The Prime Minister said that he would invest $183 billion in infrastructure over the next 14 years. It was the largest program in the history of Canada because, according to the Liberals, their programs are always the largest in the history of Canada. I would remind members that ours was incredible as well, with $80 billion invested between 2008 and 2015. I will ask my colleagues a question they are sure to know the answer to. How many billions of the $183 billion have been spent after four years? The answer is $7 billion, if I am not mistaken. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer mentioned it in one of his reports.Therefore, how can we have confidence in the Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, who is introducing a bill to strengthen the institution of marriage and the protection of children in extremely contentious divorces when he himself, in his solemn marriage with the Canadian people, has broken the major promises of his 2015 election platform?(1335)The bond of trust has been broken and divorce between the Liberals and the people of Canada is imminent. It is set to happen on October 19, 2019.Bill C-78 seeks to address some rather astonishing statistics. According to the 2016 census, more than two million children were living in a separated or divorced family. Five million Canadians separated or divorced between 1991 and 2011. Of that number, 38% had a child at the time of their separation or divorce. I imagine that is why the focus of Bill C-78 is protection of the child.However, we have some concerns. Clause 101 introduces the idea that Her Majesty ranks in priority over the party that instituted the garnishment proceedings if the debtor is indebted or has any moneys to pay. That has us concerned. We will certainly call witnesses to our parliamentary committee to find out what they think and to see if we can amend this.We also believe that clause 54 is flawed. It extends Her Majesty's binding period from five to 12 years. That is another aspect of the bill that could be problematic in our view.I do not like to end on a negative note, but I absolutely have to mention a major contradiction pertaining to Bill C-78. Today, the Liberals enthusiastically shared with us, through this bill, their desire to make the protection of children, rather than parents, a priority in cases of divorce. However, when we look closely at Bill C-75, which, with its 300 pages, is a mammoth bill if ever there was one, we see that it seeks to rescind all of the great measures to strengthen crime legislation that our dear prime minister, Mr. Harper, implemented during his 10 years in office, a fantastic decade in Canada.We are distressed to see that this bill lessens sentences for crimes committed against children. The Liberals are not content with just saying that they are good and the Conservatives are bad. They, who profess to believe in universal love, want to lessen the sentences for criminals who committed terrible, deplorable crimes against children. Then they tell us that the purpose of their bill is to help children.We see these contradictions and we are concerned. I do not think that my constituents would let their spouses break promises as important as the ones the Prime Minister has broken since 2015. They would not want to stay in a relationship like that.Canadians need to realize that their divorce from the Liberal government is imminent.C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another ActCriminal justice systemElectoral reformFamilies and childrenGarnishment of wagesGovernment billsInfrastructureMarriage and divorcePolitical programsSecond readingAnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingArifViraniParkdale—High Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersDivorce ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1340)[English]Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the member opposite. He is perfectly right that this is one of the excellent amendments to be brought about by Bill C-78. It would enhance the power of the Canada Revenue Agency to verify the financial information of either spouse in order to ensure equity, not for the spouses but for the children. We all agree with that. Of course, it would be a good thing for my constituents of Beauport—Limoilou. There is no doubt about that.However, I have two concerns, one regarding this and the other regarding the bill. The bill does not anticipate or propose enhancing the budget of the CRA to do what he is talking about, which would allow it to have more power in verifying the information. The CRA does not operate with free-paying jobs or written words on a blank piece of paper. It has paid employees with pensions, so one would need to inject more money into it to increase its power. I hope that actions will follow the words of the government in the budget.Unfortunately, the member will not be able to answer my question, unless no one else stands. I do not understand why the government wants to obligate both spouses to meet and consult with a lawyer. In many instances, people go through a divorce in an amicable way. I know friends who went through a divorce for the well-being and good of their children, and it was done in an amicable and appropriate way. Why does the government want to impose the obligation to consult with a lawyer, which would necessitate spending? I would like the Liberals to address this concern.C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another ActChild povertyFamilies and childrenFamily lawGovernment billsMarriage and divorceSecond readingSupport of childrenArifViraniParkdale—High ParkAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersDivorce ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1345)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, of course. I would like to salute my colleague, as I have not yet had a chance to say hello to her since we returned from the summer break. I think my colleague is doing a great job.I can certainly imagine that, much like the Conservatives, New Democrats recognize the fact that the Liberals are putting child protection at the centre of their bill, along with the needs of the child and the repercussions children can suffer during a nasty divorce. The Liberals want to put the protection and well-being of children at the centre of their bill. That is great, and all members of the House of Commons agree on that.We also look forward to seeing how this all unfolds at committee. As they say, the devil is in the details. I never thought I would say that here. This is a lengthy bill, which we will study in committee. I look forward to hearing what our expert witnesses have to say. This is a very important bill that amends the Civil Marriage Act, which has not been amended for 20 years.We have some concerns regarding clauses 54 and 101. As I said, I am a little apprehensive. As I emphasized a few times during my speech, with all due respect, the Prime Minister has not honoured his commitment, his marriage to the people of Canada. He has broken most of the promises he made to Canadians when he married them, so to speak, in 2015, at the time of his election. There is a parallel here; it is a parable.I agree with my colleague that the child must absolutely be front and centre. That is not what we see in Liberal Bill C-75, which seeks to reduce sentences for offences committed against children. We think that is unfortunate.C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another ActCare for childrenCriminal justice systemFamilies and childrenGarnishment of wagesGovernment billsMarriage and divorceSecond readingAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—SuroîtArifViraniParkdale—High Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersDivorce ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1350)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's straightforward answer to my question.My understanding was that a divorce had to involve a meeting with lawyers. Apparently that is not the case. However, what he said touched on other things I was wondering about.He said that the Liberals wanted to simplify the process and keep matters out of the courts. He also said they wanted a way to review each parent's financial information.Of course, in many cases, it is the father who handles the finances and the mother who looks after the children. My understanding is that the bill will enable the Canada Revenue Agency to systematically update or review both the father's and the mother's files if necessary.This bill does not provide additional funding for the Canada Revenue Agency. If there is going to be more work, more paperwork, more investigations and more data, the Canada Revenue Agency should have a bigger budget.If the Liberals are serious about this bill and if they want issues related to divorce to be resolved outside of the courts, then they are going to have to allocate more money to the Canada Revenue Agency in their 2019 budget. However, I have my doubts. This summer I heard an incredible number of horror stories from my constituents about the CRA. It is incredible to see everything that goes on at that institution. The minister absolutely must go see what is going on in the CRA buildings.This summer, all my constituents told me their stories and I am happy to share those. They told me that when they call the CRA, no one answers or the lines are always busy. They told me that when they email the CRA, they never get a response. That is unacceptable.When a member of the public tries to contact a member of the public service, at the very least they should get a response.C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another ActCanada Revenue AgencyFamilies and childrenFamily lawGovernment billsGovernment servicesIncome and wagesMarriage and divorceSecond readingArifViraniParkdale—High ParkAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, ever since the unfortunate red dust episode at the port of Quebec in 2012, many residents have been racked with worry about the air quality in Limoilou. We will soon have some scientific evidence thanks to a study led by Quebec City municipal authorities.On behalf of residents, I would like to know whether the Liberal government has had any discussions about this. What does it plan to do to address the concerns of the people of Limoilou?Environmental healthLimoilouNickelOral questionsParticulate matterCatherineMcKennaHon.Ottawa CentreCatherineMcKennaHon.Ottawa Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1130)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for a year. Every day, I worked with veterans who were fed up with dealing with the department's arrogant administration, fed up with waiting months to receive an answer, and fed up with always having their requests denied for foolish reasons.The minister is no ordinary citizen. He is a government minister who is given discretionary power under the act. When will he do something and reverse this ridiculous decision?Discretionary powersGarnier, ChristopherHomicideImprisonment and prisonersMedical techniques and proceduresOral questionsPost-traumatic stress syndromeVeterans benefitsStéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-NationStéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-Nation//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessLatin American Heritage Month ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (2155)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, seriously, it is almost embarrassing to have to follow my colleague from Huron—Bruce, who listed many athletes of Latin American heritage living in Canada and North America who have accomplished amazing things in baseball, football, hockey, and soccer. I loved his fantastic presentation and his fine speech. As usual, I would like to begin by saying hello to all my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou, many of whom are listening this evening, I am sure. I am very proud to participate in this debate on Bill S-218, which was introduced in the other place by our valiant and very honourable colleague, Senator Enverga, who sadly passed away over a year ago. God rest his soul. Our colleague from Thornhill is now sponsoring this bill in the House of Commons. The Liberals are not participating in tonight's debate, which is unfortunate. As a number of my colleagues have pointed out this evening, there are more than half a million people of Hispanic American heritage living in Canada. They have an incredible history, and they play an extraordinary role in our society in many different ways. It is therefore important to talk about the cultural, political, and economic contributions they have made to our country. I would like to point out that Quebec City is no exception in that regard. Quebec City is home to a large Colombian community, and every year, they host a wonderful fiesta in Beauport Bay, in my riding. I am sure it will be happening again this summer.I would like to make a comparison and share it with all the members of the House this evening. I would actually like to talk about some of the similarities that unite North America and South America. There are historical, political, geopolitical, economic, sociological, and even anthropological similarities. It is, after all, the Americas. We share two continents and a very common history. First of all, from an anthropological perspective, this is an important debate, and there are several theories. There is the Clovis First theory, which holds that nomadic peoples came from Asia via the Bering Strait about 10,000 years ago and populated all of America. As a result, the first settlers in North America or South America would have been descendants of those same nomadic peoples from Asia. There are also counter-theories that claim they arrived via the Pacific coast 30,000 years ago. Regardless, the two continents certainly share similarities, anthropologically speaking.We also share similar histories. This is the New World. Christopher Columbus landed near Cuba, if I am not mistaken. At the time, he discovered the Americas on behalf of the Europeans. He discovered the New World. Jacques Cartier, Jean Cabot, and all those explorers revealed the existence of new, albeit already inhabited, lands to all of humanity, meaning Europeans, philosophers, writers, explorers, and monarchs. They discovered vast lands that were then colonized. We know the history. One very tangible historical legacy that both North America and South America share is colonialism. Conquistadors from South America conquered Central America and even parts of California and Florida, all the way to Tierra del Fuego in South America.There were the colonialists in New France, which is where I am from, and in New England. Once again, we share similar histories and experiences with colonialism. Another aspect of our shared history is the earliest form of modern capitalism: mercantilism. In this triangular trade, Europeans sailed to Africa to acquire slaves and brought resources back to England on the same ships. It was all deeply tragic, of course, but it is a historical fact. We must not fear history. Mercantilism is another thing we have in common with South America. From a geopolitical perspective, it is interesting to note that, around the same time, in the 15th, 16th, or 17th century, South America was divided in two by the pope, though I do not remember which one. The pope divided South America into two vast geopolitical regions, one Portuguese and the other Spanish. (2200)In North America, the treaty that ended the Seven Years' War divided the territory between the British and the French, so from a geopolitical perspective, we have that part of our history in common with South America. From a political and sociological point of view, there are people's revolutions, such as the American Revolution of 1776. Canada never really had a revolution, but the Patriotes did kill people and spark revolutionary movements that led to ministerial responsibility in Canada. That was a kind of people's revolution.In South America, Simón Bolívar strove to build a continent-wide federation called Gran Colombia. He even became a dictator. Some commentators portray him as a liberal who became a dictator. Anyway, there were people's revolutions in both North America and South America. That is something else we have in common with the people of Latin America.Furthermore, economically speaking, we share a willingness with these people to trade between countries and reduce borders when it comes to tariffs and even the sharing of cultures and political systems. In North America, we have NAFTA, which was created in 1988 and ratified in 1992. South America has an equivalent, Mercosur, which was created in 1991 and ratified in 1995.These two agreements share a similar economic annexation model, but the Latin American countries go a step further because they try to share best policy practices and standardize their social policies, which is no easy feat considering that some South American countries are not quite what we could call democratic. I would also like to talk about Canada's relationship with South America. Canada was late in discovering South America for one very simple reason. In 1823, Republican American President Monroe implemented the Monroe doctrine, which was very important over the next two centuries. In one of the speeches he gave to Congress, President Monroe told Europeans that all of the Americas were under American imperial control. In other words, Mr. Monroe told the European powers that any European designs on the Americas would be regarded as nothing less than a hostile attack on the United States.From that point on, the United States started treating South America like their back yard. We saw that in the way they behaved toward Chile, in the days of Pinochet, and in Honduras, when Mr. Reagan brought down that country's government. The Americans treated South America like their back yard.Here, as great economic and political allies of the United States, we kept our distance from South America because the Americans would not have been happy to see Canada try to foster agreements or diplomatic relations with South American countries since that was their back yard. All that changed in 1984 with the creation of the Organization of American States, which Canada did not join until 1990. It took all that time for Canada to open up to South American countries because of the Monroe doctrine. It was only in 1990 that Canada, after 30 years of observer status, became a full fledged member state.Today, after more than 28 years as a member of the OAS, Canada does interesting work exporting its democratic values to South American countries and creating bilateral free trade agreements, including with Peru. That was one of Mr. Harper's many fine accomplishments. There are also the summits of the Americas, including the one that was held in Quebec City in 2001. That is what I wanted to present this evening. In North America and in South America, we have our particularities and we share some very real similarities on economic, geopolitical, sociological, anthropological and historical levels. In Canada, we are pleased that a growing number of Hispanics are heading to our border to immigrate to our country in order to participate in our beautiful cultural, political, and economic life.(2205)Canada was closed to South America for a very long time because of the Monroe doctrine and U.S. policy, which jealously treated South America as its backyard.Hurray for Senator Enverga's initiative. Hurray for the initiative of my colleague from Thornhill, who sponsored the bill. Hurray for the Columbian community in Quebec City, which is going to party this summer in Baie de Beauport in my riding. Latin American CanadiansLatin American Heritage MonthPrivate Members' BillsReport stageS-218, An Act respecting Latin American Heritage MonthSenate billsBenLobbHuron—BruceEdFastHon.Abbotsford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodOfficial LanguagesInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1510)[Translation] Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spoke about the review of the CRTC Act. The last time the Official Languages Act was comprehensively reviewed was when the Conservatives were in power in 1988. In light of the new challenges and issues they are dealing with, francophones, Acadians, and anglophones from Quebec are all asking that the act be reviewed. The Federal Court agrees and is asking Parliament to review the act. The Liberals are the only ones not on board.What exactly is the Prime Minister waiting for to modernize the Official Languages Act?Linguistic minoritiesOfficial Languages ActOfficial languages policyOral questionsJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1515)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, I would like to move a motion in the House, but first I would like to give some background. The G7, a major event, is starting soon. This kind of event sometimes attracts mass protests that sadly lead to unrest. Over the past few months, serious concerns about this event have been raised in the media or through public consultations by many residents from the ridings of Québec, represented by the Minister of Families, Louis-Hébert, represented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Louis-Saint-Laurent, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, and Beauport—Limoilou, where protests will—Disorderly conductG-7 SummitGovernment compensationInternational meetingsLeave to propose a motionGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1515)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions, and I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that the House hope for the success of the G7 meeting in La Malbaie and defend the right to protest, but denounce possible acts of violence and vandalism, thank the police forces who will be deployed this week to keep residents and visitors safe, and call on the government to formally pledge to compensate residents and business owners in the unfortunate event of unrest and damage in the Charlevoix region and in the city of Quebec. Disorderly conductG-7 SummitGovernment compensationInternational meetingsLeave to propose a motionGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersBeauport—LimoilouInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1400)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, according to the parliamentary calendar, we will in all likelihood be back in our respective ridings within three or four weeks' time.Personally, I plan to get out and meet with my constituents non-stop for two and a half months, whether in my constituency office or by doing my summer door-knocking, two or three days a week, between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. I will also visit community organizations and attend public events in various neighbourhoods.I am also organizing two key events. The first event will be held from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on July 1 to celebrate Canada Day at the Maison Girardin, a historic residence on Royale Avenue, where there will be popcorn, hotdogs, and military music provided by the Voltigeurs.The second event will be my Beauport—Limoilou summer party. It will be held from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 18 at the Domaine de Maizerets. Complimentary hotdogs and corn on the cob from Île d'Orléans will be served. Over 3,000 people attended last year. I hope to see at least 4,000 people this year. Come one, come all, to the Domaine de Maizerets on August 18.Beauport—LimoilouEventsStatements by MembersMarcSerréNickel BeltPeterFonsecaMississauga East—Cooksville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1455)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, this Friday and Saturday, the people of Beauport—Limoilou will be in the thick of the G7 action, for good reasons or for bad, because we live between downtown Quebec and Charlevoix. An anti-G7 protest in Beauport, near the highway to La Malbaie, is already scheduled. Residents and business owners are increasingly worried. Uncertainty prevails, especially about the compensation procedures; in truth, people are wondering if they will get any compensation at all.In case of damage due to vandalism or demonstrations getting out of hand, will the residents and business owners of Beauport—Limoilou receive compensation? Government compensationGroup of SevenOral questionsProtestsSafetyKarinaGouldHon.BurlingtonMattDeCourceyFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1620)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. First of all, I would like to say hello to all the people of Beauport—Limoilou, many of whom are listening today, and to thank them for all their work. They are definitely listening. When I go door to door, many of them tell me that they watch CPAC. I would like to say something about what the hon. Liberal member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas said in response to the speech of my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. She engaged in the usual Liberal demagoguery. She asked if we believed in climate change. I really would like my constituents to listen closely, because I want to make this clear to them and to all Canadians: we, the Conservatives, believe so strongly in climate change that, in 2007, Mr. Harper held a joint press conference with Mr. Charest to announce the implementation of the new Canada ecotrust program, supported by a total investment of $1.5 billion. The aim of the program was to give each province hundreds of millions of dollars to help with their respective climate change plans. It is easy to look this up on Google by entering “ecoTrust,” “2007,” “Harper,” “Charest.” Not only did Mr. Charest commend the Conservative government’s initiative, but even Steven Guilbeault from Greenpeace at the time—and I am certain that my colleague from Mégantic—L’Érable will find this hard to believe—saluted the initiative as something unheard of. There is a reason why greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 2% under the decade-long Conservative reign. We had a plan, a plan with bold targets that the Liberals made their own. Now let us talk a bit about the 2018-19 budget, which continues in the same vein as the other two budgets presented so far by the hon. member for Papineau's Liberal government. I would like to begin by saying that the government has been in reaction mode for the past three years and almost never in action mode. It is in reaction mode when it comes to the softwood lumber crisis, although we do not hear much about it because the softwood lumber rates are still pretty attractive. However, the fact remains that this is a crisis and that, right now, industrial producers in the U.S. are collecting billions of dollars that they will eventually recover, as they do in every softwood lumber crisis. The Liberal government is in reaction mode when it comes to NAFTA. They will say that they are not the ones who put Mr. Trump in office, but this is yet another major issue that has been taking up their time in the past year, and they are still in reaction mode. They are also in reaction mode when it comes to the imminent tariffs on aluminum and steel. The Liberals are in reaction mode when it comes to almost every major issue in Canada. They are in reaction mode when it comes to natural resources development, for example with regard to Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline. Once again they were in reaction mode, because Kinder Morgan said that it would walk if the government could not assume responsibility and tell British Columbia in no uncertain terms that this was a matter of federal jurisdiction. All of this shows that the Prime Minister is not the great diplomat he pretends to be across the globe, and in celebrity news and other media. He is such a poor diplomat that he was unable to avoid the softwood lumber crisis with Obama. He is such a poor diplomat that he has supposedly had a wonderful relationship with Mr. Trump for the past year and a half. He speaks to him on the telephone I do not know how many times a month, but that did not prevent Mr. Trump from taking deliberate action against Canada, as we saw today with the tariffs on steel and aluminum. I would like to make a comparison. We, the Conservatives, were a government of action. We negotiated 46 free-trade agreements. We sent Canadian troops to Kandahar to demonstrate our willingness to co-operate with NATO and the G7 and to make a show of military force. We invested hugely in national defence, increasing our investments from 0.8% to almost 1.2% of the GDP following the dark days of Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government. We settled the softwood lumber issue in 2007, during the last crisis. We implemented the national shipbuilding strategy, investing more than $30 billion to renew our military fleet, to renew the Canadian Coast Guard’s exploration fleet in the Canadian Arctic, and to renew the fleet of icebreakers. The first of these icebreakers, the majestic Diefenbaker, will soon be under construction. (1625) Let us not forget that we also told Mr. Putin to get out of Ukraine. There is no doubt that we were a government of action. When the budget was tabled, several journalists said that it was more of a political platform than a budget. I find that interesting. In their opinion, the political platform contained no concrete fiscal measures to prepare Canada for tomorrow, for the next 10 years, or for the next century, as our founding fathers intended in 1867. Rather, it contained proposals, in particular concerning social housing. The NDP must be very happy. The Liberals promised billions of dollars if the provinces gave their assent. That was a promise. The Liberals also made proposals concerning pharmacare. Once again, they were conditional on studies demonstrating the usefulness of such a plan. That, too, was a promise. The promises go on page after page in the budget, and it is obvious that it is a political platform. That is why the Liberals used the word “woman” more than 400 times, 30 times on each page. That is just demagoguery and totally abusive. I would like to quote a very interesting CBC journalist, Chris Hall. Since he works at the CBC, the Liberals will surely believe him. He said that the government recently spent $233,000 to organize round table discussions to find out whether Canadians understood the message, and not the content, of their budget. I will quote Mr. Hall:[English]In particular, the report said the findings suggest middle-class Canadians—the very demographic the Liberals have been courting since their election with both policy initiatives and political messaging—don't feel their lives are getting better.[Translation] They are correct in thinking that their lives are not getting better. Even Chris Hall concluded, in light of these studies, that the 2018-19 budget is not a document that provides guidelines, includes concrete measures, or outlines actual achievements in progress. It is a political document that proposes ideologies. The budget also contains a number of disappointments and shortcomings, precisely because it does not contain any actions. It does not respond to the fiscal reforms enacted by U.S. President Trump that give American companies an undue competitive advantage. The 2018-19 federal budget does not address the tariffs on aluminum and steel either, although we all saw them coming. It does not specify what measures will be taken to implement carbon pricing. Most of all, it does not say how much it will cost every single Canadian. You would think it would at least do that. Some analysts say that it will cost approximately $2,500 per Canadian per year. This budget is full of proposals but has no concrete measures, and it perpetuates broken promises. Instead of $10-billion deficits for two consecutive years, we have $19-billion deficits accumulating year over year until 2045. This year, we were supposed to have a deficit of $6 billion, but it has reached almost $20 billion. The Liberals also broke their promise to balance the budget. This is the first time that the federal government has not had a concrete plan to balance the budget. We were supposed to run up deficits in order to invest in the largest infrastructure program in history, because with the Liberals everything is historic. Only $7 billion of the $180 billion of this program has been injected into the Canadian economy.(1630)This is a very disappointing budget and, unfortunately, dear people of Beauport—Limoilou, taxes keep going up and the Liberal carbon tax is just the start.AlbertaBritish ColumbiaBudget 2018 (February 27, 2018)Budget deficitC-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measuresCanada-United States relationsCanada-United States Softwood Lumber AgreementClimate change and global warmingCustoms tariff and customs dutiesFederal-provincial-territorial relationsForeign policyGovernment billsInfrastructureInvasions and raidsKinder Morgan CanadaNorth American Free Trade AgreementOil and gasReport stageRussiaSoftwood lumber industryTrade agreementsTrans Mountain pipelineUkraineIreneMathyssenLondon—FanshaweMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is quite funny. The hon. member spoke about the Canada child benefit and the income tax for workers. The CBC report I spoke about previously said that at the round tables, Canadians said they do not know how much that helped them, and they do not even know that this is going on right now. People I meet in my riding, Beauport—Limoilou, say they are aware that the Canada child benefit is a way to buy votes, and that is it. That is the basic thing the Liberals are doing with that. It is hard for people to make the choice. Of course, it is a lot of money, but they know that it is a lot of money that their kids will have to pay in 30 years, so it is a poison gift. That is all it is about. Most of the Liberals' measures are not in action but in reaction, and when they are in action, as some surely are, it is a poison gift for the future. How can the government be proud of those kinds of measures, when that is the case?Benefits for childrenBudget 2018 (February 27, 2018)C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measuresGovernment billsReport stageMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsGabrielSte-MarieJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1635)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions. Questions like these are why I have been urging him to join the Conservatives for three years, along with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, though I am not too sure about him, since his socialism is a little too intense. I think he may be too deeply entrenched in socialism.About Davie, it takes political leadership. In 2015, one month before the election, we awarded the contract for the Asterix. It was the crowning achievement of Canada's largest shipyard, which is located in Lévis. Social transfers are also very important. The Conservative government provided health and education transfers with no strings attached. We fixed the fiscal imbalance by giving $800 million to Quebec. Charest acknowledged that in no uncertain terms.First and foremost, as we have been proving since 1867, and as the history books will surely show, we are a Conservative political government when we form government. We support decentralization and respect the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, the British North America Act, our greatest constitutional document. We respect provincial and federal areas of jurisdiction. That is what is so great about the Conservatives.Budget 2018 (February 27, 2018)C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measuresGovernment billsProvince of QuebecReport stageGabrielSte-MarieJolietteBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersExport and Import Permits Act [Bill C-47—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1855)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the member for Québec, whose riding borders mine. They are both very beautiful ridings.The minister said something that deeply troubled me. It is one of the Liberals' recurring themes. He said that Canada was back on the world stage; however, we never left it. We simply have a different public policy, a different understanding, and a different approach.I do not see how they can claim that we left the world stage when we signed 47 international treaties and we sent the Canadian Armed Forces to Kandahar on one of the most dangerous missions. It was a great success. My brother went there in 2006 to fight the Taliban and then al Qaeda.I do not understand how they can say that given that we established the free trade agreement with the European Union. If that is not an international commitment, I do not know what it is. As I often say in the House, according to the Liberals' rhetoric, they have a monopoly on virtue. I would like to know if the Liberals are going to move another time allocation motion this evening or if we are going to start a serious debate of their proposed legislation.C-47, An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code (amendments permitting the accession to the Arms Trade Treaty and other amendments)Government billsInternational tradeMilitary weaponsMotionsReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocationJean-YvesDuclosHon.QuébecJean-YvesDuclosHon.Québec//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersFederal Sustainable Development ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (2035)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by my colleague from Calgary Shepard, who adroitly set out to deconstruct that worn-out Liberal platitude about the environment and the economy going hand in had. It is patently obvious that they do, because we human beings come from the environment, our resources come from the environment, and the economy comes from the environment. The economy is both a process and a product of the environment we live in. The resources we export, such as oil, are natural resources that come from the environment. The Liberals' platitude is purely political PR.As I recall, under the Conservative government, we did not sweet-talk anyone. We took concrete action that produced excellent results. For example, we reduced Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 2% while we grew the GDP by 16%. I would like the member for Calgary Shepard to tell us more about the strides our government made on both the environmental and economic fronts.C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development ActEnvironmental protectionGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsReport stageSustainable developmentTomKmiecCalgary ShepardAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersFederal Sustainable Development ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (2040)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, here we are in the House, on Wednesday, May 30, at 8:45. I should mention that it is 8:45 p.m., for the many residents of Beauport—Limoilou who I am sure are tuning in. To all my constituents, good evening.We are debating this evening because the Liberal government tabled very few significant government bills over the winter. Instead, they tabled an astounding number of private members' bills on things like swallows' day and beauty month. Sometimes my colleagues and I can hardly help laughing at this pile of utterly trivial bills. I also think that this process of randomly selecting the members who get to table bills is a bit past its prime. Maybe it should be reviewed. At the same time, I understand that it is up to each member to decide what kind of bill is important to him or her. The reason we have had to sit until midnight for two days now is that, as my colleague from Perth—Wellington said, the government has been acting like a typical university student over the past three months. That comparison is a bit ridiculous, but it is true. The government is behaving like those students who wait until the last minute to do their assignments and are still working on them at 3 a.m. the day before they are due because they were too busy partying all semester. Members know what I mean, even though that paints a rather stereotypical picture of students; most of them do not do things like that.In short, we have a government that, at the end of the session, has realized that time is running out and that it only has three weeks left to pass some of its legislative measures, some of which are rather lengthy bills that are key to the government's legislative agenda. One has to wonder about that.The Liberals believe these bills to be important. However, because of their lack of responsibility over the past three months, we were unable to debate these major bills that will make significant changes to our society. Take for example, Bill C-76, which has to do with the electoral reforms that the Liberals want to make to the voting system, the way we vote, protection of the vote, and identification. There is also Bill C-49 on transportation in Canada, a very lengthy bill that we have not had time to examine properly.Today we are debating Bill C-57 on sustainable development. This is an important topic, but for the past three years I have been getting sick and tired of seeing the Liberal government act as though it has a monopoly on environmental righteousness. I searched online to get an accurate picture of the record of Mr. Harper's Conservative government from 2006 to 2015, and I came across some fascinating results. I want to share this information very honestly with the House and my Liberal colleagues so that they understand that even though we did not talk incessantly about the environment, we achieved some excellent concrete results.I want to read a quote from www.mediaterre.org, a perfectly legitimate site: Stephen Harper's Canadian government released its 2007 budget on March 19. The budget allocated $4.5 billion in new investments to some 20 environmental projects. These measures include a $2,000 rebate for all electronic-vehicle or alternative-fuel purchases, and the creation of a $1.5-billion EcoTrust program to help provinces reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Liberals often criticize us for talking about the environment, but we did take action. For example, we set targets. We proposed reducing emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The Liberals even retained these same targets as part of the Paris agreement.(2045)They said we had targets, but no plan. That is not true. Not only did we have the $1.5-billion ecotrust program, but we also had a plan that involved federal co-operation.Allow me to quote the premier of Quebec at the time, Jean Charest, who was praising the plan that was going to help Quebec—his province, my province—meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets. Jean Charest and Mr. Harper issued a joint press release. Mr. Harper said, “Canada's New Government is investing to protect Canadians from the consequences of climate change, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.” He was already recognizing it in 2007. Mr. Charest said, “In June 2006, our government adopted its plan to combat climate change. This plan has been hailed as one of the finest in North America. With Ottawa contributing financially to this Quebec initiative, we will be able to achieve our objectives.” It was Mr. Charest who said that in 2007, at a press conference with the prime minister. I will continue to read the joint press release from the two governments, “As a result of this federal funding, the Government of Quebec has indicated that it will be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 13.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide or equivalent below its anticipated 2012 level.”What is more, the $1.5-billion ecotrust that was supposed to be allocated and was allocated to every province provided $339 million to Quebec alone. That was going to allow Quebec to engage in the following: investments to improve access to new technologies for the trucking sector; a program to develop renewable energy sources in rural regions; a pilot plant for production of cellulosic ethanol; promotion of geothermal heat pumps in the residential sector; support for technological research and innovation for the reduction and sequestration of greenhouse gases. This is probably one of those programs that is helping us make our oil sands increasingly environmentally friendly by allowing us to capture the carbon that comes from converting the sands to oil. There are also measures for the capture of biogas from landfill sites, for waste treatment and energy recovery, and finally for Canada ecotrust. I invite our Liberal colleagues to listen to what I am going to say. In 2007, Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace said the following: “We are pleased to see that after negotiating for more than a year, Quebec has finally obtained the money it needs to move towards meeting the Kyoto targets.”Who made it possible for Quebec to move towards meeting its Kyoto objectives? It was the Harper government, a Conservative government, which established the $1.5-billion ecotrust fund in 2007 with monies from the budget surplus.Not only did we have a plan to meet the targets we proposed, but this was also a plan that could only be implemented if the provinces agreed to the targets. It was a plan that was funded through the budget surplus, that did not further tax Canadians, and that provided money directly, without any conditions, other than the fundamental requirement that it had to help reduce climate change, which was philosophically important. Any and all measures taken to reach that goal were left entirely to the discretion of the provinces.Mr. Harper, like a good Conservative who supported decentralization and like a true federalist leader, said that he was giving $400 million to each province so it could move forward with its plan. By 2015, after 10 years of Conservative government, the country had not only weathered the worst economic crisis, the worst recession in history since the 1930s, but it had also reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 2% and increased the gross domestic product for all Canadians while lopping three points off the GST and lowering income taxes for families with two children by an average of $2,000 per year.If that is not co-operative federalism, if those are not real results, if that is not a concrete environmental plan, then I do not know what is. Add to that the fact that we achieved royal assent for no less than 25 to 35 bills every session.In contrast, during this session, in between being forced to grapple with scandals involving the carbon tax, illegal border crossings, and the Trans Mountain project, this government has barely managed to come up with four genuinely important bills.(2050)By contrast, we expanded parks and protected Canada's wetlands. Our environmental record is exceptional. Furthermore, we allowed debate. For example, we debated Bill C-23 on electoral reform for four days. The Liberals' electoral reform was debated for two hours. I am sad, but I am happy to debate until midnight because debating is my passion.C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development ActClean Air and Climate Change Trust FundFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsGovernment policyGreenhouse gasesProvince of QuebecReport stageSustainable developmentTomKmiecCalgary ShepardBernardGénéreuxMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersFederal Sustainable Development ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2055)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, day after day, the government is revealing itself to be a poor manager for our country. Politics, arguments, and ideologies aside, the Canadian Constitution calls for peace, order, and good government. In this Parliament, we can be comforted by the fact that, at the very least, there is peace and order. However, there certainly is not good governance.Day after day, the Liberals face national crises, sometimes of their own making, and their solutions are almost behind the times. They are unable to balance the budget in a reasonable time, as they promised.What I particularly liked about the Conservative government, and what I will like about the future 2019 Conservative government, is that it had the political courage to speak the truth and take real action. Today, we are talking about the environment, and I have a theory. I am sure that the Paris Agreement, which is much more practical and effective, exists because Mr. Harper had the courage to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol before all the international elite. Everyone knew that the Kyoto protocol was not working. There were useless meetings where the international elite set completely unrealistic objectives, when meanwhile all the countries knew full well that they would never achieve those greenhouse gas reduction targets.Canada was the first and only country to have the courage to say that the Kyoto protocol was not working and that it needed to be updated. It was the only country that had the courage to withdraw. The Paris Agreement and its reduction targets of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 exist primarily because of the Conservative government and the $1.5-billion ecotrust it created in 2007, which was a real and tangible example of federal co-operation.C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development ActGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsGreenhouse gas emissions inventoriesReport stageSustainable developmentBernardGénéreuxMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-LoupDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersFederal Sustainable Development ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2055)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague could not be more right. The government has yet to propose to Canadians how it is going to respond to the fiscal reform related to the presidency of Mr. Trump, which has already had a great impact on us. I have read the National Post and The Globe and Mail in the last month, and most experts have been telling us that Canada's competitiveness has decreased drastically in the last several months.We learned yesterday that not only is the government not responding to the fiscal reform being implemented in the U.S., but it is sending $4.5 billion of taxpayer money to a Texas-based company, Kinder Morgan. We have all known the story, of course, since yesterday.Worse than that, in the autumn session, the government tried to impose fiscal reform that would tax our small and medium-sized enterprises more and more. I am sure that the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola is very concerned about that because he is the critic for small and medium-sized enterprises. It is a fiasco, and the government does not know how to deal with it, either domestically or internationally.C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development ActCompetitionGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsReport stageSustainable developmentDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBill C-74—Notice of time allocation motionInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (2310)[English]Madam Speaker, I would ask the member for West Nova to be a reasonable person. I do not know how many times he said that we need to address climate change in a serious way. I am sure he listened to me tonight when I mentioned all of the programs that we put together, like the Canada EcoTrust for $1.5 billion, which represented great federal co-operation with the province in reducing gas emissions.The member has recited many numbers from the IMF, the World Bank, and the United Nations. Could he give us a number from his government as to how much the Liberal carbon tax will cost each family? He has cited numbers from all of those international organizations, but he is part of a government that has numbers hidden somewhere. How much is the Liberal carbon tax going to cost each family? Can we know this number, please?Budget 2018 (February 27, 2018)C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measuresCarbon pricingCarbon taxConsumer priceGovernment billsReport stageMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodGovernment AppointmentsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the conversations I have with the people of Beauport—Limoilou always bring me good advice. As we all know, conventional wisdom is rarely wrong. In fact, just this past weekend, I met with hundreds of my constituents, many of whom raised the subject of Ms. Jean's misspending. I would say that they are disappointed and even disgusted. I noted that, much like the official opposition, Canadians simply want Ms. Jean to publicly explain her extravagant spending.When and where will we hear Ms. Jean's explanation?ExpensesJean, MichaëlleOral questionsOrganisation internationale de la FrancophonieBillMorneauHon.Toronto CentreMarie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Compton—Stanstead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodGovernment AppointmentsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not at all reassured by the justification or explanation given by the minister. The Secretary General is involved in scandals and untoward projects, has not been transparent, and has not offered public explanations. The Liberals must stop defending the indefensible and demand that the Secretary General of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie be accountable.When will our citizens and all of us in Canada be given explanations? That is the least we would expect. ExpensesJean, MichaëlleOral questionsOrganisation internationale de la FrancophonieMarie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Compton—StansteadMarie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Compton—Stanstead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodGovernment AppointmentsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1135)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers' money should be spent responsibly. Canadians deserve flawless accountability when it comes to how their tax dollars are being used. Yesterday, I gave the minister an opportunity to tell us where and when Ms. Jean would explain her totally unacceptable spending. Disconcertingly, the minister dodged the question. Today, I would like an answer.I am even beginning to wonder if the government is hiding something as it continues to support her bid. What is it hiding from us? ExpensesJean, MichaëlleOral questionsOrganisation internationale de la FrancophonieDonRusnakThunder Bay—Rainy RiverCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodGovernment AppointmentsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1135)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Ms. Jean has lost the confidence of France and African countries. People are speaking out everywhere, both here and elsewhere, about how she is bringing the reputation of the OIF into disrepute. She is also tarnishing Canada's reputation as we speak. The government has known about her scandals and inappropriate expenses for a year now. Enough is enough. The Liberals need to demand an explanation from Ms. Jean. The question is, when and where is she going to deliver that explanation?ExpensesJean, MichaëlleOral questionsOrganisation internationale de la FrancophonieCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitbyCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodGovernment AppointmentsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1435)[Translation] Mr. Speaker, the International Organisation of La Francophonie is funded with Canadian taxpayers' money.Over the past year, the QMI Agency has reported some troubling facts about the management of this organization under the leadership of Michaëlle Jean. She has refused to publicly explain the frivolous expenses reported by the QMI Agency. She has not been transparent at all, and other scandals abound. How can this government still have the nerve to support the upcoming re-election of the president of the organization in October?ExpensesJean, MichaëlleOral questionsOrganisation internationale de la FrancophonieBillMorneauHon.Toronto CentreMarie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Compton—Stanstead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodGovernment AppointmentsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1435)[Translation] Mr. Speaker, it is not about pride or flag-waving, it is about pride when it comes to taxpayers’ dollars. The Liberal government has a nonchalant attitude about taxpayers' money. I am not at all surprised that it is inclined to support Michaëlle Jean, since she manages her finances the same way they do, that is to say abysmally. Can the Liberals at least show us anything at all to reassure us about Michaëlle Jean’s candidacy? Can they at least ask her today for a public explanation? ExpensesJean, MichaëlleOral questionsOrganisation internationale de la FrancophonieMarie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Compton—StansteadMarie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Compton—Stanstead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersElections Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1145)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member for Willowdale has spoken quite eloquently about Canada's past, our history. Canada marked its 150th birthday recently. He told us the truth, that throughout history we have increased the enfranchisement of voting rights, which is great. I would like to remind the member that Borden's Conservative government gave women the right to vote. It was a great movement in history for this country.However, I would also like the member to reflect on the fact that today we have legitimate questions. These are not questions about the fact that the Liberals are trying to help more handicapped persons or military members have access to voting. We have specific questions regarding how we can trust the government, which in the last year has shown disregard for electoral fundraising with cash for access, and disregard for a fundamental promise made during the election to reform the way people vote. How can we trust the government going forward?As well, we are hearing the Elections Canada director telling the government that it is too late now to implement those changes for the next election. What is the main goal of the government? How can we trust it going forward?C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendmentsElectoral systemGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsSecond readingAliEhsassiWillowdaleAliEhsassiWillowdale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersElections Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech, but I think she is mistaken and has some philosophical conflicts. She talked about the integrity of the voting system, but the main goal of this bill is to permit voting by people who have no identification, but only the identification cards given by Elections Canada. The main goal of this bill is not the integrity of the action of voting, or which government is chosen by the people. The goal is to permit people to vote without government identification. This in itself bears with it the great danger of disrupting the integrity of the voting system.How can the member address the House and talk about the integrity of the voting system when one of the major changes this bill would bring to that system would be very dangerous to its integrity?C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendmentsElectoral systemGovernment billsIdentity cardsSecond readingVoter information cardsJulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersElections Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1220)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today as we get back to the House after a week in our ridings. Last week was very busy, I must say. I also want to take this opportunity to say hello to the many constituents of Beauport—Limoilou who, as always, are watching now on Facebook Live or who will be watching at a later time when the videos are posted on CPAC.Today we are talking about democratic participation, which I find fascinating. If there is one thing that interests me most in life, it is democratic participation. This was the reason I got involved in politics. I urge Canadians to get involved. Last week I held the first-ever “Alupa à l'écoute!” public consultation in Beauport—Limoilou. I spent more than six hours listening to my constituents and answering their questions. Ultimately, my goal was to hear about the concerns, challenges, and difficulties they face in their day-to-day lives. The next consultation will be in Giffard on September 13, and the third will be in Beauport on November 17. For more information, people can call 418-663-2113. After these three public consultations, I will produce a report in the winter of 2019 and introduce a bill to address an issue that people face in their day-to-day lives. In those six hours last Thursday, I answered every question from around 40 constituents. I was very proud, because this kind of democratic accountability is absolutely essential. That actually ties into this bill. Let us talk about participatory democracy. Once again, Bill C-76 is not all bad, but we expect that the Conservatives will vote against this bill for specific reasons. I did say “expect”, but that will depend on what happens in committee. My first impression is that this is another attempt by a government that brags about its international and national brilliance. Specifically, the Liberal government thinks it has a monopoly on being virtuous all the time. They want to sell to Canadians on the idea that with this bill they are again improving the accessibility of the electoral system and the eligibility to vote. A number of Liberal colleagues spoke in this place about the integrity of the system. With respect to Bill C-76, we feel that some of the amendments and new rules will directly or indirectly undermine Canada's electoral system. My Liberal colleague, who as usual was fiery and spouted anti-Conservative rhetoric, said that voting is of course a fundamental right, but that it is also a privilege, as my colleague from Lethbridge stated. It is a privilege that requires a right and individual responsibility first and foremost. The laws that govern Elections Canada at present seek not just to foster participation, but also to ensure that this duty is carried out with integrity and responsibly. It is really a conflict between how to increase the public's participation and how to ensure that the right to vote remains a protected right. The Liberal member for Willowdale spoke eloquently of the history of our great federation by talking about the changes in voting almost every decade; we went from suffrage on the basis of property ownership to popular ballot. We went from the popular ballot, just for men, to voting for women, thank God. It was Borden's Conservative government that gave women the right to vote. All the parties here, Canada's major governing parties, Liberal and Conservative, are always in favour of making voting more accessible.We have some technical questions about the bill. That is unfortunate because, as my Liberal colleagues said, accessibility to the vote is a fundamental debate. Why did the Liberals move a time allocation motion a week ago? We were supposed to vote on time allocation today. Surely, the Liberals backed down after finding that they would look undemocratic by allocating only two or three hours of debate on such a fundamental issue.In comparison, for Conservative Bill C-23, which dealt with Elections Canada and which was introduced during the 41st Parliament, we had four days of debate for a total of 14 hours, in addition to 23 meetings in committee, on this bill that was aimed at improving our electoral system. At this point, we have only had two hours of debate on Bill C-76.(1225)As the NDP did, it is important to recall the concerns raised by the Chief Electoral Officer. He said that the government had previously tabled the amendments to Bill C-76 in Bill C-33, which died on the Order Paper. Actually, it did not exactly die on the Order Paper, because there was no prorogation, but it never got beyond first reading. The Chief Electoral Officer therefore told the government that it needed to get to work right away if it really wanted to make changes in time for the 2019 election. However, the government waited until the last second to make these changes, just days from the deadline set by the Chief Electoral Officer. Clearly, this is just another tactic to keep us from debating Bill C-76 properly.Certain parts of this bill are fine, but what I find utterly astounding about it is that it proves that Mr. Harper was right back in 2015. The Liberals called us terrible, horrible partisans for announcing the election on July 1. However, the reason we did that was because Mr. Harper had noticed a problem. During the month of June 2015, unions, such as the FTQ in eastern Canada and other big unions in western Canada, which of course are free to protest, had spent tens of millions of dollars on partisan ads attacking the Canadian government in power at the time, which was a Conservative government. Since we could not respond to that situation because we were not in an election period, Mr. Harper, a man of unimpeachable integrity, decided to call an election so that we could respond using election expenses.Throughout the campaign, the Liberals called us enemies of democracy who only cared about winning votes. In fact, they still say that about us today. However, by creating a pre-election period beginning on June 30 in Bill C-76, they are confirming, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Mr. Harper was right to do the same thing four years ago. That is a tribute to our former prime minister. What exactly would Bill C-76 do? It would expand voter eligibility. Apparently this bill would prepare future voters by creating a register of young people aged 14 to 17 so that Elections Canada can start communicating with them. That seems kind of strange to me because that is when young people are most likely going to CEGEP or community college and living in apartments with two or three roommates. I do not really know how that communication is supposed to happen considering that young people today use their phones and social networks such as Facebook to communicate.My Liberal colleague said that Liberals support enfranchisement, but giving kids the right to vote is something else entirely. He said that voting is a basic right, but that there is discrimination inherent in our system because Canadian citizens under the age of 18 do not have the right to vote. Voting is not in fact a privilege and a basic right granted to everyone. There are limits, and we can all agree that those limits are good for democracy and the duty to vote because people under the age of 18 have to go to school and do their homework. I strongly agree with that. If they are not in school, they should at least be working or travelling around the world and around Canada without asking anyone for money. I can say for sure that, up to age 18, people should be preparing to exercise their civic duty. That is why people cannot vote until they turn 18. It is not in fact an absolute right for everyone. There is already some discrimination inherent in the right to vote in Canada.Then there are three pre-election periods. I have already mentioned the pre-election period, so let us talk about the “pre-pre-election” period. There is already a problem with this one, since there will be no constraints on the financial commitments of domestic and international third parties.Until June 30, we know very well that all the international environmental groups, who like to see the Prime Minister contemplating the death of the oil sands, will spend millions of dollars to promote the end of natural and energy resources in Canada, which is very bad news. Natural resources represent 40% of the Canadian economy. We are in an energy transition. The systematic blindness on the part of the Marxist left and the centrist left in Canada is astounding. We are always being told that we are not making any effort on the environmental front. Since 1960, the environment has been systematically and continuously improved. Let us also not forget that this 40% of the Canadian economy is used to fund hospitals, education programs and our elections, which still cost hundreds of millions of dollars.(1230)They also want an extended period of advance polling, which is very good. I won because of advance polling, so it is a very good idea. Joking aside, it is a good thing.With regard to limiting the election campaign to 50 days, we could also ask why 50 days and not 37.The Liberals want to change the requirement of having identification with an address and photo. It will be terrible. I go door to door every month in my riding—Advance pollsAdvertisingC-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendmentsElection expensesElectoral systemForeign countriesFundraising and fundraisersGovernment billsIdentity cardsPre-election periodRegister of Future ElectorsSecond readingVoter information cardsYoung peopleRachaelHarderLethbridgeBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersElections Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1230)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.I held a town hall last week and I go door-knocking every month. I have knocked on 35,000 doors. In all honesty, no one has ever brought up the potential problem of not having an ID card to vote. We need an ID card for many things in our society. We are talking about the vote that will determine the next Canadian government. In 2015, 16% of the cards we got from Elections Canada had significant errors. What is more, it is very easy to get a voter card.Sometimes in community buildings with 160 dwellings the mail room can be a bit of a mess. Mailboxes overflow with paper and anyone can grab an Elections Canada voter card and go to a polling station and vote. We are simply asking the Liberals to ensure that the right to vote is not just a game where anything goes. It has to be reasonably protected and ensured. C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendmentsElectoral systemGovernment billsIdentity cardsSecond readingVoter information cardsCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitbyStevenMacKinnonGatineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersElections Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1235)[Translation]Incredibly, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is telling Canadians that the objective of 99 MPs is to suppress the vote of Canadians; he is also responsible for the Phoenix file, and we all know how that is going. He should be ashamed to say that about 99 MPs who represent nine million people. He rose in the House and dared to say that 99 Canadian MPs want to suppress the vote. That is terrible and nothing but rhetoric. C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendmentsElectoral systemGovernment billsSecond readingVoter turnoutStevenMacKinnonGatineauFrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-Louis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodDemocratic ReformInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1130)[English]Mr. Speaker, our ad never cost $300,000 for a single-page image. That is ridiculous.[Translation]Every time the Prime Minister sees his chances of winning the 2019 election crumbling, he introduces some kind of legislation seeking to make it impossible for the Canadian public or the opposition to hold him accountable or responsible for his actions. In his new bill, the Prime Minister wants to limit what political parties can do with the money that Canadians have freely given said parties.I have a very simple question. Is he going to impose the same restrictions on his own government and his ministers regarding travel and other election activities in the lead-up to the next election campaign?Democratic reformElection expensesOral questionsPre-election periodScottBrisonHon.Kings—HantsScottBrisonHon.Kings—Hants//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodRegional Economic DevelopmentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1150)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, on April 6, the Ministers of Finance, International Trade, and Families, Children and Social Development enjoyed a tour of the Port of Québec. I am very pleased about that because since 2015, the Port of Québec has been working on Beauport 2020, a promising project for the economy of the Quebec City and Beauport—Limoilou region. However, the port authority has been waiting for three years for government support for this project and for the $60 million allocated by the previous Conservative government. I am therefore asking the ministers to simply tell me if you discussed the Beauport 2020 project with the Port of Québec and what those discussions entailed. City of QuébecOral questionsPort of QuébecPorts and harboursDonRusnakThunder Bay—Rainy RiverGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersOil Tanker Moratorium ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her maiden speech after her recent election in her beautiful riding. I know my colleague and all Conservative colleagues here, and probably all party MPs, go to their ridings each weekend. We work hard. We have activities in the communities, such as spaghetti dinners, etc.The member will be able to share with us everything she hears from her constituents about the need to ensure Canadian oil can be exported outside the country. It is a major issue.How can we still, today in 2018, be importing petroleum from dictatorship countries when we have all these resources here? Could my colleague share with us some of the comments she has heard from her constituents?British ColumbiaC-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coastCoastal areasEconomic diversificationGovernment billsOil and gasOil tankersThird reading and adoptionRosemarieFalkBattlefords—LloydminsterRosemarieFalkBattlefords—Lloydminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersOil Tanker Moratorium ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1240)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak in the House of Commons.On a more serious note, I would like to take a moment to talk about my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, who passed away very suddenly this week. I never imagined this could happen. I share his family's sorrow, though of course mine could never equal theirs. His young children will not get to share amazing moments in their lives with their father, and that is staggeringly sad. I would therefore like to publicly state that I encourage them to hang in there. One day, they will surely find joy in living again, and we are here for them.As usual, I want to say acknowledge all of the residents of Beauport—Limoilou who are tuning in. I would like to let them know that there will be a press conference Monday morning at my office. I will be announcing a very important initiative for our riding. I urge them to watch the news or read the paper when the time comes.Bill C-48 would essentially enact a moratorium on the entire Pacific coast. It would apply from Prince Rupert, a fascinating city that I visited in 2004 at the age of 18, to Port Hardy, at the northern tip of Vancouver Island. This moratorium is designed to prevent oil tankers, including Canadian ones, that transport more than 12,500 tons of oil from accessing Canada's inland waters, and therefore our ports.This moratorium will prohibit the construction of any pipeline project or maritime port beyond Port Hardy, on the northern tip of Vancouver Island, to export our products to the west. In the past three weeks, the Liberal government has slowly but surely been trying to put an end to Canada's natural resources, and oil in particular. Northern Gateway is just one example.The first thing the Liberals did when they came to power was to amend the environmental assessment process managed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; they even brag about it. Northern Gateway was in the process of being accepted, but as a result of these amendments, the project was cancelled, even though the amendments were based on the cabinet's political agenda and not on scientific facts, as the Liberal government claims.When I look at Bill C-48, which would enact a moratorium on oil tankers in western Canada, it seems clear to me that the Liberals had surely been planning to block the Northern Gateway project for a while. Their argument that the project did not clear the environmental assessment is invalid, since they are now imposing a moratorium that would have prevented this project from moving forward regardless.The Prime Minister and member for Papineau has said Canada needs to phase out the oil sands. Not only did he say that during the campaign, but he said it again in Paris, before the French National Assembly, in front of about 300 members of the Macron government, who were all happy to hear it. I can guarantee my colleagues that Canadians were not happy to hear that, especially people living in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta who benefit economically from this natural resource. Through their hard work, all Canadians benefit from the incredible revenues and spinoffs generated by that industry. My colleague from Prince Albert gave an exceptional speech this morning. He compassionately explained how hard it has been for families in Saskatchewan to accept and understand the decisions being made one after the other by this Liberal government. The government seems to be sending a message that is crystal clear: it does not support western Canada's natural resources, namely oil and natural gas. What is important to understand, however, is that this sector represents roughly 60% the economy of the western provinces and 40% of Canada's entire economy.(1245)I can see why the Minister of Environment and Climate Change says we need to tackle climate change first. The way she talks to us every day is so arrogant. We believe in climate change. That is not the issue. Climate change and natural resources are complex issues, and we must not forget the backdrop to this whole debate. People are suffering because they need to put food on the table. Nothing has changed since the days of Cro-Magnon man. People have to eat every day. People have to find ways to survive.When the Liberals go on about how to save the planet and the polar bears, that is their post-modern, post-materialist ideology talking. Conservatives, in contrast, talk about how to help families get through the day. That is what the Canadian government's true priority should be.Is it not completely absurd that even now, in 2018, most of the gas people buy in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, and Ontario comes from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia even though we have one of the largest oil reserves in the world? Canada has the third-largest oil reserve in the world, in fact. That is not even counting the Arctic Ocean, of which we own a sizeable chunk and which has not yet been explored. Canada has tremendous potential in this sector.As I have often told many of my Marxist-Leninist, leftist, and other colleagues, the price of oil is going to continue to rise dramatically until 2065 because of China's and India's fuel consumption. Should Canada say no to $1 trillion in economic spinoffs until then? Absolutely not.How will we afford to pay for our hospitals, our schools, and our social services that are so dear to the left-wing advocates of the welfare state in Canada? As I said, the priority is to meet the needs of Canadians and Canada, a middle power that I adore.To get back to the point I was making, as my colleague from Prince Albert said, the decision regarding Bill C-48 and the moratorium was made by cabinet, without any consultation or any study by a parliamentary committee. Day after day, the Liberals brag about being the government that has consulted more with Canadians over the past three years than any government in history. It is always about history with them.The moratorium will have serious consequences for Canada's prosperity and the economic development of the western provinces, which represent a growing segment of the population. How can the Liberals justify the fact that they failed to conduct any environmental or scientific impact assessments, hold any Canada-wide consultations, or have a committee examine this issue? They did not even consult with the nine indigenous nations that live on the land covered by the moratorium. The NDP ought to be alarmed about that. That is the point I really want to talk about.I have here a legal complaint filed with the B.C. Supreme Court by the Lax Kw'alaams first nation—I am sorry if I pronounced that wrong—represented by John Helin. The plaintiffs are the indigenous peoples living in the region covered by the moratorium. Only nine indigenous nations from that region are among the plaintiffs. The defendant is the Government of British Columbia.The lawyer's argument is very interesting from a historical perspective.(1250)[English] The claim area includes and is adjacent to an open and safe deepwater shipping corridor and contains lands suitable for development as an energy corridor and protected deepwater ports for the development and operation of a maritime installation, as defined in Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act.“The plaintiffs' aboriginal title encompasses the right to choose to what uses the land can be put, including use as a marine installation subject only to justifiable environmental assessment and approval legislation.”[Translation]He continues:[English] The said action by Canada “discriminates against the plaintiffs by prohibiting the development of land...in an area that has one of the best deepwater ports and safest waterways in Canada, while permitting such development elsewhere”, such as in the St. Lawrence Gulf, the St. Lawrence River, and the Atlantic Ocean. [Translation]My point is quite simple. We have a legal argument here that shows that not only does the territory belong to the indigenous people and the indigenous people were not consulted, but that the indigenous people, whom the Liberals are said to love, are suing the Government of British Columbia. This will likely go all the way to the Supreme Court because this moratorium goes against their ancestral rights on their territory, which they want to develop for future oil exports. This government is doing a very poor job of this.Aboriginal peoplesBituminous sandsBritish ColumbiaC-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coastCoastal areasEconomic diversificationEnbridge Northern Gateway PipelinesEnvironmental assessmentEnvironmental protectionGovernment billsOil and gasOil tankersPetroleumPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionWestern CanadaRosemarieFalkBattlefords—LloydminsterPierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersOil Tanker Moratorium ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1250)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Canadian oil is the most highly regulated oil in the world. Our oil is subject to the largest number of regulations regarding the environment, transportation safety, taxation, consumption, royalties, and so forth. Would the founding nations consider it normal today for hundreds of huge oil tankers to cross the Atlantic ocean and come to this country when scientists are telling us that we have the third-largest oil reserve in the world? The carbon capture technology for the oil sands is getting better by the day. We need to improve our environmental practices, I think that goes without saying. However, once again, how can we justify telling our grandchildren that we do not want to share in the wealth created over the next 40 years by the China's and India's incredible consumption of oil? Those countries are not going to stop purely for environmental reasons. They are going to consume oil. They are in a full-blown industrial revolution and it is their right to do so. We could sell up to $1 trillion in oil to build hospitals and an education system that are efficient. Bituminous sandsBritish ColumbiaC-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coastCoastal areasEconomic diversificationGovernment billsOil tankersThird reading and adoptionGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestPierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersOil Tanker Moratorium ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1255)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, environmentalists, just like NDP members, all have the same problem. They suffer from amnesia. Since the 19th century and over the past 40 years, we have seen great environmental achievements, not only in Canada, but also around the world, with issues such as acid rain or the environment in our cities. The air in London in 1845 was worse than it is today in Beijing. Remarkable progress has been made on the environment. What is disappointing about the NDP, the Liberals, and environmentalists is that they never acknowledge progress and the efforts of Canadians.We are transitioning towards green energy, but we cannot change Canada's entire supply chain in the space of a few years. This is why we are talking about it, because we need to be able to take advantage of our resources in the meantime.British ColumbiaC-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coastCoastal areasEconomic diversificationGovernment billsOil tankersSustainable developmentThird reading and adoptionPierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-HubertGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, they can enforce what they want. It is a question of political will. That is it. [Translation]Canada recently took part in a joint police operation with its allies to combat international terrorism, specifically that perpetrated by ISIS. The purpose of the operation was to undermine the power of the terrorist group's propaganda machine by seizing countless software programs and Internet servers all over the world. The operation was laudable and necessary, but in matters of counterterrorism, we must attack on all fronts.Why is the Liberal government eliminating criminal penalties for terrorists right here on Canadian soil in Bill C-59?C-59, An Act respecting national security mattersExtremismNational securityOral questionsSentencingTerrorism and terroristsRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessDepartment of Industry ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1555)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the member for Beauce's private member's bill goes to the heart of the parliamentary system. In the 13th century, the capitalist bourgeoisie went to the king to demand a place in an assembly, which became the legislative assembly. Their goal was first and foremost to find out what the king was doing with the money, the bourgeoisie's money, the suppliers' money and the people's money, which had been collected by the bourgeoisie or by agents acting for the king. It is clear that the Liberals hate reporting to Parliament, because they are trying to hide a $7-billion slush fund in their new 2018-19 budget. I would therefore like the member to tell us a bit about his vision and about how his bill goes to the heart of the parliamentary system and accountability as practised by the capitalist bourgeoisie in the 13th century. C-396, An Act to amend the Department of Industry Act (financial assistance)Government accountabilityGovernment loansInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsSecond readingMaximeBernierHon.BeauceMaximeBernierHon.Beauce//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessDepartment of Industry ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1630)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today. As a Conservative MP, nothing is more important to me than tradition. As tradition would have it, I would like to acknowledge all those who are watching me and those I meet at the community centres, at all the organized events in my riding, or when I go door to door. As always, I am very happy to represent my constituents in the House of Commons.I would like to wish a good National Volunteer Week to everyone in Beauport, the people of Limoilou, Giffard, Sainte-Odile, and all around the riding. In Beauport, there are more than 2,500 volunteers. It is the Quebec City neighbourhood with the highest number of volunteers. That makes me very proud. Without volunteers, our social costs would be much higher. I commend all those who put their heart and soul into helping their neighbours and so many others.I would quickly like to go back to some comments made by the Liberal member for Markham—Thornhill. She boasted that the Liberal government is open and transparent. I would like to remind her that our esteemed Prime Minister's trip to the Aga Khan's island was not all that transparent. The commissioner had to examine and report on this trip, in short, do an investigation, to get to the bottom of things. First of all, I think it is outrageous for a sitting prime minister to go south. He should have stayed in Canada as most Canadians do. Furthermore, the Liberals' tax reform for small and medium-sized businesses was not all that transparent. The objective was to increase the tax rate for all small and medium-sized businesses and to create jobs in Canada, through the back door, by increasing corporate and small business taxes through changes in how dividends and other various financial vehicles are treated.Then, there were all of the Minister of Finance's dealings. He hid some funds generated by his family firm, Morneau Shepell. We discovered that he hid these funds in a numbered company in Alberta.Basically, we have a long list of items proving that the government is not all that open and transparent. This list also includes the amendments and changes the Liberals made to the Access to Information Act. The commissioner stated very clearly in black and white that they are going to impede access to information. On top of that, the Liberals refused to give access to information from the Prime Minister's Office, as they promised during the election campaign.I would still like to talk about the bill brought forward by the member for Beauce, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He is a man of courage and principle. This bill is consistent with his principles. He does not care to see subsidies, handouts, being given to large corporations. With this bill, however, he does not oppose the idea of giving money to businesses to help them out. He said something very simple: the technology partnerships Canada program spent about $3.3 billion. For 200 businesses, that represents $700 million in loans and 45% of cases. The member for Beauce does not oppose those loans; he is simply asking the government to tell us whether those companies have paid back the $700 million, which breaks down into different amounts, for example $800,000, $300,000, or $2 million. If some companies have not paid back those loans, then we can simply tell Canadians that they were actually subsidies, not loans.I want to get back to what I said during my earlier question. When I was a student at Laval University, I remember naively telling my professor that I would go to Parliament to talk about philosophy, the Constitution, and the great debates of our time. He told me that there would be debates on these types of issues, yes, but fundamentally, what was at the heart of England's 13th century parliamentary system was accountability, namely what was happening with the money.There is a reason why we spend two months talking about the budget. It is very important. The budget is at the heart of the parliamentary system. I sometimes find it a little annoying. I wonder if we could talk about Constitutional issues, Quebec's distinct society, the courts, politics, and other issues. However, much to my chagrin, we spend most of our time talking about money. There is a valid reason for this: every one of us here represents about 100,000 people, most of whom pay taxes. All of the government's programs, initiatives, and public policies, good or bad, are dynamic and rely on public funds.(1635)In England in the 13th century, bourgeois capitalists went to see the king to tell him that all his warmongering was getting a little expensive. They asked him to create a place where they could talk to him or his representative and find out what he was doing with their money. That was the precise moment in the course of human history when liberal democracy made its first appearance.Another example of the importance of knowing what is being done with people's money is the American Revolution. This is complicated and could fill many books, but essentially, the American Revolution happened because England was not interested in taxation with representation. The Americans said they had had enough. If taxes on tea—hence, the Tea Party—were going up, they wanted to know what was being done with their money. The only way the Americans could find out what the British were doing with the money was through elected representation of the colonies in the British Parliament. However, the king, in his arrogance, and his British governing council told the colonies to keep quiet and pay their taxes to His Majesty like they were supposed to. Thus ensued the American Revolution.Such major historical examples demonstrate how accountability is at the very heart of the parliamentary system and liberal democracy, which guarantees the protection of individual rights and freedoms so dear to our Liberals in this place. Now, this is what I do not understand. The opposition members, whether they belong to the NDP, the Conservative Party, or the Quebec caucus, introduce sensible and fairly simple bills. Why will the government not just admit it and thank them? Not only is it the purpose of Parliament to inform Canadians about what is being done with their money, but the government itself should know what is happening. The government could use half of the unpaid $700 million to more quickly implement its much-touted social housing program or pharmacare 2020. However, between $400 million and $700 million has not been paid back to the federal government. Thus, it is completely unacceptable and illogical for the Liberals to tell us that this is not a laudable or justifiable bill. When I came to Parliament, I had the opportunity to work on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, a very complex committee. It was a bit overwhelming, but I took it very seriously and I did all the reading. That committee just keeps voting on credits for months because it approves all the spending. When I was there, the President of the Treasury Board attended our meetings three times to explain the changes he wanted to make to the main estimates. These were disastrous changes that sought to take away the power of opposition MPs to examine spending vote by vote for over two months. He wanted to cut that time down to about two weeks. It was an attempt on the part of the Liberals to gradually undermine the work and transparency of this democratic institution.What is more, the Liberals wanted to make major changes that would cut our speaking time in the House of Commons. For heaven's sake. At the time of Confederation, our forefathers sometimes talked for six or seven hours. Now, 20 minutes is too long. For example, today, I have 10 minutes to speak. The Liberals wanted to cut our time down from 20 minutes to 10 minutes. This government never stops trying to cut the opposition's speaking time, and that is not to mention the $7 billion that have still not been allocated.In short, the bill introduced by the member for Beauce is a laudable bill that goes to the very heart of the principle underlying liberal democracy and the British parliamentary system, that of knowing where taxpayers' money is going. AccountabilityC-396, An Act to amend the Department of Industry Act (financial assistance)CompaniesGovernment accountabilityGovernment assistanceGovernment expendituresGovernment loansInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsPublic consultationSecond readingTomKmiecCalgary ShepardBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsConflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's ReportInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1215)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I think a point of order is appropriate here. I have been listening to my colleague for about 10 minutes now, and he has been talking about what his government is doing with the country's finances. I believe we are supposed to be debating the conflicts of interest this government has been a party to for the past year. The Prime Minister has essentially been accused of breaking a federal statute. I think that is what we should be talking about. We moved an amendment to refer the matter to Canada's Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to get some suggestions for how to address the flaws in the legislation. I think the member across the way should stick to the issue at hand.8527-421-27 Report of the Ethics Commissioner entitled "The Trudeau Report", dated December 20, 2017, pursuant to section 28 of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons — Appendix to the Standing OrdersAga Khan IVConflict of interestGovernment Business No. 21Points of orderRelevancyTravelTrudeau, JustinBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial Statement of Minister of Finance]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1315)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech in defence of Quebec's interests. In mine, I will defend the interests of all Canadians, but I understand his objective.In his opinion, are we now more than ever dealing with an excessively centralizing Liberal government that has no respect for provincial jurisdictions? It almost seems as if the government sees the country as its own unitary regime. For the Liberals, it is as if there is no federation, only a great leader who revels in his duties and who gives orders to the provinces.Is that how my colleague reads the situation as well?Budget 2018 (February 27, 2018)Budget debatesFederal-provincial-territorial relationsWays and Means No. 19GabrielSte-MarieJolietteGabrielSte-MarieJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial Statement of Minister of Finance]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1320)[Translation]Madam Speaker, first of all, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the very honourable and very competent member for Mégantic—L'Érable, a beautiful riding that has a beautiful lake I swam in a few years ago. As I always do, I would also like to say hello to the many residents of Beauport—Limoilou who are listening to us today and those I meet in my travels, whether I am going door to door or attending events at community centres and so on.Today I want to talk about the stark realities of budget 2018. I would like to draw a parallel to the disastrous trip to India that my constituents have been upset about and have been talking about so much in recent weeks. This trip was not out of character for this government. The trip was ill-defined and achieved virtually nothing, other than having the Prime Minister dress up in ridiculous costumes—ridiculous only because it was the Prime Minister wearing them. The clothes themselves are not ridiculous; what is ridiculous is the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada wore them instead of wearing the type of clothing he should be wearing to such international meetings. He toured around India making a mockery of the office of Prime Minister, and he was the laughingstock of the international press. He then returned home after announcing hardly anything to Canadians. This trip pretty much reflects how this government acts every day in the House. It is also exactly like budget 2018: a political agenda with no substance, with page after page of lofty words, and void of any concrete measures.The Liberals and the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Papineau, brag about forming a government that is not cynical, that will put democracy back on track, that is more transparent, and that wants to restore Canadians' trust in the political system. In my opinion, one of the best ways to restore Canadians' trust is keep the most basic of promises. Not only have the Liberals broken key promises, such as changing the voting system, but they have also broken basic, structural promises that they made with their hands on their hearts in 2015.The Prime Minister promised to run annual deficits of no more than $10 billion. He also said that in 2018, the deficit would not exceed $6 billion. Less than two weeks ago, the government announced that the deficit for 2018-19 is $18 billion, three times the amount that was promised during the 2015 campaign.The second broken promise is just as important. The Liberals promised a return to a balanced budget by 2020. As my dear colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent always says in a delightful turn of phrase, never has a Canadian government ever run a deficit outside wartime, such as during the Second World War, or outside a major economic crisis, like the one we went through when Mr. Harper was leading the government. He was a great prime minister, by the way.The Prime Minister is running major deficits and has no plan to return to a balanced budget, even though our economy is in a favourable position compared to most countries around the world. I will get into this economic situation a bit later. It is unbelievable.Here is what the parliamentary budget officer thinks about it, as reported by the QMI Agency:...Canada's fiscal watchdog notes that the federal government's vagueness about [balancing the budget] conflicts with the objectives set out in the mandate letter of finance minister Bill Morneau.The PBO also notes that the mandate letter from the Prime Minister explicitly asks the minister to ensure “that our fiscal plan is sustainable by meeting our fiscal anchors of balancing the budget in 2019/20 and continuing to reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio throughout our mandate”.Lastly, the article states:However, in its 2016 budget, Ottawa abandoned its intention of reaching a zero deficit in 2019-20.Ottawa confirmed two weeks ago that not only will a balanced budget not be reached this year, but it will certainly not be reached by 2023, or by 2045, based on forecasts.As for infrastructure, it is the biggest joke of all. It is unbelievable. After the election, the government bragged about implementing the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history, a $180-billion program.(1325)I am not the one saying this. Barely a week ago, the parliamentary budget officer said that only $10 billion had been released so far. The media has been covering this story for last few days, thank heaven. All the billions of dollars that should be spent on infrastructure by 2019 will be delayed until 2022, 2023, and 2024.I will come back to balancing the budget and to deficits. When the Prime Minister promised deficits of no more than $10 billion a year, he brazenly insisted that these deficits were for infrastructure, not for international relations, or for climate change in third-world countries, or for endless funding for all of Canada's diversity groups. No, he said that they were for infrastructure.The parliamentary budget officer said that the Liberals do not yet have a plan for how the federal government will spend $186.7 billion in infrastructure money over the next 12 years. Is this not the same Liberal government that keeps repeating that meeting environmental targets, for example, requires a plan? The Liberals have no plan for the environment, just as they have no plan for infrastructure. One of their flagship promises, which was so important that it formed the basis for the other promises, was to balance the budget in 2019 and to run annual deficits of $10 billion. Meanwhile, taxes are going up for the fine constituents of Beauport—Limoilou. The average increase for middle-income families is exactly $840 per year, whereas by the end of 10 wonderful years of Conservative government, from 2006 to 2015, the average Canadian family paid about $2,000 less in taxes. There is an increase in Canada Pension Plan contributions, up to $2,200 per household, there is a carbon tax, up to $2,500 per household, and the cancellation of the family tax cut. This has a direct impact on the people of Beauport—Limoilou. All my neighbours in Beauport—Limoilou have children who play sports or take part in fitness or arts activities. For example, on Sunday mornings, my daughter takes music lessons at the Cascades school of music. It is a great place and I am proud to mention it today. They also cancelled the tax credits for education and textbooks, which could be as much as $560 per student, and they raised EI premiums. This does not even include the disastrous tax reforms imposed by the Minister of Finance, even though he himself wanted to hide some of his income from the federal taxman, frankly. The sad part is that the debt keeps piling up. After three years in office, the current government has grown the national debt by $60 billion. According to projections by the Department of Finance, in other words, our dear, dedicated public servants, the budget will not be balanced until 2045, which will add $450 billion to the debt. A colleague opposite spoke about 3- to 17-year-old girls not being able to access this or that thing. I will tell her that, in 30 years, fully all of these girls will be paying the debt piled up by the current government. Only one thing is certain: men and women alike will be paying a lot more on the debt in 30 or 40 years, because of the bad fiscal management by this bad government, which, I hope, will be calling it quits in 2019.What is even more unbelievable is that the government brags about having wonderful financials thanks to its prowess at managing public funds. That is not the case. We know full well that the current growth is primarily due to a recovery in the oil sector. That is good for the entire oil industry, but again, it is not because of the Liberals' sound management. In addition, house prices increased by 16% in 2016, bringing in additional revenue. Oil and gas exports went up. The Canadian dollar fell, and so did interest rates. All those factors combined to produce strong economic growth in Canada. What should we do under such circumstances, when the economy is doing well? We should address the issues and ensure that there is money for potential emergencies, such as the crisis in the aluminum and steel industries, the potential end of NAFTA in a few months, or a global economic crisis that could erupt at any moment.(1330)When the economy is doing well, we must prepare for future crises. The current government is simply being reckless with the Canadian economy. The constituents of Beauport—Limoilou have a right to know.Balanced budgetBudget 2018 (February 27, 2018)Budget debatesBudget deficitEconomic prosperityFamilies and childrenGovernment accountabilityInfrastructureInfrastructure Canada ProgramPublic debtSplitting speaking timeTax creditsWays and Means No. 19GabrielSte-MarieJolietteStevenMacKinnonGatineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial Statement of Minister of Finance]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1330)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the fact is that never in the history of Canada has a government spent so much on the bureaucracy and its own administration, instead of on Canadians. We are not saying that the Liberals should allocate more money in one area and less in another. We are asking them to distribute the money in an intelligent manner, by focusing on the most urgent issues.The Senate report on national defence, which my colleague is very familiar with, says that during the great years under the Harper government, the percentage of our GDP spent on national defence reached its highest-ever level of about 0.8%. That was unprecedented. During the dark years of the Chrétien government, that percentage was between 0.2% and 0.3%.As my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles always says, the Conservatives gave huge amounts of new equipment to the men and women in uniform who bravely serve us. We did all that and balanced the budget. We left a surplus of $3 million for the Liberals when they came into office in 2015. We also lowered taxes by an average of $6,000 per family. The Liberals are fattening up the bureaucracy and interest groups across Canada instead of working for Canadians in general.Budget 2018 (February 27, 2018)Budget debatesGovernment expendituresMilitary equipment and facilitiesPublic Service and public servantsWays and Means No. 19StevenMacKinnonGatineauLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial Statement of Minister of Finance]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1330)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the answer is yes.I have met with people from my riding over the past three weeks. Much to the Liberals' dismay, everywhere I went, even in redder areas like Giffard and Limoilou, people are shocked by what is happening and what the government is doing. I met with countless people who voted Liberal and will never do so again.The way the government is spending money does not make any sense. The Liberals are spending hand over fist in every area, without any plans to balance the budget and for no good reason other than to try to appear virtuous and please Canada's interest groups. What is more, their trips abroad have been disastrous.Developing a welfare state served a purpose in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, but now things have gotten completely out of hand. Canadians want the government to one day work for them, not the other way around.Balanced budgetBudget 2018 (February 27, 2018)Budget debatesGovernment expendituresPublic Service and public servantsWays and Means No. 19LucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersYannick DumontInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1405)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Beauport—Limoilou's Yannick Dumont on his incredible athletic performance. He has done Canada proud on the international scene.On December 16, 2017, he participated in Spartan Race Iceland, the premier world championship obstacle course race, and won the Ultra World Championship 2017 medal. Only about 100 of the world's best athletes take part in this extraordinary competition, and Mr. Dumont bravely and skilfully made it through 21 hours and 45 minutes of obstacles, including 18 hours and 30 minutes of non-stop running, traversing no less than 70 kilometres of mountainous terrain in the cold.Mr. Dumont is busy preparing for the next international competition, which will take place a few days from now in the largest sports stadium in Paris, France.On behalf of the people of Beauport—Limoilou, I want to congratulate Mr. Dumont on his courage, his perseverance, his patriotism, and of course all his past and future medals. Beauport—Limoilou is proud of you, Mr. Dumont.AthletesDumont, YannickEventsStatements by MembersNicolaDi IorioSaint-Léonard—Saint-MichelMaryAnnMihychukHon.Kildonan—St. Paul//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, in the last 10 years, we increased all benefits. That is the story the Liberals do not want to tell.[Translation]Today, the Prime Minister has a golden opportunity to show that he still respects veterans. This evening, he can vote in favour of the opposition motion.A prime minister simply cannot claim that veterans are asking for too much when his own government has been spending money recklessly day after day for three years.Will the Prime Minister do the right thing this evening and vote in favour of the motion moved by Her Majesty's official opposition?Oral questionsPensions and pensionersVeteransVeterans benefitsSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount PearlSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount Pearl//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Veterans Affairs]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1325)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Saint-Laurent certainly knows that the Liberals did not invent the wheel when it comes to the veterans reintegration, rehabilitation services, and vocational assistance program.I was the veterans affairs critic in 2015-16. The hon. member for Saint-Laurent is a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Perhaps she should do her homework. Maybe she did, but is not saying. She talked about the increased benefits under her government, and if that is true then that is great, but we did the same thing. We increased all the benefits. The first time the charter came into effect, in 2006, it was under Mr. Harper's Conservative government. Most benefits were increased. However, we did not make sweeping promises during an election. We never over-promised anything, not for any sector of society.Unfortunately, the hon. member did not touch on what we are talking about. I would like her to answer the following: does she think that it was honourable of the Prime Minister to solemnly promise in 2015, hand on his heart, that veterans should never, ever have to go to court to fight for their rights, when this very government has now allowed its Department of Justice to take veterans back to court in the Equitas Society case? Does she think that is acceptable and that the Prime Minister was right to break his promise to veterans? That was a solemn promise.Members' remarksOpposition motionsPensions and pensionersPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinVeteransVeterans benefitsEmmanuellaLambropoulosSaint-LaurentEmmanuellaLambropoulosSaint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Veterans Affairs]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1330)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Lakeland.As usual, I would like to say hello to the many constituents of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching. Two months ago, as I was going door to door in Limoilou, I met a man who said that he listened to all of my speeches. He talked to me about how the festivals at Cartier-Brébeuf park cause noise disturbances. I want to say hello to him.First, I would like to say that I am very passionate and care a lot about any issues that affect Canada's veterans, mainly for family reasons. On the Clarke side of the family, fathers and sons have served in the Canadian Armed Forces since 1890, and I was no exception. My great-grandfather, William Clarke, served in the First World War and the Boer War. My grandfather, Robert Clarke, served in the Second World War. My father, Patrick Clarke, served our country in Berlin during the German occupation in the 1970s. My brother, Anthony Clarke, served in Afghanistan in 2006 during the campaign in which most lives were lost. I served the country in the reserves and never went overseas. It is perhaps one my biggest disappointments that I was not able to serve this beautiful country in times of war.My colleagues opposite say that we, as Conservatives, should be embarrassed about how we treated veterans. However, I just shared my family's and my history, and I am in no way embarrassed to be a Conservative. I assure my colleagues opposite that I am being sincere. If the Conservatives had acted poorly towards veterans, I would admit it, if I were minimally honourable and capable of analyzing public policy—which I am. This is not at all the case, however, and I will have to talk about everything that we did for veterans. This is not the primary focus of my speech, but I have no choice, because all the Liberal members have been saying since this morning that the Conservatives were horrible to veterans. Our treatment of veterans is not the focus of this opposition day. Today's focus is the following: That the House call on the Prime Minister to apologize to veterans for his insensitive comments at a recent town hall in Edmonton and show veterans the respect that they deserve by fulfilling his campaign promise to them, when he said on August 24, 2015, that “If I earn the right to serve this country as your Prime Minister, no veteran will be forced to fight their own government for the support and compensation they have earned”.Not only did the Prime Minister break this solemn promise in an egregious manner when he stated at a town hall in Edmonton that veterans were asking for too much, but he broke three other promises. The Prime Minister promised Canadians that, if they voted for him, he would restore lifetime pensions for veterans. He broke this promise because the lifetime pension established and presented by the Liberals before Christmas does not really restore the old lifetime pension. Most veterans who elect to pull out of the former system, which applies to those who fought before 2006, will not get 100% of the amounts they were receiving.The Prime Minister also promised that veterans would not have to fight their own government to obtain the support and compensation they deserve. Yesterday, my great colleague from Barrie—Innisfil introduced a bill that proposes a covenant. It is a commitment, an agreement, or a contract. My colleague from Barrie—Innisfil probably wanted to enter into a proper contract with veterans by changing the Department of Veterans Affairs Act and compensation for the Canadian Armed Forces by amending section 4 of the act by adding the following: ...the Minister shall take into account the following principles:(a) that the person, as well as their dependants or survivors, is to be treated with dignity, respect and fairness;(1335)It is interesting, because the Prime Minister delivered a big speech here yesterday about the relationship that his government and Canada have with our brave indigenous peoples, who have been here for thousands of years. He said we do not need to change the Constitution, because section 35 already says that we recognize the rights of indigenous peoples. The Prime Minister said that instead, we need to change the way we view indigenous peoples and treat them with dignity and respect, and that is how we will give them the recognition they want.However, that is exactly what my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil wrote in his motion on veterans. His motion called for the concept of treating veterans with dignity and respect to be incorporated into the act, so that bureaucrats and judges would take that concept into consideration when making decisions about veterans' benefits. Sadly, the Prime Minister voted against that motion yesterday. Is that not a shame?I am disappointed, not only because the Liberals voted against this motion, but also because day after day in question period, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Prime Minister, and his veteran colleagues trot out the same hogwash about how the Conservatives treated veterans disgracefully. Those are lies.Ours was the first government to implement the new veterans charter. We significantly increased virtually all of the compensation amounts. Every day in question period, rather than actually answering questions and apologizing for what the Prime Minister said, the Liberals spout off this kind of nonsense when what they should be doing is explaining how they intend to respect veterans, some of whom are meeting with a number of my colleagues outside. Another thing I am disappointed about has to do with Bill C-357, a bill I introduced to create a grandfather clause for veterans wanting to transition to the public service. They could thus avoid having to work another five years to collect full retirement benefits. It is a very simple bill. I have repeatedly requested a meeting with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I even told him to forget about my bill and incorporate its amendments into the Treasury Board rules so that the 80 veterans who have to work an extra five years in Canada's public service to retire with dignity can benefit from the grandfather clause. The Minister of Veterans Affairs refused to meet with me. This would cost about $2 million. That is peanuts. As a final point, in response to my colleagues, I want to point out what we, the Conservatives, have done since 2006. First, we created the position of veterans ombudsman. Second, we announced clinics for veterans affected by post-traumatic stress disorder. Third, we established the Veterans Bill of Rights, which is on my desk in Beauport—Limoilou. On top of that, we announced additional funding to support operational stress injury clinics.Furthermore, we created the atomic veterans recognition program. We launched an outreach campaign with community partners to identify and support homeless veterans in the Montreal area. In addition, in 2010, we created a community war memorial program, because once again, veterans often need recognition. We also introduced benefits for seriously injured veterans, including the earnings loss benefit, to increase monthly financial support.All of that was introduced by the Conservative government, and that is not all. We also improved access to the career impact allowance, another measure created by the Conservative government. Is that not incredible? We also created a $1,000 supplement to the career impact allowance for the most seriously injured veterans. That is another Conservative government measure. Lastly, let us not forget the flexible payment options for veterans and Canadian Forces members who are receiving a disability award. That is another Conservative government measure. Is that not incredible, Mr. Speaker?Despite everything I just said, the bottom line is that the Prime Minister made a solemn promise in 2015, hand on heart and surrounded by top military brass who are now MPs. He said that veterans would never, ever have to fight in court for their rights.(1340)That is what is going on. He broke his promise. There is nothing honourable about that. It is most unfortunate.C-357, An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act (Group 1 contributors)Members' remarksOpposition motionsPensions and pensionersPrime MinisterReferences to membersSplitting speaking timeTrudeau, JustinVeteransVeterans benefitsEmmanuellaLambropoulosSaint-LaurentKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Veterans Affairs]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1340)[English]Mr. Speaker, we did not leave a mess. Concerning the Equitas Society, the hon. member for Durham came to a truce with them with dignity and respect, and said that when the Conservatives came back as the next government, they would continue to discuss together how to deal with this situation, which did not happen.The reality is that the Prime Minister went further in his campaign and did politics on the backs of veterans, on the back of this court case, as he did politics this week on the back of a court case in Saskatchewan. He is always doing that. He did that with Equitas. This is the basis of the discourse today. With his hand on his heart, he said that veterans will never, ever have to fight the government for their rights. Then he broke his promise. This is what is happening today. This is what we are fighting against.Members' remarksOpposition motionsPensions and pensionersPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinVeteransVeterans benefitsKenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Veterans Affairs]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1345)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I too have a great deal of respect for my NDP colleague who makes very impassioned speeches.I have two answers that are short and to the point. The new veterans charter is a new paradigm for the treatment of veterans. It is not perfect. I would say that if it were up to me, I would get rid of the new veterans charter and go back to the old system, which had better pensions. A veteran should not have to prove that he suffered. When he returns home from war let us just give him what he is owed.This new paradigm was put in place by the Paul Martin government in December 2005. Ours was the first government to work with this new paradigm, whereby veterans carry the burden of proof. They have to prove that they suffered mentally or physically. That is the problem. In the United States, the government has the burden of proof. If the Liberals want to improve the situation, they have to reverse the onus.Members' remarksOpposition motionsPensions and pensionersPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinVeteransVeterans benefitsAnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingShannonStubbsLakeland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1430)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, on December 9, 2014, in a solemn and firm tone of voice, the member for Papineau said that “we have a sacred obligation to our veterans”. At the time, the member for Papineau claimed that as prime minister he would be the ultimate champion of our veterans' honour and rights.Why then is he today shamefully reneging on his promise made in 2015? Disabled veteransOral questionsPensions and pensionersVeteransVeterans benefitsSherryRomanadoLongueuil—Charles-LeMoyneSherryRomanadoLongueuil—Charles-LeMoyne//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1430)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, here is what veterans have to say. Don Sorochan, lead counsel for Equitas Society, said that the government's position was astonishing and for the Prime Minister to stand up and say that we do not have any special obligation to veterans was completely contrary to everything he has said in Parliament and everything that he said during the election campaign.What is worse, the Prime Minister and veteran Liberal candidates made a solemn promise in 2015, with their hands on their hearts, that veterans would never, ever have to go to court to defend their rights. Those were nothing more than empty words.When will the Liberals make good on their promises?Disabled veteransOral questionsPensions and pensionersVeteransVeterans benefitsSherryRomanadoLongueuil—Charles-LeMoyneSherryRomanadoLongueuil—Charles-LeMoyne//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Conflict of Interest]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1335)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Durham for his excellent speech. This matter involving the Prime Minister and the Aga Khan’s island is very unfortunate, but something positive has come of it. It has allowed us to see through the government and all of its Liberal MPs who have been claiming to have a monopoly on virtue since 2015. They have been playing games with Canadians for the past two years, claiming day after day, year after year, in a disgusting and apolitical manner, that we Conservatives are not working for the well-being of all Canadians. The Prime Minister’s 2016 vacation on the Aga Khan’s island is so troubling for Canadians that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner found four violations of the law. It is now obvious, after this trip, that the Liberals no longer have the monopoly on virtue. All Canadians can now see the Liberals’ true colours: a political, post-modern and radical left made up of social engineers who want to change our beautiful country’s customs and traditions merely for the sake of change. Thank God for opposition day. Thank God, because when he was found guilty of four violations of the Conflict of Interest Act, the Prime Minister merely apologized, saying that he would not do it again. If the Liberals were in opposition, they would do exactly what we are doing right now. Incidentally, this is not a tactic to divert attention from the country’s finances, which are regrettable on several levels. We are doing our democratic and parliamentary duty. We must enlighten the many Canadians and citizens of Beauport—Limoilou who are listening. We must explain that this is the first time in the history of Canada, since its creation in 1867, that a prime minister has broken a federal law. How did he break the law? The Ethics Commissioner explained it very simply by referring to the four sections violated. She wrote, “I [also] found that...he contravened section 5 for failing to arrange his private affairs to avoid such an opportunity.” She also said that she found him “in contravention of section 11 of the Act when members of his family accepted the Aga Khan’s gift of hospitality and the use of his private island in March 2016 and when he and his family accepted the Aga Khan’s gift of hospitality in December 2016.” She concluded by saying that “[the Prime Minister] contravened section 21 of the Act when he did not recuse himself from discussions that provided an opportunity to improperly further the private interest associated with one of the institutions of the Aga Khan....” The Canadian government gave the Aga Khan tens of millions of dollars, my friends, and your political leader went gallivanting around on his billionaire’s island.Aga Khan IVBahamasConflict of interestGiftsOpposition motionsPrime MinisterReferences to membersReimbursementTravelTrudeau, JustinErinO'TooleHon.DurhamCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Conflict of Interest]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1340)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the House are laughing, and meanwhile their leader has violated four sections of the Conflict of Interest Act. They are laughing, and meanwhile their government has entered talks involving tens of millions of dollars. In fact, it has already given tens of millions of dollars to the Aga Khan's causes. Whether or not these causes are worthy matters little. In the meantime, the Prime Minister was gallivanting around his private island.Lastly, the commissioner found that “Mr. Trudeau contravened section 12 of the Act when his family travelled on non-commercial aircraft chartered by the Aga Khan”. I am pleased that Ms. Dawson, the Ethics Commissioner, had the courage to write this incriminating report which says, in black and white, just how the Prime Minister violated four sections of the act.This is all terrible, but there is something else that bothers me even more and that makes me sad. I do not say this lightly, and I rarely say this in politics, but I am sad, as all Canadians should be. I genuinely do not understand how a prime minister of our great federation could not only decide to take his Christmas vacation outside Canada, which is already a shameful and dishonourable thing for a prime minister to do, but also to travel to a billionaire's island.I knocked on doors throughout the Christmas break. I met one constituent who lives in affordable housing. He had tears in his eyes as he told me that he had almost no teeth left. He has had toothaches for years, he needs dentures, and he has a very low income, but his honour prevents him from requesting social assistance. However, he still cannot afford dentures and cannot afford to replace his teeth. He spoke to me about his teeth for 15 minutes, because it was such a big part of his life. What he is going through is terrible.Across the country, Canadians are living in poverty. People are starving and freezing to death in Toronto, in Montreal, and in Vancouver. They are not dying because they have mental health issues or addictions. They are dying because of sociological problems such as lack of education. Poverty is a real issue in Canadian society, but not only is the Prime Minister not encouraging Canadians to stay here, he himself is spending time on a billionaire's tropical island.Seriously, people are dying of hunger in Canada, but our shameless Prime Minister had the nerve to take a vacation that cost taxpayers $200,000. The worst part is his total contempt for Canadians. He should never have done that. As Prime Minister, he should at the very least avoid vacations like that during his four-year term. Four years is not a long time in the life of a man who could live to the age of 90. He could not wait four years to go gallivanting around on a tropical beach while people here at home in eastern and Atlantic Canada are dying of hunger because of the employment insurance spring gap, not to mention the indigenous peoples on every reserve in the country. The Prime Minister says that his most important relationship is the nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples. This is ridiculous, since his most important relationship should be with all Canadians and not with any one group in particular. He is constantly spouting his lofty ideals, saying that he works for the middle class and for Indigenous people on reserve, and that he will make investments for Canadians, and then he vacations on a billionaire's private island. Talk about setting a good example. This just makes me sad.Since 1867, and I think it is written in the Constitution, all governments are required to operate in accordance with the notion of peace, order, and good government. However, so far, the Liberals have been unable to form a good government. They continue to run deficits, when there is no war and no economic crisis.(1345) They keep breaking promises. I will conclude by saying that, yesterday, the Minister of International Trade proudly announced that his program was huge in comparison with free trade. They have done absolutely nothing for free trade. That is why we introduced the TPP. The President of the United States is the one who began renegotiating NAFTA. Were is this Liberal free trade agreement I have heard so much about? It does not exist. We must denounce the Prime Minister’s attitude and behaviour, and that is what we are doing today.AccountabilityConflict of interestGiftsGovernment accountabilityOpposition motionsPovertyPrime MinisterReferences to membersReimbursementTravelTrudeau, JustinCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Conflict of Interest]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1345)[Translation]Madam Speaker, who, in 2008, offered a national apology for residential schools? Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Who met with the Assembly of First Nations each year? Prime Minister Harper. We were not making grand speeches, we were working for the well-being of all Canadians without exception. We did not have a special relationship with any one group. We were working for all Canadians. That is what we were doing. I believe that it is a matter of honour. It is completely unreasonable for the Prime Minister to go gallivanting around a billionaire’s island when Canadians are dying of hunger. It is unacceptable.Conflict of interestGiftsGovernment accountabilityOpposition motionsPovertyReimbursementTravelCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Conflict of Interest]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1350)[English]Madam Speaker, I wish I had a recorder when I saw that on TV. Yes, I was discouraged by it. However, no report from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner was made or put forward on that particular issue. I trust the parliamentary agent, and nothing was produced in regard to the issue he is speaking about. However, something was produced in regard to the trip of the Prime Minister to the Aga Khan's island. However, beside this matter of equality, my main argument today is that it was completely dishonourable for the Prime Minister to go to an island in the south. He should stay here. Aga Khan IVBahamasConflict of interestGiftsOpposition motionsPrime MinisterReferences to membersReimbursementTravelTrudeau, JustinChrisBittleSt. CatharinesCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Conflict of Interest]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1350)[English]Madam Speaker, the member is right. We try to set an example for our kids. I have two kids myself. One day I will speak to them about this issue, but I prefer to talk to them about the greatness of this country, the constitution, and what we can do for French Canadian people in this country. I completely agree with my colleague. It is unfortunate. However, I will teach my kids how to be honourable in life and how to not ask for rights but for duties. It is what I can do, not what I can have. I will tell them to be responsible individuals. AccountabilityConflict of interestGiftsOpposition motionsReimbursementTravelCathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada Elections ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1805)[English]Mr. Speaker, at the end of my colleague's speech, he said that this new system the Liberals would bring forward with this bill, until we win the next election and delete it, would make it so that the governing party would have a systematic preference for raising money, which would make it stronger for the next election.Does the member think that it is more than just a privilege that would give the Liberals more strength? Does he think that this is close to real corruption?C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing)Conflict of interestElectoral systemFundraising and fundraisersGovernment billsPolitical partiesReport stageKevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada Elections ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1805)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, many people from Beauport—Limoilou are listening to us this evening, and I would like to say hello to them. It is a pleasure to represent them, especially this evening as we debate Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing) an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. This bill basically seeks to legitimize and formalize a palpable and tangible form of corruption in Canada. We first saw this system in the 1990s and 2000s, under the successive governments of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. However, the federal Liberals have also used this system over 100 times since 2015. They are now trying to formalize and legitimize it by introducing a bill in the House. What was the system established by Ontario's Liberal government in the 1990s? Two people were responsible for its implementation, namely Mr. Butts and Ms. Telford. Mr. Butts is currently the Prime Minister principal secretary. He works in the Langevin Block. I will always call it by this name because I am very proud of it. Mr. Langevin is a French Canadian who spent his entire career fighting for Quebec's right to have a seat at the cabinet table so that Quebeckers and French Canadians would be heard at the start of the 20th century. Mr. Langevin was also a great source of pride for Macdonald's government. Thus, it is an affront to me that his name was removed from the Langevin Block. I now will return to the matter at hand.Mr. Butts is principal secretary to the Prime Minister, and Ms. Telford is, or at least I think she still is, the Prime Minister's chief of staff. Incidentally, the Prime Minister's Office is another institution that should be shut down immediately. What did those two individuals do when they introduced this system in Ontario? They made sure that ministers—as well as any backbenchers like myself and other members here who want to advance their career and perhaps become a minister to do great things for this country—would have to conform to a system that would relegate the issues that matter to them to the back burner, issues like the Constitution, the development of francophone communities, their ridings, their constituents, and community groups. The members are told that what matters is filling the party's coffers so that they can win elections, not with well-reasoned arguments, but rather by spending billions of dollars. This system involved quotas for each minister and anyone who wanted to become a minister. For example, the finance minister and the Ontario health minister each had to raise half a million dollars a year. In this tightly organized system, the cocktail parties and fundraisers hosted by ministers had to be linked somehow to their portfolios. Another thing that surprised me about the Liberal members' speeches is that they do not want to talk about the very clear distinction between partisan fundraising events and cash for access events like the ones the Liberals held over 100 times between 2015 and 2017.Just like every MP in Canada, I have fundraised with members of my own party, the Conservative Party, or with people who were interested in meeting Conservatives in order to better understand our political philosophy, what we can do for Canada, where we are coming from, and where we are going. In short, they wanted to know our ideas for this great country. However, I have never attended a fundraiser where there were 30 people from the same organization or the same profession who had an existing contract, business project, or other interest to bring to the attention of some federal department. (1810)Every time that I participate in a fundraiser, many Canadians who are interested in politics come to meet the Conservatives to find out more about our political party. However, cash for access fundraisers stem from considerable pressure from the Prime Minister's Office. The justice and finance ministers, for example, are required to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Under this system, every minister purposely and carefully comes up with detailed guest lists that include organizations or individuals that lobby the government on files related to his or her portfolio.Here are two real-life examples. As recently as 2016, the Minister of Justice organized an event in Toronto. I do not remember the exact date, but this event has been discussed at length today. Most of the people who attended were lobbying the government to make changes to the Criminal Code and the Canadian judiciary, or even to become judges. I would like to know if there was even one Liberal MP at that event or whether even one ordinary Toronto resident was there to learn more about the Liberals' political philosophy—if they have one, other than a desire to be in power. In short, the Minister of Justice had to apologize for organizing this event, since it was so blatant.It was the same thing when the Minister of Finance met with port authority representatives in Halifax. That event was also attended by businessmen who had very important things they wanted to talk to the Minister of Finance about. Here again, they were not card-carrying members of the Liberal Party who wanted to know more about his vision for the country, and nor were they Haligonians interested in finding out what their 35 or 36 Liberal MPs are doing for Atlantic Canada. They were lobbyists with specific interests who knew full well that paying $1,500—that is now $1,575—would give them direct access to the minister and a chance to voice their concerns or make specific requests.Those are two of the more egregious examples. Luckily, editors-in-chief at Canada's major daily papers got wind of them. Journalists tend to be pretty lenient with this government, but these two typical cash for access functions stank so badly of corruption that the media ran the stories.The Prime Minister himself said that this practice lacked transparency and that it likely should not be condoned in Canadian politics because it would only make Canadians more cynical and less likely to want to take part in democracy when they see that it takes $1,500 to gain access to the Minister of Finance. When the media reported that and the Prime Minister and the government acknowledged that it was unfortunate for Canadian democracy, the Liberals decided to fix the problem by introducing Bill C-50, which, as I said from the outset, seeks to formalize and legitimize fundraising activities that provide special access.What questions were raised in the House by my colleague from York—Simcoe, “Let us go back and see what happens. Is there anything in the bill that would stop the exact same thing from happening again?” The answer is no.He went on, “Is there anything that would discourage it, because that maximum donation to the party is publicly disclosed anyhow?”No, this will not prevent cash for access fundraisers from happening again. This is a smokescreen. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that will prevent this type of corruption in Canada. On the contrary, the Liberal government is merely legitimizing and formalizing rampant corruption and giving itself a leg up when it comes to fundraising in Canada.(1815)We must condemn this. It is absolutely shameful.As the member for Beauport—Limoilou, I strongly oppose this bill.Butts, GeraldC-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing)Cabinet ministersElectoral systemFundraising and fundraisersGovernment billsLobbying and lobbyistsOffice of the Prime MinisterOntarioPolitical partiesPolitical staffReport stageTelford, KatieKevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada Elections ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1820)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the current government was caught red-handed. It seems obvious that if it had not been caught red-handed, it would have continued organizing these fundraisers. In any case, it is still engaging in this type of activity in a way. The Liberals are just taking a break from their cash for access fundraising events. They will pick up where they left off just as soon as the bill passes third reading, meaning that they will have legitimized and formalized a type of fundraising corruption in Canada. That is what the Liberals are doing.Let's look at what they are doing with cannabis. It was illegal, but they saw this new product as an unprecedented money-making opportunity for their friends who are in business or play the stock market. This started 10 or 15 years ago in Canada with medical marijuana. Members of the larger Liberal family figured out that legalized cannabis could earn them billions of dollars.The government has run gigantic deficits and needs to replenish its coffers by taxing a drug. The sole purpose of legalizing cannabis and this bill is to please the Liberal elite and help get the current government re-elected in 2019. We are going to do whatever it takes to stop that from happening.C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing)Electoral systemFundraising and fundraisersGovernment billsPolitical partiesReport stagePierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookeMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada Elections ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1820)[English]Mr. Speaker, bluntly, the answer is simple. The only reason the Liberals did not accept any amendments in committee hearings from experts, all the arguments brought forward by the official opposition of Her Majesty, is that the bill was written in a way that would ensure they could continue cash for access starting next month. That is the single goal of the government: to start cash for access again, put money in their coffers, and get back to power in two years. C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing)Electoral systemFundraising and fundraisersGovernment billsParliamentary Secretaries of the House of CommonsPolitical partiesPolitical staffReport stageMichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersFederal Public Sector Labour Relations ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North stated that in the last two years his government had worked so hard to bring about this bill, and to make life better for bureaucrats. However, while the Liberals have worked so hard to put forward the bill, they have not fixed Phoenix. Just this morning we learned that 193,000 bureaucrats in Canada were touched by Phoenix. Some people still do not have any pay. Some people have lost their houses. How can that colleague say that for the last two years the Liberals have worked hard for bureaucrats to help them in their lives, and yet they have been unable to fix Phoenix? It is outrageous.C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other ActsComputer systemsGovernment billsIncome and wagesLabour relationsPhoenixPublic Service and public servantsSecond readingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersFederal Public Sector Labour Relations ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1225)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in this august House for the first time in 2018. We were elected in 2015 and here we are in 2018 already. Life goes so fast. I would like to wish all of the citizens of Beauport—Limoilou, many of whom are tuning in today, a very happy New Year, health, prosperity and happiness. I am very happy to have seen them throughout Parliament’s winter break and during door-to-door events and various activities, including the Christmas gala at my constituency office. I thank them for attending in large numbers.It is unfortunate that the member across the way has left, but in February 2016, the Gartner report said quite clearly that the Phoenix system had major problems and should not be implemented. The report also featured some important recommendations that would have allowed us to avoid the considerable problems now facing public servants, if only the Liberal government had shown as much wisdom as we have, and followed those recommendations and if it had not given the project the green light in February 2016. I would like to respond to certain allegations by my Liberal colleagues today, but I must first say that Bill C-62 is an outright abdication by the executive for electoral gains. In 2015, we Conservatives were forced to call an election four months early because the major unions in Canada would not stop making electoral expenditures day after day, week after week, to help either the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party, because those parties had apparently given them what they wanted. They absolutely wanted to defeat the Conservatives and were spending millions of dollars on advertising against us on television, on the radio and in print media. That is why it was the longest election in Canadian history. We were honourable and we had to respond to those daily frontal media attacks from the unions. We therefore triggered the election campaign to be able to use electoral funds ourselves to respond to those attacks.Without even realizing it, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge accurately described this bill when he said that his government is working hand-in-hand with the major unions. He could not have said it better. With Bill C-62, the government is not only abdicating its responsibilities to the benefit of big union bosses, who claim to be great leaders who want to protect workers, but it is also returning the favour to the major unions that supported the Liberal Party in 2015 to bring down one of the best governments in the history of Canada. In 10 years, the previous Conservative government got Canada through the biggest economic crisis in world history since the Great Depression in 1929 and 1930. In short, it is shameful that these unions interfered in an election campaign without the support of their members.Furthermore, I am fed up of hearing our colleague from Winnipeg North portray himself as the paragon of universal virtue, as if the Liberal government was the only one to have good intentions and to work for the well-being of public servants, for Canadians and for humanity. It is completely ridiculous. Every Canadian government, be it Liberal or Conservative, works for the well-being of this country. Will they one day stop harping on about these platitudes, telling us that Conservatives do not work for the well-being of all Canadians or all of humanity? It is utter nonsense, and I am starting to get really fed up. It is extreme arrogance. We respect public servants, and that is why we had two objectives when we introduced Bills C-377 and C-525.(1230)First, we wanted to ensure the sustainability of public service pensions. If there is one thing we can do to show respect for our public servants, who work very hard for Canada, and keep the government apparatus running smoothly, it is to ensure that, when the day comes, they will retire with honour and dignity, and have access to a sustainable, vital pension that really exists.When we came to power after the era of Paul Martin and the Liberals from 1990 to 2004, we had to face the facts. Not only had millions of sick days been banked, be we could foresee some major deficits in the public service pension fund in the following decades. Together, both of these things threaten not only existing pension funds as they now stand, but also access to these pension funds for any public servant retiring in the next 10, 20, 30 or 40 years. We have so much respect for public servants that we made difficult decisions for them. They are not the executive, the government is. We made decisions to ensure that they could retire with dignity when the time came. That was Bill C-377. There was also Bill C-525 to promote democracy in labour organizations and unions in Canada. This House is one of the most democratic in the world, if not the most democratic. Is it any wonder that we did everything in our power to further promote democracy within unions? It is unfathomable that one of the first things the Liberals did after arriving on Parliament Hill was to try to repeal the provision of Bill C-525 that allows for a secret vote at union meetings. There are sometimes thousands of people at union meetings. There is intimidation. There is strong-arming. Things get rowdy. Not all Canadians have the courage to voice their opinion, as they may be afraid of being bullied. Have we not been talking for weeks and months about the many types of bullying in Canadian society? In the world of unions, there is bullying. It is no secret. It is a huge factor. We were working not only for public servants, but also for workers. We wanted to give them a secret ballot so they could vote transparently and without fear of recrimination to determine the direction of their union leadership and the decisions made. With the Liberals, we are dealing with a party that is completely blind. It is blind to the sustainability of pension funds in the public sector and sometimes the private sector. It is even blind to the sustainability of insurance for seniors in Canada. We made a decision that I found to be very interesting as a young man. I am now 31 years old and was 27 at the time. We decided to raise the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67. That was probably one of the most courageous decisions for an OECD country, for a G7 country. It was clearly something that needed to be done. When he was a Bay Street tycoon in Toronto, the Minister of Finance wrote a fantastic book in which he said that this was exactly what needed to be done and that Mr. Harper’s government had made a very good decision. The member for Winnipeg North should set a better example for all his colleagues. He should stop being arrogant, truly work for public servants, resolve the problems with Phoenix, and stop claiming he has the moral high ground. We worked for workers with Bill C-525 to give them a secret ballot. We worked with public servants to ensure the sustainability of their pension funds with Bill C-377. I will close by saying that Bill C-62 is an abdication by the executive in favour of the major unions. The purpose of this bill is to reward them in order to obtain electoral gains in 2019.C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other ActsComputer systemsElection campaignsGovernment billsIncome and wagesLabour relationsLabour unionsOld Age SecurityPensions and pensionersPublic Service and public servantsSecond readingSecret ballotsSick leaveSylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixAdamVaughanSpadina—Fort York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersFederal Public Sector Labour Relations ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, democracy entails the competition of interest groups. We would like it to be different, but that is how it works. We have to put interest groups and competition on a level playing field in this country. As much as I respect them, bureaucrats are part of an interest group. Most Canadians will never have the wealth in their life that bureaucrats will have, for example, with their retirement pension, which is amazing. Most Canadians in my riding will not have a retirement pension from the government. We were executively responsible. We told the unions of the bureaucrats how it was going to work to ensure that a public pension plan would be a household phrase for every Canadian in 40 years, because Canadians put a lot of money into those pension plans. People who work in shops and pizzerias, and only earn 12 bucks an hour, pay for public pensions. Therefore, we as executives have to make sure it is equitable for all Canadians. That is why we did it, and that is being responsible.C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other ActsGovernment billsLabour relationsPensions and pensionersPublic Service and public servantsSecond readingAdamVaughanSpadina—Fort YorkBrigitteSansoucySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersFederal Public Sector Labour Relations ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1235)[Translation]Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. The three branches of power in Canada have equal footing with respect to the interpretation of the Constitution, despite what many people might think.The legislative branch and the executive branch have every constitutional right to decide whether to move forward or act in accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada. Under the notwithstanding clause, section 33 of the Canadian Constitution, the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada may not be followed. The Jean Chrétien government was skilled at that. When that government disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling, it would bring back a bill and insert a preamble explaining that the Supreme Court had completely misunderstood the purpose of the bill.For example, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban tobacco advertising at Montreal's Formula 1 because that infringed on private companies' freedom of expression. The Jean Chrétien government reintroduced the legislation saying that the Supreme Court of Canada had erred in its constitutional interpretation.#Thus, the legislative branch has the right to ignore the Supreme Court of Canada. Competition between the three branches of power guarantees the constitutional supremacy of our great federation.C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other ActsConstitutionalityEssential servicesGovernment billsLabour relationsSecond readingBrigitteSansoucySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersFederal Public Sector Labour Relations ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I really do not see the logic in the question. Everybody in Canada has the right to unionize. It is part of Canadian law. If they want to create a union, they should go for it. If they want to create a political party, they should go for it. If they want to do something in Canada, all they need is courage, energy, and take action.C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other ActsGovernment billsLabour relationsLabour unionsSecond readingMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1455)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, veterans have made the solemn decision to turn to the Supreme Court of Canada.In 2015, the Prime Minister promised them, hand on his heart, the return to a real pension for life. He also promised them that they would never ever have to take the government to court to fight for their own rights and their pensions. That is another broken promise. This time it affects our valiant veterans.Will the Prime Minister honour the solemn promise he made in 2015 to our veterans or will he once again turn his back on our valiant soldiers?Disabled veteransOral questionsPensions and pensionersVeteransVeterans benefitsGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount Pearl//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSalaries ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1035)[Translation]Madam Speaker, as usual, I would like to say hello to the people of Beauport—Limoilou who are tuning in today. Unfortunately, I have to tell them that we are debating Bill C-24 at third reading this morning. This is one of those typically Liberal bills designed to satisfy special interest groups that support Liberals and lend credence to their ideological views.I found it particularly interesting to see the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons champion the bill so passionately, but I do have questions about some of her arguments.First of all, I wonder if, in defending the bill, the minister is putting on an act or if she truly does not understand the difference between ministers, who are responsible for portfolios crucial to the nation, and ministers of state, who are there to lend a hand and support other departments of national importance. Five major federal ministers have always had a seat at the cabinet table, namely the Minister of Finance, the Treasury Board minister, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and the Minister of National Revenue. Those five cabinet positions have always existed, and they have always been important to the government's ability to govern well.The minister also said repeatedly in her speech how important Bill C-24 is for gender equality among cabinet ministers. That is not exactly how many of her colleagues seem to understand it. At the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which I was honoured to serve on for over a year in 2016 and 2017, many Liberal members thought that, on the contrary, Bill C-24 was not about achieving gender equality.When the committee was hearing from witnesses for the bill's study, the member for Newmarket—Aurora said:I'm not sure the purpose of this bill was at all to express gender equality....I don't think it's meant to be a tool that's going to address gender inequality, pay equity, or any of the other issues you raised...The member for Châteauguay—Lacolle, who also serves on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, thinks that ministries of state should be called emerging ministries. This is another example that illustrates that the Liberals do not seem to understand the difference between ministries of state and departments critical to good governance, such as the Department of Finance.The hon. Liberal member from Don Valley East told the witnesses:I was as confused as you were about why we are even talking about gender equity....I thank you for being here, but I don't think we have the relevance to our study for Bill C-24...Let's not be disingenuous and try to say that [Bill C-24] has anything to do with gender equality...I simply wanted to mention these small details to show that despite the speech by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons today at third reading stage of Bill C-24, a number of her colleagues expressed an opposite view in committee, that the bill had nothing to do with gender equity. It is just a tool to take up the House's time and distract from other awful realities that this government would rather not talk about, namely its capacity to break promise after promise since it was elected in 2015. (1040)For example, the Liberals broke their promise to run a deficit of $10 billion a year. That is well known in Canada. Now they are running deficits of more than $20 billion. They also broke their promise to balance the budget by 2019. That has been put off indefinitely. They do not even have the honour or decency to announce a target date for balancing the budget. Then they broke their promise to move forward with electoral reform and to change the Canadian electoral system, which was a key election promise. They also broke their promise to restore home mail delivery for all Canadians by making Canada Post review its policy to stop home mail delivery. They also broke their promise not to introduce omnibus bills, which have been piling up over the past two years. As a matter of fact, we debated an omnibus bill in the House just yesterday. They also broke their promise to give veterans the option of choosing a lifetime pension by restoring the system that was in effect before 2005, or before the new veterans charter was introduced.Those are just a few examples of the Liberals' broken promises. That is this government's track record. I am pointing that out because Bill C-24 is yet another attempt to hide another broken promise, the promise to have true gender parity in cabinet. When the Prime Minister formed his cabinet two weeks after winning the election in 2015, he was very proud to announce to the media at a press conference that he had a gender-balanced cabinet. When he was asked why, he responded “Because it's 2015”. It is already mind-boggling enough that a prime minister would not have a better explanation than that, but in the months that followed, journalists, Canadians, interest groups, and women's rights groups slowly became aware of something that the Prime Minister was trying to slip past them. His cabinet was gender balanced with regard to the number of men and women at the cabinet table, but not with regard to the importance of the positions they held.At the beginning of my speech, I named Canada's most important government departments. For example, the head of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is a man. The same is true of the Treasury Board, the Department of Finance, and the Department of National Defence. The only other department that is undeniably important to the government is the Department of Foreign Affairs. Of the five major departments, only one is led by a woman.Women were chosen to head a few other departments, such as the Department of Indigenous Services and the Department of Health. However, all of the other women in cabinet are ministers of state. It is not that they are less important, but they do not lead real departments with an office building, thousands of employees, a minister's office, and the tools needed to properly manage a major department.In practical terms, Bill C-24 would do two things. First, it would eliminate the positions of the ministers responsible for Canada's economic development agencies. Second, it would create eight new federal minister positions. Five of them would be ministers of state who would receive the same salary as full ministers, thanks to an amendment to the Salaries Act that is supposedly intended to ensure parity within cabinet.We Conservatives have no choice but to oppose Bill C-24, if only because abolishing the positions of the ministers responsible for economic development agencies would have such a detrimental effect on the well-being of Canada and all of its regions. (1045)Regional economic development agencies play a pivotal role in Canada. They help thousands of projects get off the ground in every province and major region. Canada is divided into five regions: the Atlantic region, Quebec, Ontario, the western region, and the Pacific region. Each of these regions has its own economic development agency, whose job is to determine the basic needs of its small and medium-sized municipalities and large urban centres.The Liberal government's decision to eliminate the positions of the ministers responsible for these six economic development agencies is a clear attempt to centralize power in Canada. Every time the Liberal Party comes into power, its goal is to centralize power in Ottawa, within the federal administration. That is what it tried to do with the health agreements it recently negotiated with the provinces, when it made their funding subject to conditions. Now it is doing the same thing on a bigger scale by abolishing the positions of the ministers responsible for regional agencies. For example, Mr. Denis Lebel, who was our political lieutenant for Quebec, was responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Every year, the agency distributes roughly $200 million only in Quebec, specifically to revitalize municipal neighbourhoods, provide small and medium-sized businesses with new tools, and finance concrete projects in small airports to help local businesses get much faster access to major centres and even to other countries. A minister in charge of a regional economic development agency is a bit like an MP. As members, we visit our ridings to understand the daily needs of our constituents. We participate in events and we do canvassing, not to mention the work we do in our offices, where we welcome constituents. This enables us to hear what they have to say about bills and government politics, and especially about pressing, local needs. A minister who represents a regional economic development agency has a similar job, but they do it for the designated region as a whole. In this case, I am speaking of Quebec. Denis Lebel was the minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. His duties as a minister and political lieutenant included visiting companies and making ministerial announcements. He travelled all over the province, meeting citizens and entrepreneurs and visiting small and medium municipalities, entrepreneurial communities, or even community development organizations, in order to determine what they needed. Like an MP, a minister responsible for an economic development agency must come back here to Ottawa and report to cabinet about the region he or she represents.(1050)When Parliament is sitting, we are all expected to come to the House every week, whether it is fall or spring. We are expected to come here and report to the House or to our national caucuses on what our constituents, the various orders of government in our regions, our municipalities, and our ridings need. Collaboration and synergy between the different orders of government is always a good thing. The work we do in the House is exactly what the ministers responsible for regional economic development agencies do in reporting to cabinet and ultimately to public servants and the Prime Minister. These people provide an essential link between the needs on the ground and the whole governmental and bureaucratic apparatus in Ottawa. Every department that is responsible for allocating funds for projects across Canada is part of an extremely complex state system that is like an endless bureaucratic web. It involves 300,000 public servants in Canada, and the decisions they make often take a very long time. The work of the ministers responsible for economic development agencies was therefore central to the actual funding allocated for projects, because they were there in Ottawa to establish a connection between the needs on the ground and government priorities and to navigate administrative and bureaucratic processes. For example, the minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec at the time, Denis Lebel, was handed a list of projects several times a month, and he had to approve the really big ones. His role and responsibility was to ensure that what he was hearing on the ground informed the public service's administrative priorities so that the most important projects got done as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, the Liberal government cut cabinet positions associated with various economic development regions in Canada and put one person in charge of all the economic development agencies in the country. That person is the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, an MP from Toronto who already heads up a major department. He is now responsible for being up on what is going on with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, for example. He also has to be aware of what is going on with economic development agencies for western Canada, Quebec, and Ontario. He is the person who is supposedly going to be familiar with the issues affecting every little community and every region across Canada and who is going to make sure they get money for the projects that matter most to them. It is hard to understand how the Liberal government was unable to find one person among the 30 members from Atlantic Canada with the right skills and who would have been honoured to head the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.We can already predict what will happen. Projects submitted to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency were generally authorized or would move forward after about 30 days or so; we now see delays of more than 90 days. This centralization will have a major impact on how money is allocated to the communities and regions of Canada. It is impossible to believe that a minister from Toronto will be able to single-handedly grasp all of Canada's regional concerns.As far as the gender-balanced cabinet is concerned, the Liberals are once again getting taxpayers to foot the bill for one of their political mistakes. The Liberals led Canadians to believe that theirs was a gender-balanced cabinet, but it is balanced only in terms of numbers. It is not balanced in terms of ministerial importance. To fix their mistake, the Liberals are telling Canadians that they will give every minister of state the same salary as “real” ministers.(1055)Again, taxpayers are paying for a Liberal mistake.C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration ActCabinet ministersEconomic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of QuebecEqual opportunitiesGovernment billsIncome and wagesRegional development agenciesRegional diversityThird reading and adoptionCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingFilomenaTassiHamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSalaries ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1100)[English]Madam Speaker, I am quite surprised by the affirmation of the member across the aisle, because the House leader emphasized throughout her speech, just three minutes ago, that on the contrary, the purpose of this bill is gender equity. It would show Canadians how important gender equity is to the government.I would say that the member is wrong. The Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities, for example, is not as important as the Minister of Finance. That is exactly why the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities is a minister of state and the salaries are not the same. The reason is quite simple. Real ministries have buildings, employees, and a ministerial cabinet with about 40 staffers. They must make sure that governmental responsibilities and goals are brought forward, which is not the case for ministers of state, who are there to support bigger ministries.C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration ActCabinet ministersGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionFilomenaTassiHamilton West—Ancaster—DundasPierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSalaries ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1100)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I agree completely with my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.The Liberals have been doing a terrible job over the past year. The softwood lumber crisis is still ongoing, although it should have been resolved when President Obama was still in power. The member for Papineau said he had an excellent relationship with the American president, so he should have taken advantage of that to resolve the situation before a new president was elected.There is also the NAFTA file, which, by all accounts, is a mess. It is still unresolved. We will probably have to wait until the summer of 2018 to find out whether NAFTA can be saved.Today in the House, instead of having a dialogue about how to reach a deal, how to make sure NAFTA is salvaged and Canadian interests are protected, or how to make sure the softwood lumber crisis is resolved, something that is very important to Quebec and B.C., we are debating a bill to increase ministers' salaries, which means, once again, that taxpayers will have to pay for this government's political mistakes.C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration ActCabinet ministersGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionPierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-HubertSeanCaseyCharlottetown//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSalaries ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1105)[English]Madam Speaker, I have the utmost respect for every single member in this House. That is not the question. I did not question the competence or goals of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Of course he wants good things for Canada and wants to make sure that all regions can access the money necessary for their economic projects.I was referring to pragmatism, rationality, and the necessity of having a minister responsible for a specific region who comes from the region, who knows, almost by heart, the needs of the people and is sensitive to the needs of the region. It should be someone who has grown up there and lives there now and knows the place, knows the ground, and knows the people and goes there every single weekend after a week of work here in the House of Commons. That is the goal of having ministers responsible for economic development agencies. Those people know the regions, because they are from the regions. I am not questioning the competence or the knowledge of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development concerning Canada, but he does not have specific knowledge of each region. He does not have the time to go to each region to hear about people's concerns and needs.C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration ActCabinet ministersGovernment billsRegional development agenciesRegional diversityThird reading and adoptionSeanCaseyCharlottetownDavidTilsonDufferin—Caledon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSalaries ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1105)[English]Madam Speaker, yes, of course. I was knocking on doors two weeks ago, and I spoke about the bill to some of my constituents. They were a bit mad, I would say, since they see all the different issues coming to their door more and more. The Prime Minister went to China for no apparent reason. Well, he said he had a reason, but his own reason, the free trade agreement with China, has not come to any result. There is the softwood lumber crisis, which has not been dealt with. We also have the NAFTA negotiations, which are in disarray. The government does not seem to be putting any strategy forward to make sure that it does not fall apart.Now we have this bill that would basically close down representation of all regions of Canada in cabinet. As well, it would increase the salaries of ministers of state to that of ministers. However, ministers of state do not have the same amount of responsibility as ministers. That is why their salaries have not been the same. It is all about competence and equality of responsibilities.C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration ActCabinet ministersGovernment billsIncome and wagesThird reading and adoptionDavidTilsonDufferin—CaledonDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodInternational TradeInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, all free trade in Canada, including CETA, is an accomplishment of the former Conservative government.[Translation]The Liberal government is racking up failure after failure on international trade. NAFTA is falling apart, the trans-Pacific partnership is not being taken seriously since the Liberals do not even bother to attend important meetings, and while we still wait for a softwood lumber agreement, our industry has been penalized with countervailing duties for over a year now.Will the Liberals stop behaving like amateurs and take action once and for all on all of these issues?Negotiations and negotiatorsNorth American Free Trade AgreementOral questionsTrade agreementsGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodInternational TradeInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1145)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his efforts.Since the NAFTA renegotiations began, the Conservative Party has simply been asking the minister to take our federation's core priorities seriously. In response, she and her parliamentary secretary attack us every time we ask trade-related questions, even though we are the party of free trade.I appeal to the minister to please answer my question. Now that we know for sure that an agreement will not be reached before 2018, can she at least assure us that she will do everything in her power to save NAFTA, since we are at that point?Agreements and contractsCanada-United States relationsNegotiations and negotiatorsNorth American Free Trade AgreementOral questionsAndrewLeslieHon.OrléansAndrewLeslieHon.Orléans//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSalaries ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1335)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I took part in this debate a few weeks ago and I kept repeating the same thing in what I would call a philosophical critique of the bill.First, I think that making cabinet gender balanced is a terrible idea because having qualified ministers should be more important than gender parity.In fact, I would go so far as to say that parity is the Liberals' way to prevent women from advancing to cabinet. Under this bill, women will never be able to make up more than 50% of cabinet. Is that just or fair considering that, for decades, men made up 100%, 70%, or 60% of cabinet? Now, the very clear message to women is that never will they ever represent more than half the cabinet. That is an interesting way of looking at this and I would not be surprised if that were the Liberal's primary objective.C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration ActCabinet ministersEqual opportunitiesGovernment billsMale dominated occupationsReport stageKylePetersonNewmarket—AuroraKylePetersonNewmarket—Aurora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1145)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for his speech. His introduction was very interesting because he explained the relationship that indigenous peoples have with animals and the planet Earth, the history of humanity, namely that there is a sacred relationship between man and animals, a reciprocal relationship based on the ethics of living together.In the 2015-16 budget and in this one, and following the COP21 negotiations in Paris, the Liberal government decided to send billions of dollars to poor countries in the developing world to help them with climate change. It is not a sure thing that they will use the money for that purpose.I would like to ask my colleague a question. I know that he will understand because he is an anthropologist. From the perspective of intergenerational ethics, can we really ask a generation, or the generation of living Canadians, to pay for the mistakes of their ancestors who have supposedly polluted the planet? Is this legitimate in terms of intergenerational ethics? In terms of the ethics of international relations, is it okay to send billions of dollars overseas to compensate for the mistakes of our ancestors? Do we have to pay for these mistakes?Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measuresClimate change and global warmingGovernment billsInternational development and aidReport stageRobert-FalconOuelletteWinnipeg CentreRobert-FalconOuelletteWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1155)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as usual, I would like to acknowledge the people of Beauport—Limoilou who are listening to us today. I am sure they have some serious questions with respect to all of the question period speeches they have been watching on television or reading about in the papers.Canadians are all wondering the same thing: can we trust the Minister of Finance? As we debate the 2017 budget and the proposed spending to achieve the government's objectives, all Canadians are watching the Minister of Finance closely and wondering if they can trust him. Indeed, over the past three months, the finance minister has done some things and shown some lapses in judgment that have been revealed by journalists, the official opposition, the NDP, and Canadians. Paradoxically, ironically, and sadly, members of the Liberal Party are still smiling and laughing about it today, and not taking it seriously. As my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil was finishing his speech this morning on yesterday's motion, which calls on the government to end the debate on the 2017 budget implementation bill, we saw several members of the Liberal Party laughing and dismissing it all as nonsense. Basically, they are saying the opposition is lampooning them and engaging in gutter politics, but that is not at all the case.Since July, the Minister of Finance has been saying that he wants to stand up for taxpayers by going after people who cheat when filing their income tax returns to pay less in taxes. To that end, he implemented certain tax reforms, or rather tax hikes for small and medium-sized businesses, which create jobs for the so-called middle class that the government is always talking about. I have a problem with all of that. We should be talking about Canadians, not about classes. Meanwhile, the minister hid from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner that he had a company in France, which owns his villa there. He paid a $200 fine for that just under a month ago.While he was trying to go after small and medium-sized businesses, farmers, mechanics, and hairdressers, among others, he made millions of dollars on his shares in Morneau Shepell, which he held until recently and were worth roughly $20 million. Instead of putting those assets in a blind trust, he hid them in a numbered company in Alberta. While he was going after small businesses that create jobs in Canada, he failed to disclose to the Ethics Commissioner the fact that he had assets in France and Alberta. What is more, he devised and introduced a bill that seeks to make changes to Canada's pension plans and will benefit three companies that specialize in pensions, including Morneau Shepell.The Minister of Finance keeps spouting nonsense every time we ask him if we can trust him in light of the revelations from journalists and the official opposition. Yesterday, our venerable official opposition finance critic, the hon. member for Carleton, and several other opposition members, asked a very specific question. It takes a lot for me to feel discouraged, but I am starting to have serious doubts about the integrity of this Minister of Finance.(1200)The hon. member for Carleton reminded him that he introduced a bill in 2015, after the Liberal government was elected, making changes that, according to the Liberals, would increase taxes on the wealthiest. That is not what happened. Several academic papers show that it is not the case. Ultimately, the wealthy are paying less taxes.In short, two weeks before the announcement of the bill's implications for the stock market, the Minister of Finance—or someone else, but we do not know who—sold millions of Morneau Shepell shares in order to save about half a million dollars. If it was not the minister, can he tell us who it was? Yesterday, during question period, he did not answer.The situation has only gotten worse over the past three months. After the villa in France, the $20 million in Morneau Shepell shares hidden in Alberta, and the bill that benefited Morneau Shepell, today we learned that someone sold shares to avoid the consequences of the proposed tax increase.The Minister of Finance must stop playing ridiculous, partisan politics, which are no longer acceptable. It is high time he gave serious answers to the questions asked by the official opposition of Canada. We represent the Canadian people and we hold the government to account to ensure ministerial responsibility. The members of the Liberal Party of Canada must stop making light of the situation. Their Minister of Finance has committed serious violations. He must answer the questions and stop telling us nonsense day after day in the House.I would still like to say a few words about the 2017 federal budget. Once again, it is a completely ridiculous budget and the Liberals are calling it a feminist budget. The budget should be for all Canadians, not just a special interest group. Of course, we know that the Liberals are centralists and that they work on behalf of special interest groups, including post-materialist groups.What is more, this budget is in the red and speaks to the many promises the government has broken. Unfortunately, what has defined the Liberals over the past two years is a series of broken promises, including their promise on electoral reform. We are lucky that they broke that promise, because it would be a very bad idea to change the way we vote in Canada. We must retain our Westminster system of voting. The Liberals also broke another promise they made to their environmentalist base by keeping the same greenhouse gas emissions targets as our Conservative government. Most importantly, the Liberals said that they would run a modest deficit of $10 billion per year in their first two years in office, when in reality they ran a deficit of $30 billion in the first year and $19 billion in the second year, 2017-18. What is even more worrisome is that they broke their promise to balance the budget by 2019-20, even though we are not in an economic crisis or at war. They themselves are saying that the economy is doing great. When we, the Conservatives, ran a deficit in 2008-09, it was because Canada was weathering the worst economic crisis since 1929 and 1930. Today, there is no economic crisis and no war, so there is no reason for the government to be running a deficit. A recent article in the Financial Post indicated that, according to the OECD, household debt, particularly mortgage debt, is the highest it has ever been. For the past few years, the household debt ratio in Canada, including debt for houses, cars, and all the rest, has been the highest of all the OECD countries. This could have a serious impact on Canada's economic growth.(1205)The Liberals say the economy is doing great. They keep sending Canadians an endless stream of Canada child benefit cheques. Despite adding up to thousands of dollars a year, they do not seem to be working, because Canadian households are more in debt than ever. This debt could be extremely dangerous for the country. How can we expect Canadians to behave any differently, when the example they are given is a Minister of Finance who cannot be trusted and a government that urges them to spend as recklessly as it does? It is time for the Liberals to get a grip on themselves.Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)Budget deficitC-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measuresEthics and ethical issuesFinancial assetsGovernment billsMinister of FinanceMorneau ShepellMorneau, BillPensions and pensionersPersonal debtReferences to membersReport stageSmall and medium-sized enterprisesStocks, shares and shareholdersWomenBruceStantonSimcoe NorthMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, the impact is quite clear. In 20 years our kids will pay for all the demands that they have brought forward. I remind the hon. member across the aisle that I did not say that the content of the budget was ridiculous. I was speaking of the way it was presented and titled as a “feminist budget”. Is it possible in this country or in any parliamentary democracy for a budget to refer to a particular group or gender? This is unbelievable and unacceptable. The budget should be for all Canadians, not only in its content but in the way it is presented. Financial Post journalist, Mr. Watson said, “Turns out the Harper government was actually terrific for wage growth.”. In the last two years of the government under Mr. Harper, we saw wage growth as we have never seen in Canada. We created 1.2 million jobs in the last decade.All of the fruits that the Liberal government is harvesting in the last two years are because of the work of the Conservative government from 2006 to 2015 and its $3-billion surplus. That is the reality. Stop playing politics and work for all Canadians.Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)Budget deficitC-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measuresGovernment billsReport stageWomenMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1210)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I am pleased to elaborate on that. When I hear the government say that the most important relationship is that with the indigenous peoples, I wonder what the problem is. The important relationship is the one with all Canadians. Indigenous peoples are Canadians. I am a Canadian. Everyone here is Canadian. I find that truly absurd.I would also say that the issue of indigenous peoples and reserves is very complex. It is truly unfortunate to see everything that is going on. To think that there are still reserves that do not have running water is beyond me. I agree with you.That being said, what bothers me the most is that one of the first pieces of legislation from this government withdrew provisions on transparency on the reserves. That policy was very important because one of the fundamental problems on the reserves is that the native elite are the ones who pocket the money, who benefit the most from it without taking good care of their people. That is a serious problem on the reserves. We legislated on transparency in a very important piece of legislation that indigenous peoples appreciated. Without the transparency provisions indigenous peoples are now unable to hold their chiefs accountable. Once again, this government is working for interest groups and not for Canadians, and especially not for indigenous peoples, other than to issue an apology of course.Aboriginal peoplesBudget 2017 (March 22, 2017)C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measuresCare for childrenChildrenGovernment billsReport stageAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—SuroîtKenMcDonaldAvalon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersChristmasInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1405)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Christmas is a holy day where families come together to share love, happiness, and stories. In Beauport—Limoilou, thousands of families will get together to celebrate Christmas. This Christmas season, I look forward to welcoming hundreds of people from Beauport—Limoilou to my office in Quebec City to celebrate the arrival of Christmas and the new year. My Christmas party will take place on Wednesday, December 20 from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., and I invite everyone from Beauport—Limoilou to come out and meet me and my family, share their concerns, talk about politics, or just have a good time. Santa Claus himself is even expected to make an appearance for the little ones.I would like to wish everyone in Beauport—Limoilou and all Canadians a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. Thank you and merry Christmas to everyone.Beauport—LimoilouChristmasStatements by MembersStevenMacKinnonGatineauFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1150)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague was not talking about the fight against ISIS. He was talking about how this government is treating our serving military members. Its treatment of them is callous. It is turning its back on our veterans and even now threatening to cut the monthly allowance for injured soldiers. The Liberals are proposing a state-funded program for radicalized terrorists, but they are not even providing a similar level of service to law-abiding Canadian citizens.Why should terrorists who fought against our country be entitled to free reintegration services even as the Liberals abandon our own veterans and serving military members?Canadian ForcesCanadian Special Operations Forces CommandCanadians in foreign countriesHardship allowancesIslamic State of Iraq and the LevantNational securityOral questionsRisk allowancesSick leaveTerrorism and terroristsJeanRiouxSaint-JeanJeanRiouxSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Finance Minister's assets]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1105)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the member for Louis-Hébert and I are about the same age. We are both involved in our communities and in politics, as evidenced by our presence here as members of the House of Commons.At the very beginning of his term in office, I remember the member for Louis-Hébert telling the media loud and clear that he wanted to fight cynicism, which he felt was rampant in our society. Perhaps if he takes a step back, he will see that he is not living up to that ideal and that he is actually contributing to the cynicism he says he wants to fight. Although his government has done some things that make sense and are good for Canadians, today we are debating a very important motion, one that will help fight cynicism and make the Minister of Finance realize that he has done things to undermine Canadians' confidence.The member for Louis-Hébert came very close to having a question of privilege raised against him, which is very serious, when he shamelessly said that the Minister of Finance had disclosed everything to the Ethics Commissioner, which was not the case. He did not disclose his villa in France, which earned him a $200 fine. I would therefore ask the member for Louis-Hébert to redeem himself and to openly acknowledge that he knows that today we are debating one very specific thing, namely the Minister of Finance's responsibility to be 100% ethically clean. What we want him to do as parliamentary secretary is to assure us that the Minister of Finance does not have any assets that could put him in a conflict of interest situation. Conflict of interestFinancial assetsMinister of FinanceMorneau, BillOpposition motionsReferences to membersJoëlLightboundLouis-HébertJoëlLightboundLouis-Hébert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Finance Minister's assets]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1200)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, a lot of people in Beauport—Limoilou are listening to us right now, and I want to say hello to them.Our political system is a parliamentary democracy. I believe that it is the best system in the world, and I think all members of the House would agree.In this system, ministerial responsibility is the most important thing we carry out every day, primarily in question period and through opposition days like today. Ministerial responsibility was acquired as a result of long debates and long military campaigns.Les Patriotes were not all French Canadians; they included some English Canadians, too. They fought in the 1820s and 1830s to obtain ministerial responsibility, which the British monarchy and British Parliament granted us with the Act of Union, creating a united Canada in 1841.What we are doing today with our opposition day is exercising that ministerial responsibility and ensuring that it is fulfilled. One of the ways this is done is through investigative journalism, which is very important and which we on this side of the House take very seriously. In fact, with the help of its sponsor here, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, a senator in the other place managed to get a bill passed that provides greater protection to whistleblowers and the confidential sources of investigative journalism.What have investigative journalists discovered in recent months? The Minister of Finance did three things, or overlooked three things, or made three serious mistakes.Need we remind members that the finance minister is second in command in the Government of Canada. He is second in command not because he is more important than other ministers, but it can still be argued that a country's finances are critical given their implications for education, health, and the well-being of Canadians. For that reason, the position of finance minister is held in high regard and the incumbent must do everything possible to ensure that Canadians' confidence in the minister is never in doubt or undermined.Unfortunately, the three things that the finance minister did in two years, which were reported by investigative journalists in recent months, have slowly and surely undermined Canadians' confidence in the minister.In my view, the attitude, behaviour, and actions of all members in their day-to-day activities both inside and outside the House must always be guided by three principles: a sense of duty, a sense of responsibility, and a sense of honour.I urge my Liberal colleagues to listen carefully. The Minister of Finance, like all of us, had the solemn, legal duty to disclose his assets to the Ethics Commissioner right away. He had six months to do so, using a form that is pretty easy to fill out. It may have been more difficult for him, since he has so many assets. However, he had a duty to disclose all of his assets, in black and white, clearly and openly, leaving no doubt and leaving nothing out. He had a duty, and he did not properly fulfill it. I will get back to this and explain why.The minister also had the responsibility, and still does today, to inform the Ethics Commissioner of any changes to his personal situation throughout his term. Such changes would include a new acquisition, a boat in the Bahamas, or, who knows, a second villa in France.(1205)As a member of Parliament, I receive updates from the Ethics Commissioner reminding me of my responsibility and duty to disclose any new assets, throughout my term. For example, I recently declared that I purchased a home for my lovely little family; I was happy to do so. All members of Parliament have this responsibility.In my opinion, however, honour is even more important than duty or responsibility. When members of Parliament are guided by a sense a honour, their actions are naturally guided by a sense of duty and responsibility. The Minister of Finance failed in his duty and his responsibility as an elected official, minister, and member of Cabinet over the past two years, and I will talk about this failure in a few seconds. Unfortunately for him and for this government, he sullied his honour.First, two years ago, when he was made to fill out the much-discussed form disclosing his assets, interests, and so on to the Ethics Commissioner, he forgot, nay, omitted to declare a company incorporated in France that owns a luxurious villa in Provence in the south of France. I imagine it is very luxurious and quite expensive. That is unbelievable.I have here a public notice of penalty issued under the authority of the Conflict of Interest Act. This is not a joke. These are not allegations or opposition attacks. This is fact. The Ethics Commissioner issued a penalty just a few weeks ago and fined the Minister of Finance $200 for violating paragraphs 22(2)(a) and 22(2)(d) of the Conflict of Interest Act by failing to include in a confidential report a corporation established in France and an estimate of its value and, crucially, by failing to include in the report his directorship in that corporation. This is serious business.The Minister of Finance, an important businessman from Bay Street in Toronto who manages a huge family business, somehow forgot to report that asset in France, although he claims it was just an administrative oversight. That is a first. This actually happened; he paid the fine. He was caught and had to face the music, although only administratively. Of course, these are not criminal charges. That was his first dereliction of duty and breach of Canadian laws, the first stain on his reputation, and the first thing that shook Canadians' confidence in him.On top of that, he did not put his shares in Morneau Shepell, worth $20 million, in a blind trust. He hid them in a numbered company in Alberta and has made millions on them over the past two years. Thank goodness he donated it to charity. It was the least he could do, but he still has not apologized and he refuses to talk about the fact that he has been violating the spirit of the law over the past year.Lastly, he is once again being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner regarding a conflict of interest, because he introduced Bill C-27, which makes changes to pension plans and will benefit the family business started by his father. He is therefore in a direct conflict of interest, he failed in his duty and his responsibilities, and his honour is besmirched.C-27, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985Conflict of interestConflict of Interest ActConflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerFinancial assetsGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMinister of FinanceMorneau ShepellMorneau, BillOpposition motionsPenaltiesPensions and pensionersReferences to membersLarryMaguireBrandon—SourisRobertOliphantDon Valley West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Finance Minister's assets]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, I mean, the facts could not be clearer. The minister has not divulged to the Ethics Commissioner his holdings and the value of his holdings; for example, the villa in France. He has not divulged this. He did not say that he had, up until last month, $20 million worth of shares in Morneau Shepell hiding in a numbered company in Alberta. He did not say that in the past months when he was putting together a proposed law that would directly benefit three specialized enterprises or companies that work for pension plans in Canada, one being Morneau Shepell, which he owned until he was minister. The member said that there are no facts, but there are facts. There was a penalty of $200 from the Ethics Commissioner. It is significant.Conflict of interestConflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerFinancial assetsGuidelinesInformation disseminationMinister of FinanceMorneau, BillOpposition motionsPenaltiesReferences to membersRobertOliphantDon Valley WestRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Finance Minister's assets]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, yes, that is the case. I can confirm for the hon. member that last week, when we were all in our ridings, I met many constituents who all told me that it is outrageous, and that it is even more outrageous to see the Minister of Finance acting as if nothing was outrageous. There is a clear conflict of interest here, and we should always remind Canadians that the Prime Minister sent a mandate letter to each minister stating in the first paragraph that not only did he want them to follow precisely each article of the law, and most concerning is this one today of the Ethics Commissioner, but he said to go above and beyond the spirit of the law. Well, I can say that the minister went above and beyond physically by putting all his shares in a hiding company in Alberta. He has put together an action that brings a great distrust of the government from the Canadian people. As the opposition, we have the duty, the responsibility, and the honour to hold the minister to account. Conflict of interestFinancial assetsGovernment accountabilityMinister of FinanceMorneau, BillOpposition motionsReferences to membersRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodOfficial LanguagesInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, nine academics co-signed a letter in which they pose the question: “Who is standing up for official languages in the federal government?”The question is neither inconsequential nor gratuitous. It has been coming up regularly for two years now, but the Liberals seem unconcerned about languages issue, to wit the appointment of an ultra-partisan commissioner, an agreement with Netflix that ignores the francophonie, an action plan that never materializes, and a department that is failing to meet its legal obligations, including obligations with respect to the Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences, the literacy and skills development network. Protecting official languages is obviously not a priority for the Liberals. Why not?Official languages policyOral questionsKirstyDuncanHon.Etobicoke NorthSeanCaseyCharlottetown//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1650)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, one of the key promises the Liberals made in 2015, before they were in government, was to invest $120 billion in infrastructure. The Conservative Party supported the idea from the get-go; indeed, it ran the largest infrastructure program in Canada when Mr. Lebel headed the infrastructure department. This program had planned investments totalling $80 billion, which was unprecedented in Canada.That said, what I find interesting is that, today, two years after the election, very rarely do we hear about a specific project benefiting from the $120 billion that have supposedly been invested since 2015.I wonder if my colleague is able to name a single project in a single province that has benefited from this $120-billion investment in infrastructure.Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measuresGovernment billsGovernment expendituresInfrastructureSecond readingMarcoMendicinoEglinton—LawrenceMarcoMendicinoEglinton—Lawrence//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1700)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell attacked us a bit in his speech when he said that the Conservatives had forgotten the municipalities. That is a bit rich because when we were in government, following the recession, we set in motion the economic recovery plan that allowed every municipality in Canada to benefit from an $85-billion infrastructure plan that did not include a portion for social housing. It was entirely for municipal infrastructure such as bridges and waterworks.By the end of that economic recovery, we had the highest job creation rate in the G7 with 1.2 million jobs created. How does the hon. member explain his government's decision for the past two years and especially in the past few weeks to do away with the regional development minister position for good?How does that reflect any respect for the municipalities in Canada's rural regions?Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measuresCabinet ministersEconomic developmentEconomic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of QuebecGovernment billsJob creationRural communitiesSecond readingTransportation infrastructureFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1705)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, dear Canadians who are watching us, I just want to say, “wow”. One hundred and fifty years ago, on November 6, 1867, the first Canadian parliamentarians from Upper Canada and Lower Canada, as well as the colonies of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia, gathered here in a federal Parliament for the first time. It was surely to have a debate, but I imagine that first day must have been rather solemn. I do not know if they started any work that first day. I imagine they wanted to get started right away on working hard to build a federation from coast to coast. It must have been extraordinary to take part in achieving that dream.I wanted to take a minute or two to say that I agree with what my leader said about his vision of the country, and his take on the parliamentary system and the role of parliamentarians. I was impressed by his speech.Certainly, I want to thank the Prime Minister for taking the time to deliver a speech on this solemn day. I also found it extraordinary that four former prime ministers were here today. I appreciated the speech of the House leader of the New Democratic Party and that of the Bloc Québécois member who took the time to say a few words despite his opposition to our great federation. I am more mature now as I begin my third year as MP than I was at the very beginning. There are three things I consider important and that I would like to bring back to the Canadian political agenda. If I come to Ottawa every week, it is not to talk about rights but about duty. It is not to talk about about pride, but about honour. More importantly, it is not to talk about entitlements but about each individual's responsibility and their role in community development.Guided by these three beacons that shape my approach to parliamentarism and Canadian politics, I come here each week in an attempt to improve things in this country, even only a little bit.I would like nothing more than to be able to speak at length in this House about the Constitution of Canada, the role of the provinces in our constitutional order and the dialogue that Philippe Couillard would like to open about Quebec's place in Canada.I would like to talk about our founding peoples, linguistic rights, creating new provinces to pursue Canada's territorial and economic expansion, as well as international relations and Canada's role in the 21st century in light of all the world's emerging powers on all continents who are challenging us in ever more extreme ways. I would also like us to discuss our vision of federalism for the hundred years to come.However, I cannot talk about that today, as the government is busy introducing a bill to confirm and put in place the budgetary measures which were announced in March, as is the custom in this great Parliament. We returned to the House two months ago, but we have not touched on the constitutional debates and the international relations debates I talked about, debates I would really like us to have here. This all started in July, when the government put forward its tax reforms, which amounted to tax hikes for small and medium-sized businesses. It really botched those reforms. Just two weeks ago, the Minister of Finance presented his economic update. He tried to convince us that his tax reforms are working well and that he merely adjusted a few elements of it in response to what he heard from Canadians.Simply put, the tax reform is a thing of the past. It is moot. The government backtracked thanks to some very good work by the official opposition of Canada and our leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. Every sitting day from September to November, our leader proved to Canadians that the tax reform benefited the rich, those who want to avoid paying taxes, and, it bears mentioning, even the Minister of Finance, as we all know. The whole thing is absolutely unbelievable.(1710)The reform benefits the rich rather than ordinary Canadians—the workers, the mechanics, the labourers, the farmers. The Liberal economic update is merely a repeat of the same measures and broken promises we have seen from the beginning of their mandate in 2015. The only thing that is new is that they are going to lower the overall tax rate for small and medium-sized business.Once again, that was nothing really new, since the Liberals had announced it during the campaign. They first decided not to keep that promise, but faced with the political uproar created by their ethical scandal, they thought they might present a gift to shift the media's focus. It did not work.Then, at the end of September, the scandal linked to the finance minister himself, personally, was uncovered. This is not a debate about whether this is a good policy, nor is it a debate on the tax measures he wants to bring in. Indeed, thanks to research done by our party and by some investigative journalists, it became clear that the Minister of Finance was in a total conflict of interest, both personally and with respect to his significant financial assets. He made his fortune by working very hard, good for him.According to the Liberal members, Morneau Shepell, and the government, everyone believed that the Minister of Finance had taken his fortune, including the $20 million he owned in Morneau Shepell shares, and placed it in a blind trust back in 2015. That was not the case. For the past month, I have been expecting him to stand up in the House and make a formal apology. In the end, he made a donation to charity, which is nice, but he has yet to apologize to Canadians.We have been talking about this issue for a month and a half. There was also the property in France, which he hid from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, as well as Bill C-27, which directly benefits his family business, Morneau Shepell. The proof is right in front of us: the Minister of Finance is in a direct conflict of interest. He has yet to apologize to Canadians. Yesterday, it emerged that the Liberal Party of Canada's own chief fundraiser is implicated in tax avoidance schemes involving tropical tax havens south of here. The news has made this government even more of a laughingstock. Today, on this 150th anniversary of the first parliamentary sitting of November 6, 1867, four former prime ministers, unfortunately, had to witness a question period that I found to be shameful and that did not focus on the issues that we should be discussing. As I said, we should be discussing the Canadian federation, the coming century, and how to always strive to make Canada the best country in the world. Instead, we are talking about this government's hypocrisy. We are talking about the things it does that create conflicts of interest. In short, we are talking about its real intentions, which are to help interest groups, not Canadians. These interest groups, whatever their cause, may be chartist groups that go through the Supreme Court to impose new policies on our country rather than coming and fighting in the House, economic interest groups, like the finance minister and his Bill C-27, or groups that fight for the government's own party. What is worse, the Liberals are shamelessly claiming that theirs is a feminist budget. I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. Well, perhaps that is a bit of an exaggeration, but even so. This should not be a feminist budget. It should be a Canadian budget for all Canadians.Since when does a government have the nerve to rise in the House and claim that a budget has been put in place for a particular group, to cater to a certain ideology or stripe, or individual interests? How does this government have the nerve to talk about a feminist budget? What would happen if it was a masculinist budget? It is completely ridiculous.What have the Liberals done in the past two years? They have eliminated tax credit after tax credit, to the point where, according the Fraser Institute, a typical Canadian family with two children is now paying $840 more in taxes a year.It is unprecedented in Canada for a government to run a deficit that is double what was promised with no plan to balance the budget. That is the Liberal government.(1715)Rather than celebrating the Constitution on this 150th anniversary, we are celebrating the Liberals' hypocrisy. Blind trustsBronfman, StephenBudget 2017 (March 22, 2017)Budget deficitC-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measuresCorporate income taxEconomic prosperityEthics and ethical issuesFamilies and childrenFinancial assetsGovernment billsMinister of FinanceMorneau ShepellMorneau, BillPensions and pensionersPersonal income taxReferences to membersSecond readingSmall and medium-sized enterprisesTax avoidanceTax evasionTax reformWomenFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, with all due humility, from day one, and we have seen it more than ever in the last three months, the government has been focused on enhancing the privilege of the Liberal elite. It has focused on enhancing the privilege of the Liberal bagmen. It is trying to work for interest groups. That is why the budget is called the feminist budget, when it should be called the Canadian budget. On the contrary, from 2006 to 2015, our focus was to govern the country in all aspects, not just for one class but for all Canadians. That is why we would never have called it a feminist budget and only talked about the middle class. We were always talking about Canadians. Every day our leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, stands in the House of Commons and talks about the mechanics, the farmers, the tractor repairmen, the person who does haircuts, the pizza man, those who work on the ground, the people who send taxes every day to the government, to the House of Commons, so we can govern the country. The focus should be to govern the country.Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measuresEconomic prosperityGovernment billsMiddle classSecond readingWomenKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCherylHardcastleWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1720)[English]Mr. Speaker, I also have read that we have no assurance there will be any return for the people in Canada on the money we invest in Asian Infrastructure Bank. It is like a blind trust in the Chinese financial world. It is probably to get a deal on free commerce with China, which I kind of understand, but the Liberals should try to have better tactics to come to that end.It is distraction after distraction. Two weeks ago, when we spoke about the finance minister, they came out with Bill C-24 to change the titles from ministers of state to ministers. It is complete nonsense. It has been like that for two years. Asian Infrastructure Investment BankBudget 2017 (March 22, 2017)C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measuresCanadian investments abroadChinaGovernment billsInfrastructureSecond readingCherylHardcastleWindsor—TecumsehMikeBossioHastings—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersVeteransInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1105)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, this November, as members of Parliament, we have the duty and privilege to say a few words in the House to acknowledge the extraordinary dedication that our veterans and active military members show to our country, day after day, from one military conflict to the next. We must not forget that these men and women in uniform often serve on Canadian soil, as we saw most recently during the unfortunate flooding last spring.Therefore, in addition to remembering their many sacrifices, we must also develop legislation that helps improve their lives. I have taken action, and in May, I introduced Bill C-357 to fix a bureaucratic injustice that affects veterans.During this time of remembrance, I urge my colleagues from all parties to take a serious look at this bill and to help me pass it, to guarantee that our veterans will be respected in their transition to civilian life.C-357, An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act (Group 1 contributors)Canadian ForcesPensions and pensionersPublic Service and public servantsStatements by MembersMattDeCourceyFrederictonSvenSpengemannMississauga—Lakeshore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCanadian Bill of RightsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1350)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I must say that my Conservative colleague, the member for Kitchener—Conestoga, and my NDP colleague both gave excellent speeches. I was quite impressed by her reference to Mr. Diefenbaker, a great Canadian who hailed from her province. I myself was planning to bring him up today. I will still do so with pleasure, although my take will be slightly different.The Conservative Party opposes Bill C-325, the act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights to include the right to housing, which was introduced by the member for North Island—Powell River. I could say it is because the phrase “at a reasonable cost and free of unreasonable barriers” in the preamble is vague. I could say that the bill fails to consider price differences in housing markets. I could also say that section 92 of the Constitution considers housing to be a provincial matter, whereas the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was set in motion by Mr. Diefenbaker, applies only to matters of federal jurisdiction.However, I am not going to use this perspective in my speech today in opposition to this bill. Instead, I would like to talk about the philosophical ideas underlying the bill introduced by the member for North Island—Powell River. I will use these underlying ideas to build my argument against this bill.I would like to start by saying that, in my humble opinion, both Canada's intellectual left, which includes Marxist theorists at the Osgoode Hall Law School or at the University of British Columbia, and the intellectual right, meaning the Calgary School, would disagree with introducing this right into the Canadian Bill of Rights.That said, hats off to the member for North Island—Powell River for proposing an amendment to the Canadian Bill of Rights instead of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This makes me very proud, since it means that the member subscribes to the British tradition of liberal constitutionalism, in other words, the Westminster tradition of liberal constitutionalism, instead of subscribing to the American tradition of liberal constitutionalism. It is a small distinction, but that small distinction makes a big difference over many centuries. I will explain why.Under the Westminster-type British model of liberal constitutionalism, the legislative branch is the ultimate authority and has the last word on constitutional matters. That is why Mr. Diefenbaker, a great Canadian if ever there was one, would never, not in a million years, have enshrined the Canadian Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Doing so would make the judiciary, or the judicial branch, the ultimate authority.The member for North Island—Powell River has a great deal of respect for our Canadian political culture based on the Westminster tradition of liberal constitutionalism, a culture that, sadly, was stifled, if not snuffed out, by a cultural revolution led by that party over there and Pierre Elliot Trudeau in 1982. They brought us closer to an American-style liberal constitutionalism, under which the judiciary gets the final word. We have the notwithstanding clause, sure, but regrettably, no prime minister has dared to invoke it.Today's debate is historic. I believe this issue goes well beyond that of housing. The debate over how to strike a balance between individual and collective rights started in the age of enlightenment. Even in Canada, this debate has been going on since 1867. Since 1982, or for the last 35 years, Canadian intellectuals have engaged in a mighty fine debate.John Locke, father of modern liberalism and individualism, believed that individual liberty predated the notion of statehood, and thus the establishment of any constitution or system of positive law. He therefore believed in natural law, and so, to his mind, all political systems based on this idea would place the individual at the heart of the constitutional state.This is all fundamental to the debate we are having here today on housing, because John Locke would have said that the right to housing does not constitute an individual right, which forms the basis of natural law and therefore supercedes positive law.(1355)A similar debate, although somewhat wider in scope, has been going on in Canada since the Charter was enshrined in 1982 in the midst of what I would characterize as a disgraceful cultural revolution. Progressive authors such as Mandel, Petter, Hutchinson, McWhinney, Hirschl, Mackay, and Lebel-Grenier are the standard-bearers of left-leaning, Marxist intellectual thought in academic circles. Then, there are the so-called conservative thinkers, the fathers of Canadian toryism: Banfield, Morton, Patenaude, Knopff and Martin.Although they belong to radically different schools of thought, all of these thinkers would agree that enshrining rights or bringing in new rights is no way to address the housing situation in Canada.My reasoning may seem circuitous but I am nearing my point. These people would have said that access to housing, food, and education is to be secured through political struggle. They would have said, for instance, that homosexuals acquired their rights through political struggle, and not by way of the Supreme Court of Canada or enshrined rights. They would have said that it is in the political arena that women fought to acquire their rights. In this case, the fight was waged by the suffragettes in the early 20th century, not by the Supreme Court of Canada. That is what they would have said.Everything rests in that interplay between negative and positive rights. That is where we can distinguish between these two schools of thought, between Marxist and conservative thinkers.I am circling back to what the member said. In the NDP, the hope is that we will be able to incorporate some positive rights into Canadian law. In other words, we would be looking to make concessions, a truly rare occurrence under the Canadian Constitution. That is what happened in the case of language rights granted to French-speaking Canada. That might be the only case of a positive right under our Constitution.Conservative thought typically associated with classical liberalism would lean toward the idea that we have negative rights, or in other words, that our freedom stops where that of others begins. Canadian law is a pyramid that rests wholly upon the fundamental goal of ensuring that other people's rights are not infringed upon. There is no such thing as a positive right. This is a healthy debate.My colleague stated that she believed to be waging a political fight. Perhaps she ought to fight to control prices or the housing market. Perhaps the fight ought to be taken to the provinces over their traditional areas of jurisdiction. Being here in the federal Parliament, seeking to incorporate new rights that will amount to nothing more than a bunch of letters on a piece of paper, does not constitute a political fight.There were some important and well thought out observations around Diefenbaker, but my reading of the man is that he would not have gone so far as to incorporate this right into the Canadian Bill of Rights.I disagree with both extremes, which are the Marxist thinkers of Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto on one end of the spectrum, and on the other, those of the Calgary School, who believe in property rights above all else, where others believe in the right to housing. Both of these extremes are dead wrong, because in both cases, the result would be to paralyze the state. The power of the state is essential in Canada if we are to enforce our sovereignty first and foremost, namely in the military, economic and political spheres.Enshrining property rights in the Constitution would prevent the government from running power transmission lines, for instance, or from carrying out large scale projects. Enshrining the right to housing in the Constitution would likewise paralyze the state, as it would have to supply housing to every Canadian, which is totally unrealistic, economically speaking.Let us remain on the right track, the one we were on prior to 1982, and let us stick to the Westminster model.C-325, An Act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to housing)Canadian Bill of RightsCivil and human rightsCollective rightsCostsHousingPolitical doctrinesPolitical powerPrivate Members' BillsProperty rightsProvincial jurisdictionReal estateSecond readingSheriBensonSaskatoon WestJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodRegional DevelopmentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the Liberals are centralists. They centralized decision-making on regional economic development in Toronto, and they centralized political decision-making on issues such as the elimination of the political lieutenant for Quebec in Ottawa. They are now preparing to centralize the arts by transferring a wide range of artifacts from Quebec City, the bastion of the Canadian francophonie, to the nation's capital.Will the member for Québec promise us that he will fight in cabinet to reverse this decision?Canadian historyCultural artifactsNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesOral questionsWarehousesGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestJonathanWilkinsonNorth Vancouver//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersTransportation Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1105)[Translation]Madam Speaker, some provisions of the bill attempt to respond to a specific situation. Sometimes, two airlines may be compelled to streamline their operations. For example, if there is a flight between Toronto and Atlanta, Delta Airlines and Air Canada could decide to merge their operations and offer a single route instead of two separate ones. That means that when a customer books a plane ticket, either Air Canada or Delta Airlines will get the contract.When airlines merge their operations, even if it is just for one particular route, the competition commissioner must determine whether so doing will reduce the competition on the market and he must also ensure that this will not drive up prices for consumers.Under this bill, the minister would have the final say as to whether this sort of action is in the public interest or not. I would therefore like to know how the Liberals define the notion of public interest when airlines want to merge routes.AirlinesC-49, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCompetitionDiscretionary powersGovernment billsJoint venturesMinister of TransportThird reading and adoptionTransportationKarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersTransportation Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1250)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mégantic—L’Érable has done a good job of listing all of the unintended consequences of this bill. We cannot be certain these will occur. I think that the hon. member once sat on the Standing Committee on Transport, but I do not know if he still does. If he was on the committee, he may have seen this bill beforehand. I would like him to tell me what exactly happened in committee. I was told that all of the amendments proposed by the opposition, whether the Conservatives or the NDP, were flat-out rejected and that there was no collaboration on this bill.C-49, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTransportationLucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersTransportation Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1255)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by mentioning the 60 or so seniors in my riding who suffered a tragic loss two days ago. There was a major fire in a retirement home in Beauport Sunday evening. The people on Joncas street, who are older than those living in other retirement homes, had to leave in the middle of the night and get on a bus. Incidentally, I would like to thank the city of Quebec for sending buses as quickly as possible. My thoughts are with these seniors and their families in these difficult times. I hope that most of them have family who can take them in. I have visited the home twice since I was elected.I would now like to express some of my general concerns about this government, which has shown time after time that it is serving special interests, be they Liberal interests or multinational interests. The small and medium-sized business tax hikes it announced this summer are just one example of that. Another is the current crisis concerning the Minister of Finance's conflict of interest, which involves $20 million worth of shares in his family company, Morneau Shepell, that he was supposed to sell off two years ago. Yesterday, we found out that five more government ministers apparently used the same technique as the Minister of Finance to avoid selling their shares or putting them in a blind trust. I hope we will all keep asking who those ministers are today. I am beginning to have some serious doubts about the behaviour of this government and the Prime Minister. The latter is responsible for ensuring that his government is complying with the law and is not using all kinds of loopholes to circumvent the spirit of the Conflict of Interest Act. I am very concerned about this. This government is not working for Canadians; it is working for the multinationals. We saw a good example of this this morning in a Radio-Canada article written by Philippe-Vincent Foisy. It says that the government and the Minister of Canadian Heritage met with representatives of Amazon 99 times in the past 12 months. They met 37 times with representatives of Google and 16 times with representatives of Netflix, including 5 meetings with the Minister of Canadian Heritage a few months before she announced her extremely controversial agreement with Netflix.In contrast, the minister met only once with representatives of ADISQ, whose gala I attended as a representative of the Conservative Party of Canada on Sunday evening. The minister met only twice with representatives of the Association québécoise de la production médiatique, and did not even meet once with representatives of ACTRA. This really gives the impression that the government is giving priority to the multinationals and that it has no time for organizations and Canadians. Since we began debating Bill C-49, the government has boasted that it wants to focus on railway, aviation, and maritime safety. I, too, believe that railway safety is important, but 90% of this bill has nothing to do with railway safety. Here is what I have done about railway safety since I was elected. First, I met with authorities at CN, since there is a railway serving Limoilou, in particular the port facilities in my riding, the port of Quebec and the Quebec railway station. I had a great meeting with a CN police officer. The CN has dozens of police officers that ensure railway safety. The police officer answered all the questions and concerns raised by citizens in my riding. My constituents wanted to know why trains often stayed at the two railway yards for several days, and they were also concerned about the trains' speed. It is very important. If railway, aviation and maritime safety is so important, why was discussion in committee constantly stifled, and why were the amendments proposed by the official opposition rejected out of hand?(1300) Most of the amendments proposed focused on the improvement of certain aspects of safety and competition. The omnibus bill includes amendments to 13 different acts affecting the three main modes of transportation in Canada and the rest of the world. As I said, most of the content of this bill has nothing to do with safety, despite the fact that the parliamentary secretary’s speech was all about transportation safety. It is unfortunate. Last night before I fell asleep, I happened to be reading the Canadian Parliamentary Review, a very interesting review of everything happening in all provincial and federal legislative assemblies across Canada. An academic wrote that he had conducted a study of the past 30 years and that, over the past two decades, there was a pattern of using, more often than not, time allocation for bills, in particular omnibus bills. His study shows that efficiency and a need to act quickly are often cited as the reason to use omnibus bills. Parliament needs to be more efficient, since Canadians expect the House to act efficiently. In reality, in the past 30 years, the use of omnibus bills has not increased the number of bills passed in the House, regardless of the government in power. The academic goes so far as to say that we should let Parliament follow its natural course and allow members to thoroughly debate each bill. Thus, Bill C-49 should have been split into several bills so that we could get a more detailed understanding of every change the government is trying to make, as the hon. member for Mégantic—L’Érable so eloquently argued.This being said, there are five aspects of the bill that caught my attention and that I would like to mention. First, with respect to allowing airlines to form international joint ventures, the bill will enhance the role of the Minister of Transport. How? Consider Delta Airlines and Air Canada, for example, each of which offers flights between Toronto and Atlanta. For the purposes of productivity, operations or efficiency, these companies could decide to merge the Toronto-Atlanta route in order to provide better service. Normally, when two companies decide for form an international joint venture on a given route, they must obtain the approval of the Competition Bureau. With this bill, the Minister of Transport will have far more influence, because, at the end of the day, he will decide for the commissioner of competition whether the two companies can move forward with the international joint venture. The minister will act in the public interest. So far, neither the Liberal members or the parliamentary secretaries have been able to define the public interest in the context of the minister’s analysis. The second issue I am interested in are the new security fees. The Minister of Transport has often mentioned the problem at Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau International Airport, where there are very long lines because there are not enough gates to ensure the safety of passengers as they embark on their flight. He said he wanted to make sure that there were more security checkpoints to make the lines shorter, but he will allow airports to charge additional fees. It is an open secret that the customers will end up paying these additional fees.This specific clause of the bill shows us right away that Canadian consumers will have to pay more for their plane tickets when this bill comes into force. That is interesting because, every time the Liberals want to solve a problem, in this case wait times at airport security, they solve it by making Canadians pay more. The Liberals wanted to address the problem of climate change, so they created the carbon tax. They wanted to reduce their huge structural deficit by $20 billion, so they cut tax credits for Canadians, including tax credits for public transit, school supplies, sports, and arts.(1305)Third, they want to change the act to give international shipping companies access to coastal trade thereby creating competition for Canadian shipowners between Halifax and Montreal. This will create an enormous amount of unfair competition for our shipowners because Canadian employees receive decent wages while other foreign companies do not pay their workers very well at all. This will create a lot of unfair competition for our shipowners.This bill should not have been introduced as an omnibus bill. We should be given the opportunity to carefully examine each measure, which is something that we cannot do today. That is shameful.Air safetyAirline passengersAirlinesC-49, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCabotageCost recoveryDiscretionary powersForeign companiesGovernment billsJoint venturesMaritime transportationMinister of TransportOmnibus billsThird reading and adoptionTransportationLucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersTransportation Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not agree.There has been this kind of pattern with the Liberals for 40 years. It is a paradigm of always increasing the rights of people by creating and enhancing a judicial relation between individuals and companies, between individuals and the state. I think we should let the market regulate problems between citizens and companies. If people are not satisfied with the services given by a company, we can certainly count on them to stop using the services.Again, the Liberal government wants to implement this kind of relationship of judicial protectionism. Will the Liberals introduce protection for bilingualism respecting Air Canada in this bill of rights for consumers?Airline passengersC-49, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsConsumers and consumer protectionGovernment billsOfficial languages policyThird reading and adoptionTransportationKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthPeterKentHon.Thornhill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersTransportation Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is significant because it is an amendment coming from the official opposition. That is for sure. At committee, as well as in debate at the House of Commons, if the bill had been separated, because it touches on very large, different sectors of activity in Canada, probably we would have had 30 amendments. Probably the Liberal government in opposition did not want to see us, in this great House of Commons, opposing, debating, and introducing dozens of amendments. We would have been able in committee to analyze the details of each component of this bill. It is very sad. Members on this side have never had any issue with this kind of omnibus bill. We assume it. However, the Liberals said during the election campaign that they would never go to this kind of practice. This does not change much, actually, in hastening the process of the House or increasing the number of bills going forward. Also, why do they give us only four or five days to debate such an important bill, when we spent the past three days overseeing Bill C-24 to change a minister of state's title to that of a minister? It is a ridiculous bill that does not give anything more to Canadians, which is what we should be doing: giving something more to Canadians. Rather, Bill C-24 gives more to ministers and the government benches. That is ridiculous. We should spend more days in debate on serious bills and stop joking around in the House, which they do.C-49, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsOmnibus billsThird reading and adoptionTransportationPeterKentHon.ThornhillDanVandalSaint Boniface—Saint Vital//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSpeaker's RulingInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1115)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the member spoke of equal voices in cabinet. However, an MP who is not a minister may, at the Prime Minister's invitation, attend cabinet to discuss specific issues, and his or her voice will be equal to that of any other elected official around the table, minister or not. The member said that, unlike in Mr. Harper's government, today's ministers of state have been given by mandate letter their own specific legal responsibilities. I would like to ask him if that difference has any real impact on the ground. Will there be a cabinet? Will there be a deputy minister? Will there be documents that the government can bring to cabinet? Will there be a department with an actual physical building? Will there be public servants to oversee? If none of those things are in place, then this bill will not really change anything.C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration ActCabinet ministersGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsReport stageChrisBittleSt. CatharinesChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSpeaker's RulingInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1200)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise. I would like to take a few moments to tell the people of Beauport—Limoilou who are listening right now that I am truly very disappointed with what the Finance Minister did last week and this week. Canadians have become aware that he misled them for two years and that he did not put his $20 million in Morneau Shepell shares in a blind trust. I seriously expected him to rise last week for his final response in question period to say that he regretted it, and that not only did he no longer have his shares, but he was donating to charity the $65,000 in additional monthly profits that he pocketed for the last two years. That would have been the least he could do. He is an extremely wealthy man. He should have done that, and I do not think that it would have jeopardized his retirement.With respect to Bill C-24, I will be addressing primarily the aspect of the ministers and the administrative change that means absolutely nothing, as well as the supplementary estimates. I will also very quickly address the issue of regional development. The Liberals are abolishing regional development minister positions. These positions are key, because today 60% of Canadians live in large cities. The same is true almost everywhere in the world. These positions are also important because the voice of rural Canadians is being less and less heard in the House. There will no longer be ministers representing regional development agencies in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec or western Canada. These agencies will no longer exist, or at least they will not have any ministers. These ministers sat at the cabinet table to ensure that every region of Canada had a voice. The first thing the Liberals did was to make sure that there would no longer be any ministers representing the regions and to entrust all decisions to a single individual, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development in Toronto. This has already had a serious impact. Last fall, $150,000 in funds earmarked for economic development in northern Ontario was allocated to a company based in the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development’s riding of Mississauga. This is precisely the new type of politics the Liberals have been playing. This spring, an Atlantic liberal caucus subcommittee indicated that they had been told that processing times at ACOA were three times longer since the appointment of a minister from Toronto. It is not surprising, since he himself, as a minister from Toronto, is completely overwhelmed by the affairs of Canada’s great city of Toronto and completely overwhelmed by the affairs of his own department. That is why we need independent ministers who can focus on the region they represent. We are saddened to see the government go ahead and abolish these key minister positions in Canada. I spoke about Bill C-24 here in the House about six months ago. It was late spring. At that time not so long ago, I was still a permanent member of the powerful Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. It was quite the learning experience for me. I had to read a huge number of documents and learn about many financial, economic, and structural issues. The committee deals with government operations and estimates. Every four or five months, the committee reviews and analyzes the supplementary estimates, in other words, the credits the government wants to have approved by the committees so that it can close its fiscal year on a sound note. I observed one thing. I do not remember exactly whether it was credit A, credit B or credit C, or which department it was. I think it was the Treasury Board. After it was elected, the government immediately wanted to raise the salaries of the ministers of State, as is proposed in the bill. Normally, to do so, the government must introduce a bill like the one we are debating today concerning ministers’ salaries and allowances. (1205)That is not what they have been doing for the past two years. In fact, the Liberals used the supplementary estimates, by including the votes in the supplementary estimates and getting them approved through the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates for two consecutive years. We Conservatives were a minority. We voted against that funding, but that did not change anything. If this bill were so important, if it were true, as they claim, that this bill is intended to foster ministerial pay and gender equality, then why did they use the back door to increase salaries? Why did the Liberals not introduce Bill C-24 when they first came to power in 2015? If gender equality were that important to them, they would have introduced this bill as a priority at the outset. Something about this really surprises me. An hon. member for whom I have enormous respect and who served in the military said that a minister is a minister is a minister. First, that is an extreme extrapolation. One can say that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, but at the same time, a minister is still a Canadian like any other. The part that concerns me is that ministers of state are not on the same footing as ministers. The question is simple: do they have deputy ministers? No, and this bill will do nothing to change that fact, either. Ministers of state will not have deputy ministers or cabinets, which have a staff of about 40 to assist their minister perform difficult tasks. They will not have the right to submit memorandums to cabinet explaining government issues. Most importantly, they will not have any officials serving under them. For example, the Minister of National Defence has 80,000 public servants under him. Not only is there the civilian administrative wing comprising some 20,000 employees, but there is also the military wing, because military troops are public servants. All told, we are talking 100,000 people. Ministers of state will not have 100,000 people to manage and give orders to. Neither will they oversee an actual institution, or have headquarters from which to work. For example, Public Services and Procurement Canada is across the beautiful Ottawa River, and there is a huge building there with Public Services and Procurement Canada written on it. About 10,000 people work there. Ministers of state have none of the prerequisites that would make them equal to ministers. This has nothing to do with gender equality or equity between individuals. Ministers of state simply do not have a minister’s workload. That is the only thing Canadians need to know. Remarkably, the hon. member of St. Catharines himself said it a thousand times in his speech on administrative changes. That is exactly what it is: an administrative change. It is not a substantial change. The Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, who comes from the Eastern Townships, will not have a building with 10,000 public servants or a cabinet. She will not have anything a real minister has. I am on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, so I recognize that the files she manages are extremely important, but her workload will still be quite a bit lighter than that of the Minister of National Defence, for example.My colleague from Calgary Shepard made me think of something. It is not true that all cabinet ministers are equal. No one can tell me that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Canadian Heritage are on equal footing. I must say that I prefer heritage to the economy. That being said, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has a portfolio because she is the House leader and she is the Minister of Small Business and Tourism. She has more to deal with than another minister who does not have these two portfolios and these two responsibilities. It is as simple as that.I wanted to say one last thing, something a little more philosophical. Imposing a gender-equal cabinet comes with its own share of risks. At the end of the day, philosophically and legally speaking, what does it even mean? It means that we will never see an all-female cabinet in Canada. I would even go so far as to say that this is good way for the Prime Minister of Canada to make sure that women never make up more than half a cabinet.(1210)In fact, I would even say that this will stop the advancement of women in politics.Atlantic Canada Opportunities AgencyBacklogsC-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration ActCabinet ministersConflict of interestGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsIncome and wagesMinister of FinanceMorneau, BillReferences to membersRegional development agenciesReport stageSexual discriminationWomenJacquesGourdeLévis—LotbinièreKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSpeaker's RulingInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, the bill does not speak about equal votes; it speaks about equal voice. I will tell members something interesting. When I was an intern in the Prime Minister's Office, the greatest honour of my life was to be part of a cabinet meeting. There, I was completely astounded to see MPs, not ministers, enter the room and be part of the meeting. They would stand and give their opinion with respect to the discussion. The ministers would acknowledge them, saying that this was the direction they should take. That is equal voice. Those MPs did not need a title or a ministry to have an equal voice. Having an equal voice around a cabinet table has nothing to do with which ministry one has.C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration ActCabinet ministersGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsReport stageKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSpeaker's RulingInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the case, and I must put forward a great example. When Winston Churchill was the minister of the Royal Navy in 1918, he went on a ship. Things were not going as they should have, so he went to see the commander. He asked him to bring all the men on board so he could speak with them. The commander said to Mr. Churchill that he should never speak to the soldiers, but he again said that he wanted to speak with the soldiers. He went to one of the lowest-ranking marines and asked him what the plan should be to get out of them of the mess. The soldier told him his plan. Churchill then turned to the highest-ranking officer and told him that he was to do that. Since then, occidental armies have this kind of practice where everyone listens. I was in the army and I know that commanders always ask their soldiers what they should do. Of course afterward it is the commanders who will decide.Therefore, you are right, sir, the government does not listen to people who do not have a title. However, in the former Conservative government, Harper used to listen to everyone.C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration ActCabinet ministersGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsReport stageDanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersYukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1640)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Bow River.One thing is certain: the hon. member for Hamilton Centre is a great speaker and therefore a tough act to follow. I must say that I share his respect and admiration for Canada's territories, namely, Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and Yukon. I have admired that region ever since I was a little boy. In my childhood and teenage years, I had a specific dream, one that I have not totally given up on but is fading as time goes by. We will see what happens in the future. I used to dream that I would live out my old age on Great Bear Lake. I would build a house and live there from about the age of 75 or 80 until the end of my days. When I was 14, I took a flight from Toronto to Osaka, Japan. Just like the member for Hamilton Centre described it, I flew over the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Alaska. It is true that it is hard to believe just how huge our country is. There are millions and millions of lakes. It sometimes seems that there is more water than land in the north. It is almost frightening. That is when I really understood why winters are so important there for travel, because the ice creates roads everywhere, and so people do not have to go around the many lakes.Simply put, those territories are incredible, and I want to say right off the bat that I speak here today with utmost humility. As the member for Hamilton Centre was saying, we are talking about Yukon, and it is rare for the people of Yukon to have the opportunity to be heard in the House. I hope my comments convey how much respect I have for the people of Yukon. I will try to raise a few points that the opposition sees as essential to our discussion in the House.I want to address some of the comments that were made, including one by the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. She said that the opposition should be ashamed of the way it treated indigenous peoples when it was in power. I find it rather hypocritical for a Liberal member to say that because one of the first things the Liberals did when they came to power was abolish the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. I can say that as soon as that happened, our indigenous affairs critic got a lot of mail. We heard from a lot of indigenous people. That decision affects indigenous women and it affects indigenous peoples. We developed that legislation to ensure that leadership and the indigenous elite, the first nations chiefs, were accountable not only to the departments, but also to the people living on their reserves. I think that was very respectful toward indigenous peoples to do that. It was something that they wanted. One of the first things that the Liberals did was abolish that legislation. When I go door to door, people often tell me that they think that was an awful decision. My colleague from Yellowhead was talking about it and I completely agree with what he had to say.I would also like to say that, despite how humbling it is for me to participate in this debate, we must not forget that the Yukon is a territory that belongs to all Canadians. Make no mistake: a territory does not have the same status as a province. For centuries, Canada's north has played an important role in the country's economic development and in weaving the fabric of our country and economy. Yukon has a role to play. It is only natural that the federal government decides when to intervene in the affairs of the Yukon because it is indeed a territory. If we want to make the Yukon a province, then that is another debate.The member for Yukon said that everyone in his territory, in his riding, which is huge, supports his bill. I understand that. However, I think that there were some good things about Bill S-6, which we introduced in 2015, even if the government does not agree. I also think that there are some negative things about the bill that is currently before us, even if the government thinks that there is nothing wrong with it. I would like to talk a little bit about those negative aspects. One of the problems I see with Bill C-17 is that it follows the Liberal government's tendency toward centralization.(1645)Why am I talking about a pattern of centralization? The government did away with the regional development ministers and gave all the responsibility to one minister of economic development for Canada, who lives in Toronto. That is an obvious example of centralization. The government also did away with the position of political lieutenant for Quebec, since the Prime Minister claims to be the province's general—AccountabilityBand councilsC-17, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another ActDownload responsibilityFinancial managementFirst Nations Financial Transparency ActGovernment billsLand managementRegional developmentSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoptionYukon TerritoryBruceStantonSimcoe NorthLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersYukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1645)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I totally understand the member's reasoning. However, as the NDP member said, we are talking about Yukon, so I think that we should proceed, and that that is a good thing.I would now like to talk about centralization. A carbon tax was imposed on the provinces without consulting them. As for health transfers, the government imposed conditions that the provinces opposed but were bullied into accepting. This brings me to the central theme of my speech: devolution.In the 1980s, under Mulroney, and again under the Harper government, we began a positive process of political devolution that focused much more on Yukon than Nunavut or the Northwest Territories. This bill, Bill C-17, not in its entirety but certainly some of its clauses, works against the very devolution that I believe to be good for the people of Yukon. Why? Because it will eliminate the federal minister's ability to transfer ministerial powers, duties, and functions to a territorial government.I was very proud to learn about this legislation in 1995. I thought it was fantastic that a Conservative government had introduced it. It is a truly Conservative measure because we support decentralization. As is the case with Britain's Conservatives who ceded power to Scotland, which now has a quasi autonomous parliament, western Conservatives support decentralization. We ceded very important powers to the Yukon government over time.It actually started with a Liberal government. With the advent of responsible government in the Yukon in 1978, political parties were formed for the first time. Under Mulroney in the 1980s and 1990s, there were transfers of very important federal powers. In 1992, at the end of the Mulroney era, the first nations and the government entered into an agreement. Under the Martin government, Yukon was given all the powers that other provinces had, except over criminal prosecutions.In Yukon, mining is the main industry. Therefore, it is very important for the people and their government to make their own decisions about environmental assessments and the projects they will accept.For me, the problem with the Liberals' Bill C-17 is this desire to roll back the powers we delegated to the Yukon government to approve or deny proposed mining and resource development projects. This bill is a definite step backwards in terms of devolution. This is what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie was just referring to when he said that one government takes one step forward and the next takes one step back. I think that if there is one thing that successive governments should not go back on, it is this type of important policy on territorial devolution. Yukon was one of the territories that benefited the most. In spite of its flaws, Bill S-6, which was passed in 2015, did a lot for devolution. In short, it is a shame. That is pretty much all I wanted to say today. In closing, I would like to add that my colleague takes the prize for hardest-working MP. He is a very brave and courageous man, because taking the plane every week as he does must be gruelling.C-17, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another ActDownload responsibilityEnvironmental assessmentGovernment billsLand managementMining industryThird reading and adoptionYukon TerritoryBruceStantonSimcoe NorthCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersYukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, of course indigenous people are stewards of their lands. My wife works for the Inuit. My mother worked for the Inuit. My father works for the Mi’kmaq. I know quite a bit about indigenous people, and I respect them a lot. My name is an Inuit name, but I cannot say my own name in this House. I understand what the member means. That is why we need to continue with the devolution of as much power as possible to the territories, as the Nunavummiut are requesting right now. It is their choice to make on an ongoing basis. I think Bill S-6, under the Conservative government, was positive in that way.Aboriginal peoplesC-17, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another ActDownload responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementSustainable developmentThird reading and adoptionCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitbyBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersYukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1655)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleague that, in actual fact, I am sure that Bill S-6 had many flaws. It is rare that members recognize that sort of thing in the House, but I mentioned that at the very start. I recognized that it was flawed.I was not part of cabinet at the time, so I cannot say why that decision was made. As I said, one of the problems I see with Bill C-17 is that some progress is being lost with regard to the devolution of power to the Government of Yukon. I think it is up to the Government of Yukon to make sure that all parties in the territory are satisfied with industry-related decisions.I understand that the government could have consulted more but, at the same time, the federal government holds discussions with its counterpart, the territorial government.Aboriginal peoplesC-17, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another ActDownload responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementThird reading and adoptionAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—SuroîtMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, working for veterans is not just a matter of putting together beautiful public policy, it is a matter of reaching out, giving a hand, and listening. A year ago, there was a veteran on a hunger strike on the Hill. The minister refused to go and meet him. Today, the Desmond family is on the Hill. They need the minister's compassion. Will he go and meet them today, right now, after QP in a few minutes?Desmond, LionelHomicideOral questionsSuicidesVeteransRodgerCuznerCape Breton—CansoSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount Pearl//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodGovernment ExpendituresInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1445)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, $200,000 for a book cover, $200,000 for the cover of the federal budget, $200,000 for a piece of paper, that is the Liberal government's trademark. This was not a gaffe or a mistake. It was an actual decision by the Liberals.The hon. member for Louis-Hébert says that his government is working for the less fortunate. What does he have to say to them after spending $200,000 on a piece of a paper?Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)Government advertisingGovernment expendituresOral questionsJoëlLightboundLouis-HébertJoëlLightboundLouis-Hébert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodCanadian HeritageInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is patting herself on the back for signing a deal with Netflix. However, her proposals and commitments with regard to protecting the production of French-language content remain totally unclear.It is for that very reason that Ms. Prégent, the president of the Quebec artists' union, said the Liberal government is sending a mixed message: it sits down for a talk, but then it turns around and takes steps that were never discussed. The CEO of Simons echoed that sentiment, saying the agreement has no long-term vision.Has the minister forgotten her mandate letter? What firm commitments can she offer towards French-language cultural production?Cultural industryForeign investments in CanadaFrancophonesMedia streaming and webcastingNetflixOral questionsUnited States of AmericaJean-YvesDuclosHon.QuébecMélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-Cartierville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAccess to Information ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1650)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here today, so that I may contribute to the debate on Bill C-58.Throughout the day today, I have heard my colleagues say over and over again that this is just one more broken promise from this government. Well, unfortunately, I have to say that I agree with them, because this bill does indeed represent yet another broken Liberal promise.One could also say that this bill reflects Canadians' interests in decisions made by their elected representatives and government decision-makers, and that is only natural. Access to information arrived quite late in Canada, in the 1980s. If my memory serves correctly, the first country that granted access to information was Norway, at the end of the 19th century. We did so nearly a century later.Access to information is very important in terms of the obligation of a country's elected officials and decision-makers to be accountable. It allows Canadians to keep an eye on what is happening with respect to decision-making between elections so they can gain a better understanding of what is going on in their country. Furthermore, as several people have suggested here today, this is a very sensitive issue, because we need to find the right balance in such a bill, which seeks to amend the Access to Information Act.I was in the army for a few years, and so I know how crucial information is. Having the necessary information is essential to reaching military objectives. In every sector, information is one of the keys to success. For 35 years, the Access to Information Act has obviously been very important, as it has increased accountability and allowed Canadians to better understand what is happening in their country. They can also know what businesses, elected officials, public servants and employees of democratic institutions are doing, because political staffers are also subject to that act.It is also important to the media, who have to scrutinize and analyze every political decision and news story. That political scrutiny by the media and journalists helps Canadians understand how, why and in what context decisions are made. Access to information is vital for the journalists who keep Canadians informed.The Liberals are claiming that Bill C-58 seeks to better inform Canadians regarding the decision-making process in order to maintain their confidence in their policy-makers and democratic institutions. That is my understanding, at least.I really liked what the member for Trois-Rivières said about this bill. It truly is yet another patent example showing how image is everything to this government. This is something that has been obvious to me for the past two years. It used to surprise me every time, but not anymore. I am very disappointed that this government's bills, actions, speeches, photos, in short, everything it does is always aimed at managing its image. The Conservatives were often accused of having communication and image problems, but at least we were brave, we made decisions, we put everything on the table and explained ourselves. The Liberals are so obsessed with maintaining a positive image that to avoid admitting to Canadians that they are breaking one of their own promises, they would rather table a watered-down bill that is nothing more than window dressing. It is designed to make you think the Liberals are making good on their promises, but if you read between the lines, you will realize they are doing the exact opposite.I mentioned the example of the Canada Elections Act. The Prime Minister's practice of “cash-for-access” fundraising was uncovered thanks to the work of our official opposition. A few months later, instead of doing the honourable thing and pledging to put an end this undemocratic practice, the Liberals legalized cash for access by introducing a bill that, again, is very watered down. It seems to increase accountability and transparency around fundraising, but what it actually does is legalize the cash-for-access scheme.(1655)This bill was introduced in June, and it would amend access to information, which was first brought in back in 1983. Now, 35 years later, the Liberals want to improve and enhance it, and they want to make some changes related to new technology. These days, access to information depends heavily on the digital tools we use every day. Here on Parliament Hill, in MPs' offices, ministers' offices, and the PMO, all politicians and all of our staff have telephones that they use to exchange information on important issues and make decisions. We can see how those decisions evolve via text and email messages between the PMO and ministerial offices.In 2015, the Liberals made some key promises, and one of those promises was to make the PMO and ministerial offices more open by default. As it turns out, those offices will be exempt from the proposed amendments in Bill C-58, which is unbelievable, because their promise is right there on page 24 of the Liberal platform. The Liberals said it was important to facilitate access to information, and that applied to the PMO and ministers' offices too. That being said, it was important for the Liberals to put these ideas forward during the election campaign in order to please certain groups who believe that it is important to have access to all information.The Conservatives formed a responsible government and today we remain a responsible political party. Today, we heard a number of official opposition members say that we need to be careful about who has access to information from the Prime Minister's Office and the ministers' offices simply because a delicate balance must be maintained when giving the public access to information about the executive branch's decision-making.In Canada, we want above all to maintain an environment and conditions that are conducive to productive, vigorous, and heated debate, after which a decision can ultimately be made.Debates in the House of Commons are open, transparent, and fully accessible to the public, because we do not make the final decision here. What is more, we are opposing parties, so the public expects us to squabble and debate. However, within the ministers' offices, there is a solidarity between ministers, even if they have differing points of view because they come from different regions and represent citizens with diverse interests. There may be acrimony regarding very important debates. The ministers will have very spirited debates among themselves, but when they come out of that ministers' meeting, they must all be prepared to uphold the group decision. Such decisions may pertain to Canada's internal or external affairs, but regardless of the reason for or the type of decision taken on an issue, it may require confidentiality. We believe that at that level it is important to maintain some confidentiality in order to conduct government business properly. That is probably exactly what Canadian officials shared with the Liberal government. That is likely why this government waited so long to introduce the bill. I imagine that after the election, they wanted to move forward with opening access to information by default, but they were advised to the contrary. Again, I think it is regrettable that the Liberals would have us believe that this is the case, that access is open by default, and they would have us believe that they are making information more accessible to the public when that is not necessarily entirely accurate.(1700)By acting this way, as they do on a number of files, and breaking promises, they only fuel public cynicism, unfortunately. That is something we should all want to avoid, especially when we form the government.That is why I go door to door when I am in my riding. Throughout the last election campaign, when I would go to seniors' homes, people kept telling me, and I respect this point of view, that I was only there because of the election campaign.I told them I was honoured to be there, to meet them, and to listen to them, and that I would keep doing that once elected to prove that I meant what I said.There are some positive things in this bill. The government promised to do more. For example, we all received the mandate letters shortly after the ministers were appointed. I recently read the Minister of Heritage's mandate letter because of my new role as the official opposition heritage critic. I think we can all agree that these mandate letters are quite broad. In fact, the first two pages are the same for every minister.We can have briefings with the ministers, where we get information that is accessible under access to information. That remains in place, which is good.However, access to information on more sensitive files will always be granted at the pleasure of the Liberals. Anything that has to do with enhancing access to information is based on a single word: proactive. Ministers, senior government officials, and the Prime Minister's Office will have to decide whether they will respond to a given request for information as they come in.A number of journalists and a group that works to enhance transparency in democracy have spoken out about the Liberals' broken promise to extend access to information to the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices. I would like to share some of their comments with the House, because it is interesting and very telling to hear what these journalists and stakeholders think.Katie Gibbs from Evidence for Democracy has said that by ruling out the possibility to obtain information from ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office, the government is breaking its campaign promise to establish a government open by default. This is coming from an external source; these are not our words. She added that the possibility to refuse access to information requests on an undefined basis jeopardizes the transparency and the openness of the government.I had the opportunity to meet Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, on many occasions during the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates' study on protecting whistle-blowers in the public service. He is extremely knowledgeable on the subject.Mr. Conacher said that this bill brings some positive changes to the act by making disclosure more proactive and by giving the Information Commissioner the power to order the release of information. However, according to him, the bill does nothing to address the enormous gaps in the Access to Information Act, as the Liberals promised. He believes that more changes will be needed to have a government that is open and transparent by default. The bill even takes a step backwards by allowing government officials to deny access to information requests if they think the request is frivolous or made in bad faith; this leaves the government considerable discretion. He believes that public officials should not be given this power, and I agree with him, as they will likely use it as a new loophole to deny the public information it has a right to know.Mr. Conacher is very well known in Canada and around the world. He participated in numerous analyses and reviews of whistleblower protection acts around the world.(1705)No whistle-blower protection in the world can be properly enforced unless it is supported by a strong access to information act. What he wants us to understand is that despite the argument they are putting forward, the members of this government have not improved this pillar of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and the Access to Information Act.Stéphane Giroux, president of the Quebec federation of professional journalists, said that journalists were most excited about the prospect of getting access to ministerial records, but it was a false alarm. It was just too good to be true.The groups that want to change the voting system in Canada would say the same about electoral reform. Small and medium-sized businesses would say the same as well, since they believed this government when it said it would reduce their basic tax rate to 9%. That is another broken promise, because the government is actually raising the tax on passive investment income to 73% for SMEs. I would also like to share a few comments made by journalists. Mr. Maher of iPolitics titled his article “Liberals shockingly timid on access-to-information reform”. [English]This journalist is quite specific. On the second page, one of the first paragraphs, he mentioned the election platform of the Liberal Party, in which it stated in black and white that it was intending to open by default, access to information to the Prime Minister's Office and cabinet ministers' offices. He stated, “if you look closely at the changes proposed to access legislation, you can’t conclude that it matches his rhetoric.” He is talking about the rhetoric from the Liberal benches. The next paragraph states:The proactive disclosure of some ministerial documents may be a step backward, because the decisions about what to release and what to redact will not be reviewable by the information commissioner.“For the ministries, there’s no one to review what they choose not to disclose, and I think that goes against the principle of the statute,”...He was quoting from Robert Marleau, who was Information Commissioner from 2007 to 2009. This is quite powerful. These are big people supporting the opinion of the official opposition. Another journalist, Carl Meyer, wrote an article entitled “Trudeau Liberals place restrictions on plan to end government secrecy”. I will end with this. It is quite obvious, from advocacy groups, journalists, and our own evaluation of the bill, that the government is again breaking its promise and not doing what it said it would do. This bill does not at all reflect advancing or increasing access to information in Canada.Access to informationAccess to information requestsC-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCabinet confidenceCabinet ministers' officesComplaintsDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplaceGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsInformation CommissionerInformation disseminationOffice of the Prime MinisterOversight mechanismPolitical programsPublic Service and public servantsSecond readingBobBenzenCalgary HeritageBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAccess to Information ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1710)[English]Mr. Speaker, in 2007, we created the parliamentary budget office, which has the duty to inform Canadians and all members in this House on what is going on with the budgetary estimates and the supplementary estimates, and all the expenses and increases in the expenses. This was the first amazing step in accountability in Canada, and I am very proud of it.As well, on December 4, 2014, Madame Legault, Information Commissioner of said, “Over the years, I have also made recommendations to the President of the Treasury Board on various ways to advance accountability and transparency. I am very pleased that most of these recommendations over the years have been implemented by the government.” I must inform this House that in 2014, the government was Conservative.To conclude my answer for the hon. member, this bill originated in a bill presented here a few years ago by the member for Papineau. The member for Papineau promised during the election—he was an important figure at that time and is still today—that he would increase the accountability of the Prime Minister's Office and the ministerial staff and offices in the Access to Information Act The blunt truth today is that those promises were broken. That is what we are seeing today, and that is what Canadians must see and acknowledge. It is broken promise after broken promise, and that is the record of the current government.Access to informationC-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsSecond readingJoyceMurrayVancouver QuadraRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAccess to Information ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1715)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, to be quite honest, I did not have time to do such a proactive analysis to determine whether there are any similarities between the comprehensive recommendations made by the Information Commissioner and what actually appears in the bill. I relied on serious journalistic sources and certain analyses of the bill.What matters, however, is making sure Canadians understand that this government is obsessed with its image. Two years from now, I hope we will be in power. I think some progress has been made, as an article yesterday mentioned that, according to the latest polls, the Conservatives are ahead. I think Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of just how obsessed this government is with image and how little political courage it has. It likes to go on and on about virtue and universal love.This government keeps saying that it is in favour of transparency and better access to information, but it is incapable of telling us the truth, namely, that it now realizes that it does not make sense to release internal cabinet deliberations to the public, because it would cause problems and could even hurt our democracy. We do need to have certain places where we can deliberate in confidence. The Liberals cannot even admit that they now realize that. They simply want to reassure their voters by telling them that they brought this legislation forward in order to fulfill a 2015 election promise. Once again, the main promises in their 2015 election platform having to do with the Access to Information Act do not appear anywhere in the bill. It is unfortunate.I am getting pretty sick and tired of seeing the same thing every day from this government. Every time we debate a bill, it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Access to informationC-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsSecond readingRobertAubinTrois-RivièresGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAccess to Information ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1715)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, while I was out canvassing this summer, what I heard most often from people was how disheartened they were that the government was going ahead with the legalization of marijuana. Some are opposed to it on moral or political grounds, while others think that there should be more important matters for the House of Commons to discuss than legalizing a drug. There are other things for the government to work on—foreign affairs, for example, like the conflict in North Korea, the situation in Ukraine, or humanitarian crises in Africa.People also told me that they were growing more and more embarrassed by the Prime Minister prancing around in Canada and abroad in perpetual election mode, taking selfies and trying to please everybody while showing so little political courage, as I mentioned earlier.I think the next few years will be favourable to us, because Canadians see clearly what is unfolding in front of them. When I go knocking on doors, I can absolutely feel it. Access to informationC-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsPolitical programsSecond readingGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodGovernment AppointmentsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1155)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the committee overseeing the appointment process for the next official languages commissioner is currently evaluating the applications received. At this point, the official opposition has not yet been consulted. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes has stated that it is concerned and will wait to see what happens.Will the next commissioner be non-partisan, or will he or she be a Liberal Party donor? How many people have applied? When is the deadline for the evaluation process? Can the government enlighten us on the process that is under way?AccountabilityCommissioner of Official LanguagesOral questionsPolitical appointmentsAmarjeetSohiHon.Edmonton Mill WoodsSeanCaseyCharlottetown//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodTaxationInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1455)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance wants to tax the investment income of local small business owners at a rate of 73%. These Liberal tax increases will take a toll on Éric Boisvert's thriving SME, Impression Stratégique, located in Beauport. This company and many others like it could be forced to cut salaries or even lay off some employees. Why does the Minister of Finance want Impression Stratégique to pay a 73% tax when the millionaires who own Morneau Shepell do not have to pay a cent?How is that fair?Corporate income taxOral questionsSmall and medium-sized enterprisesBillMorneauHon.Toronto CentreBillMorneauHon.Toronto Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersStrengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1535)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I worked with him on a committee and I know him well. We are approving the bill at this stage so that it can be sent to committee. We still have some questions, which I will talk about more during my speech.Does my colleague not think that this bill gives the Minister of Transport a little too much discretionary power?Automotive industryDiscretionary powersGovernment billsRoad safetyS-2, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another ActSecond readingSenate billsBrendaShanahanChâteauguay—LacolleBrendaShanahanChâteauguay—Lacolle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersStrengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1540)[Translation]Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, I will be sharing more of my thoughts on this somewhat mechanical bill. I prefer political philosophy, but as a member of Parliament, I am required to discuss all kinds of topics. I am learning every day, and I am truly happy to have this opportunity. I will be sharing my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, a beautiful riding that I have visited twice before. The last time was two years ago, and I saw that there had been a lot of construction in Lac-Mégantic. The town is getting back on its feet, and that is a good thing.I would like to add my voice to the debate on Bill S-2 today. This bill was introduced in the Senate and it would amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to give the Minister of Transport the power to issue recalls and to force companies to fix defective vehicles at no cost to consumers. I quite like the idea of no cost to consumers. We are all consumers. Our constituents are consumers. This is good news for them.I remind members that it was the Conservatives who essentially introduced this bill in 2015. However, it was not passed before the election period started in the middle of the summer. The election period lasted a long 78 days, as we all remember. This bill gives the Minister of Transport the power to fine companies, up to $200,000 a day, based on the violation. The bill also gives the Minister of Transport the power to order a manufacturer to conduct specific tests on its products, to ensure that it complies with the act. Furthermore, the bill allows the minister to make exemptions to the regulations, if the exemption would, in the opinion of the minister, promote the development of a safety feature connected to a new technology. This bill also increases the number of notices that companies must issue to consumers once a recall process has been initiated.I have a few comments to make. This bill is important, but one thing I need to point out, and we all need to remember, is that there has never been a major case of a company failing to voluntarily issue a recall after discovering a defect, or failing to pay for the necessary repairs. In light of that fact, the justification for urgently pushing this bill through seems weak. Back when we first tabled this bill, we made sure that the consumer would not lose out, and we strengthened protections for drivers and the general public. What we did not do was draw up a set of provisions that would give the minister far too much power and make things difficult for businesses.As I said, we support this bill in principle, and we want it to go to committee so that amendments can be made.As a resident of Beauport—Limoilou, I care deeply about road safety. I myself have two young children, a three-year-old and a six-year-old, who both ride in car seats. When I watch the news on TV, I always see far too many car crashes, especially in summer. Car accidents can be caused by fatigue, stress, uncontrollable events, drugs, and alcohol. Unfortunately, there are all kinds of reasons accidents happen.The government has to do its part by taking all possible steps to make sure no accidents happen because of manufacturing defects. It is important to realize that this kind of accident is preventable. As I said earlier, as a father myself, every time I get in a car with my children, this worry is in the back of my mind, because car crashes are one of the leading causes of death in western countries and indeed around the world.I would like to relay an example involving my family that I experienced up close. I was involved in three accidents with my parents when I was a child. One was caused by black ice, but another may have been caused by a manufacturing defect. I was nine years old. It was in the 1990s in New Brunswick, near the Acadian peninsula. We were going down a big hill in a Plymouth Chrysler. I do not believe that this car is still being made today. We were quite pleased with that car at the time. It was red. We bought it brand new, but it was a few years old at the time of the accident. I was with my mother and my brother, who was 15 or 16 at the time. We were going 100 kilometres per hour down the hill.(1545)Suddenly the gas pedal was stuck to the floor and the brakes stopped working. I did not know why. I was just a kid and we were all gripped by panic. I relay all this with a smile because in the end nothing bad happened. My brother had the genius idea to tell my mother to kill the motor. The engine could have exploded, but our lives were at stake. Then he told my mother to pull over to the side and let the car slow down enough to use the handbrake. This all happened in a matter of seconds.Later, when my parents took the car to the mechanic, the repair costs were quite high. It was the early 1990s. Today we might wonder if that incident was caused by a manufacturing defect. I just wanted give all those in my riding who are watching me, of which there are many I am sure, a personal example where a manufacturing defect, if that indeed was the cause of the accident, could have had very serious consequences.A few years ago, dozens of relatively serious recalls were announced on the news, and I wondered if any of them affected my Subaru Forester. I did some Internet research and was very pleased to discover that they did not. In the context of increased globalization and free trade, which I strongly support, automobile manufacturers must take on greater civil and social responsibility with respect to their national customers, in this case Canadians, because a car can be made up of parts from 10 different countries, and that is no exaggeration.It is therefore vital that we establish safeguards and that we grant Transportation Canada more power so that it can be proactive on this issue. This bill must put a certain amount of pressure on manufacturers that assemble vehicles so that they are highly motivated to guarantee the safety of their vehicles and conduct proper follow up, particularly since these products are one of the leading causes of death in our society and it is possible to reduce the number of incidents caused by technical problems.In closing, we support sending the bill to committee, but we would like some amendments to be made. For example, we will propose that clause 10.61 be amended to read: “The Minister may, by order, require a company to inform the person or dealership that obtained a vehicle from that company to ensure that any defect or non-compliance in a vehicle or equipment is corrected before the vehicle is offered for sale.”We also propose that clause 8.1 be amended to read: “The Minister may, by order, require a company to conduct reasonable tests, analyses, or studies on a vehicle or equipment to determine whether there are any defects or non-compliances.”We also suggest amending clauses 10.4 and 16.13 to ensure that the minister does not have too much discretionary power.(1550)There should be no inappropriate government intervention in auto manufacturing, which is private enterprise. Three cheers for vehicle and road safety.Automotive industryDiscretionary powersGovernment billsOrder-making powerProduct recallsReimbursementRoad safetyS-2, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another ActSafety testingSecond readingSenate billsSplitting speaking timeBrendaShanahanChâteauguay—LacolleChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersStrengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1550)[English]Madam Speaker, the question is not whether the House supports those amendments. The question is whether the minister and his colleagues at committee, where the bill will go following this debate, will support the amendments proposed by the Conservatives and the Senate. If so, how they will proceed with the bill?Automotive industryCar dealerships and car dealersCompensationGovernment billsProduct recallsRoad safetyS-2, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another ActSecond readingSenate billsChrisBittleSt. CatharinesLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersStrengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1555)[Translation]Madam Speaker, when it comes to Canadians' safety, there is no such thing as too soon. This bill could have come before the House much sooner. I think it is very important because it does not really have any budget implications, which means that it will not result in additional costs. It simply says that there are certain things the minister can do. Although this bill gives the minister a little too much discretionary power, one good thing about it is that it puts more pressure on automakers. That will push them to meet higher standards, which will definitely be a good thing for the safety of my children and all children in Canada.Automotive industryGovernment billsRoad safetyS-2, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another ActSecond readingSenate billsLucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersStrengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1555)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will leave that in the hands of the House leader of the official opposition.CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingBlakeRichardsBanff—Airdrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersStrengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1555)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a beautiful contrast, because it is absurd.My constituents are extremely unhappy. Just this morning, many of them contacted my office, saying that I had to ask questions about this, that I had to put pressure on the government, and that I had to ensure it changed on its mind on the issue of tax reform. They said that it was extremely bad for the economic well-being of their small and medium-sized enterprises. This party will do everything it has to do to stop the changes.Automotive industryCorporate income taxGovernment billsPublic consultationRoad safetyS-2, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another ActSecond readingSenate billsSmall and medium-sized enterprisesBlakeRichardsBanff—AirdrieLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCustoms ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1145)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, earlier the member pointed out a certain contradiction in the Liberals' approach to border security. My colleague said that the aim of bill C-21 was to protect the safety of Canadians without impeding the flow of trade. However, he also mentioned that the budget for border security had been cut. I would like to know more about these budget cuts and about the border crossings that have been closed.BordersBudget cutsC-21, An Act to amend the Customs ActCanada Border Services AgencyClosure of government operations and facilitiesGovernment billsInformation collectionSecond readingPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCustoms ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1350)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, thank you for granting me this speaking time.On this morning of September 18 I am very happy to be back in the great democratic institution that is the House of Commons. I had an excellent summer. I struck a balance between work, activities, the office, and my family. My little six-month old son is becoming more and more aware of life around him. I am very happy to be back to discuss the many issues that concerned our offices this summer, as we saw in the media. Canada's official opposition and myself believe that, as usual, this government acted or reacted poorly to these many issues.I also want to begin by extending my deepest condolences to the family of the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt. This is certainly a tremendous loss for the family. I have been a father for four years and I cannot imagine how painful this must be for his wife and children. We have also lost a great parliamentarian and hon. member here. It is a huge loss to Canadian democracy, but especially to his family. I wanted to say that and extend my condolences.Today, we are discussing Bill C-21,an act to amend the Customs Act. I would like to get things started by explaining what constitutes a border for any country or administration. A border is not just something that goods, services, and people cross over. A border is also the ultimate symbol of our national sovereignty and the tangible presence of its protection. In our case, it is the sovereignty of the Canadian federation we are talking about. This sovereignty is guaranteed by our institutions, of course, as well as by law enforcement, our democratic representatives, and Canadians who go to work every day. Before all of that, however, one can say that it is guaranteed by our borders. How does sovereignty benefit us? It ensures the security of Canadians, as well as their prosperity. Indeed, it is thanks to our sovereignty that we can make our own choices on political, social, and economic issues.I respect the subject of the debate. In case there could be any doubt, that was my introduction.Sovereignty guarantees the democratic space we need in Canada. I recently heard a philosopher talking about the importance of the sovereignty of today's borders. We live in an age where certain small groups would have us believe, through a narrow ideological vision, that national sovereignty should not exist, that it is a challenge that must be overcome, that it is in decline and that we live in an increasingly borderless world.According to that philosopher, whose name escapes me, borders that ensure sovereignty definitely ensure our democracy because no rights of any kind can survive if they are not attached to the democratic institutions that enforce those rights. That is one of the reasons why, when it comes to international relations, it would be anarchy, pure and simple. No institution exists at the international level that has that authority and could enforce those rights. In Canada, however, our rights are guaranteed first and foremost by the House of Commons, the Supreme Court of Canada and by cabinet or the executive. If not for borders, none of that would be possible.(1355)In his speech, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness criticized certain things that are in fact quite important. Some 400,000 people cross the Canada-U.S. border every day, which is a huge number, not to mention all the other nationalities. Two billion dollars worth of trade flows between Canada and the United States every day. Given that reality, we began putting this bill together. I hope to have the opportunity to tell the House more about it after question period.BordersC-21, An Act to amend the Customs ActCanada Border Services AgencyChan, ArnoldDeaths and funeralsGovernment billsInformation collectionParliamentariansSecond readingSecuritySovereigntySylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCustoms ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1555)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see you in the chair again, guiding our democratic exchanges in the House.I began my speech before question period. Having used up six minutes, I now have four left. In the first part of my speech, I explored the notion of borders from various perspectives: security, trafficking, trade, and the need for some to commute between various countries, in our case Canada and the United States.As a certain philosopher whose name escapes me once said, borders guarantee a country's sovereignty. It can then be said that they guarantee our Canadian democracy, because in order to be enforced, rights must rest upon institutional foundations, foundations that can only be guaranteed within the borders of a sovereign state that has institutions such as the House of Commons, for instance.The purpose of Bill C-21, which the Minister of Public Safety introduced on June 15, 2016, in this House, is to amend the Customs Act. Let me remind my colleagues that the whole content of this bill comes from the beyond the border action plan, introduced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2011. The general aim of that plan was to address any emerging threats to the Canada-U.S. border; to promote trade, which makes for continuous economic growth and job creation; to have an integrated cross-border law enforcement; and to establish critical infrastructure for cybersecurity, a need that keeps growing over the years as new technologies become more important in our daily lives and our institutions.In my view, this bill was put forward in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Americans wanted to address the concerns of their fellow citizens about security in North America, which is quite natural. In fact, the goal is still the same. As good partners, we not only wanted to address the concerns of Canadians regarding their security, but we also wanted to be good economic, military, and social partners with the United States. We still want that today. Therefore, we began discussions about border security in good faith and with an open mind.That being said, it was imperative for us, Canadians, to ensure the continuity of trade flow. That is what is difficult to maintain with this type of bill. As my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, our critic on this file, mentioned, this bill is intended to finally respond to the threat of terrorism. However, how can we achieve this while ensuring the continued free flow of goods?We believe the government has accepted the main points we presented in 2011, which is quite interesting. However, this government still has many questions to answer about this bill. Will there be new infrastructure costs related to carrying out the inspection of outgoing people or goods? What measures have been put in place by this government to protect privacy and ensure that the collection of any new entry and exit data is carried out in a secure manner? How will this bill affect those people who enter Canada at unofficial entry points, as we saw this summer in Manitoba and Quebec? Finally, how is this issue reflected in our trade negotiations with the United States at this time, and will all Canadians benefit from these changes?BordersC-21, An Act to amend the Customs ActCanada Border Services AgencyCanada-United States relationsGovernment billsGovernment expendituresGovernment facilitiesIllegal migrantsInformation collectionPrivacy and data protectionSafetySecond readingSovereigntyTrade agreementsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCustoms ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1600)[Translation]Madam Speaker, at the end of my speech, among other things I asked what careful steps the government intended to take in order to protect the privacy of Canadians.Clearly, that is one of my concerns. This bill may deal with sensitive matters, but it is absolutely essential. The Americans want to strengthen border security, but we would like trade to remain unimpeded. That said, with regards to the issue raised by the member for Sherbrooke of the privacy of people going abroad, the Canadian government can already access their information today. Peoples' passports get stamped when they visit other countries. This bill will make it so that information is available automatically and will also give us useful tools to deal with certain issues that may not be raised today, EI for instance.Imagine someone that is drawing EI benefits and should be actively looking for work but instead is travelling in some tropical paradise, or in the United States. This legislation would let the authorities know automatically, and the information could then be relayed to the appropriate department. It would also allow us to interrogate the individual in order to better understand the specifics of the case and why they would be looking for work outside the country.The member asks an excellent question. I do believe that we should make sure that the government specifies how it intends to protect privacy in the digital age.BordersC-21, An Act to amend the Customs ActCanada Border Services AgencyCrime and criminalityGovernment billsGovernment programsInformation collectionPrivacy and data protectionSecond readingPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookeMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCustoms ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1600)[Translation]Madam Speaker, that is indeed a great concern. This morning, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles asked the minister that same question, but he did not answer. In fact, he said that cannabis cannot be brought across the border, but we knew that already.What the member was saying is that customs officers at the U.S. border can assume that half of all those crossing the border may have consumed cannabis in Canada, if it is legal. That is if this ever comes to pass because many promises have been broken so far. How are U.S. customs officers going to deal with this situation? Is this going to prevent some of our businesspeople from doing business in the United States? There are all sorts of questions and concerns.This gives me the chance to say today that there are some international treaties having to do with cannabis that the Prime Minister should have already abolished. He has yet to do so. He is behind on all these files and is pushing the provinces forward without any clarification. As such, the government has to act as quickly as possible and explain what is going on.BordersC-21, An Act to amend the Customs ActCanada Border Services AgencyCanada-United States relationsGovernment billsInformation collectionMarijuanaSecond readingMarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonBrianMasseWindsor West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAmendments to Standing OrdersInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1350)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for his very fine speech.I felt like his speech was written with me in mind because he talked about tradition and the founding fathers. I would say to him that from 1864 to 1867, most of the speeches in the House lasted between two to four hours, all night or all day. Now it is extraordinary when someone speaks for 20 minutes. It is a big deal.This spring, the Liberals tried to use their parliamentary reform to prevent us from speaking for more than 10 minutes at committees. We would not have been able to filibuster to make our view clear and to protect Canadian democracy. They wanted to impose a 10-minute maximum speaking time at parliamentary committees. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that.Committee meetingsGovernment Business No. 18Parliamentary reformProcess of debateStanding Orders of the House of CommonsLucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessDepartment of Public Works and Government Services ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1115)[English]Mr. Speaker, I know it is very honourable to present a bill and I understand it is a private member's bill, but certainly, with all due respect to the member, we must not have read the same bill, because he stated twice—not once, but twice—that the bill would reduce red tape. However, on the contrary, small and medium-sized enterprises would now have to produce a report to the minister that specifies the community benefit, and it is to his discretion concerning which benefits there will be.Can the member explain to me how he can actually see the bill as a reduction of red tape when it is contrary to what is in the bill?BureaucracyC-344, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit)InfrastructureMaintenance, repair and renovation servicesPrivate Members' BillsSecond readingRameshSanghaBrampton CentreRameshSanghaBrampton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessDepartment of Public Works and Government Services ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1120)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will continue this debate in French. I wish to inform you that Her Majesty's official opposition will oppose this private member's bill and vote against it.I hate to rain on anyone's parade, and I know the bill sponsor is not going to like this, but we will be voting against the bill for some eminently sensible reasons that I will explain.I would like to comment on the member for Brampton Centre's speech. The government's role is to allow everyone to compete. When it grants contracts to third parties, parties outside the government, such as small and medium-sized businesses, big businesses, and organizations, it must ensure that RFPs are written so as to maximize everyone's opportunity. That means minimizing paperwork and constraints, which can be obstacles for some small and medium-sized businesses that want to bid. In Canada, such businesses have fewer resources than large construction companies, for example.The member said the bill would provide flexibility in granting contracts. That is ironic, because the opposite is true. This bill will make the RFP process, which is open to everyone, more cumbersome. He also said that this would help communities. I only wish that were the case, but after reading the bill, which contains almost no details and consists of only one page and three clauses, I can find no indication that any assistance will be provided to communities. What will happen, however, is that small and medium-sized businesses will be subject to greater constraints and more red tape. I would like to believe the member when he says he wants to help Canadian communities and municipalities, but that is not at all what the bill appears to do. I say this with some reservation, since that is my interpretation, although it is also how the opposition sees it.In addition, speaking of economic benefits for local communities, the member referred to the Olympic Village in Vancouver. That was one of the largest projects undertaken in Canada in recent years, and it is hardly the kind of local benefits our colleague was referring to in his bill, in other words, infrastructure such as bridges and so on. The Olympic Village in Vancouver was a megaproject involving huge Canadian corporations that are accustomed to being very efficient and getting sizable returns. They have good relationships with the government and are capable of meeting project deadlines, as was the case for the Olympic Games.Vancouver's Olympic Village was in fact the worst example that the member could have used to illustrate how his bill would benefit the community, or at least help small businesses.The member said not once, but twice that this bill would cut down on paperwork and red tape and reduce the number of forms small businesses have to fill; that was the point of the question I asked him. In fact, the opposite is true. The specific focus of the bill is to now make small businesses fill out a form for the minister; the community benefits will therefore be at his discretion. The very purpose of the bill is to create paperwork. It is an incredible thing to say that it will cut red tape. That was my introduction. Last week, during my speech on the 2017 budget, I said that the purpose of most of the Liberal bills introduced over the past two years has been to benefit certain special interest groups.(1125) These bills are not introduced for the benefit of Canadians in general, that is, all individual Canadians, but rather to help special interest groups. I believe Bill C-344 to be a prime example of this government’s legislative proclivity. I would also like to remind members how the bill came to be. It was first introduced by the current Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship as Bill C-227. It was then dropped from the Order Paper a few months ago, after the member was appointed to cabinet, only to return to it later.The member said that this bill was significant, fundamental and necessary for Canada in that it will allow communities to make their needs known given the expected benefits of a given project. If that were the case, why is this not a bill that the government would want to introduce? Why is it not a government bill? While I can appreciate that this is not within the current Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship’s portfolio, why did he not bring this bill forward as quickly as possible? This could have been settled a few months ago. If this were such an effective and important bill, it could have been passed months ago.The fact that the Liberals removed this bill from the Order Paper and then put it back shows that they likely thought it was inconsequential since there is not much to it. They probably figured that they would just hand it over to some MP so that he could introduce a bill. I know how it goes. It is good to give hon. members the chance to introduce bills, but this bill is essentially going to harm small and medium-sized businesses.Let me get into the technical details of the bill before it is too late. We in the opposition have identified some problems. There are no criteria in this bill for how small and medium-sized businesses are to respond to the minister's mandatory assessment. There are no criteria, directives, guidelines, or substantive information in this bill indicating precisely how SMEs have to fill out the form.There is no indication of the criteria, the length of the form, or whether anthropologists and sociologists will have to analyze every little spinoff from the project, whether environmental, economic, or social. What is more, subclause 21.1(1) of the bill states: ...any other specific benefit identified by the community.I think we can all agree that this could have a major impact on what could be required of small and medium-sized businesses when they fill out the form. For example, if a municipality decides to assess the community benefits for a certain historic group, such as indigenous people, the input of anthropologists and historians will certainly be required. Just imagine if a small or medium-sized business in Toronto, for example, where the member is from, was required to hire anthropologists and sociologists before building a bridge. That is completely ridiculous.Another problem is that it is left up to the minister's discretion whether a form explaining the community benefits will need to be filled out. The minister will also decide whether or not to present the report on community benefits to Parliament. The bill cannot be that serious if the minister can choose not to apply its provisions. The bill states:A contracting party shall, upon request by the Minister, provide the Minister with an assessment as to whether community benefits have derived from the project.I will close by mentioning the worst part, which is that the minister could request a report on the community benefits after the bids have already been submitted and after the SME has already finished the work. However, we know that contracting parties need to have a good idea of how much things will cost before work begins. What the government is telling them is that, after the work is done, they may have to meet other requirements that will cost them more money.This is a truly a bad piece of legislation as it now stands. It must be sent to committee or even killed because it is just a source of red tape and does not contain any clear directions. Accommodation and hospitality servicesBureaucracyC-344, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit)Cities and townsCommunities and collectivitiesGovernment accountabilityInfrastructureInvitation to tenderMaintenance, repair and renovation servicesOlympic Games winter 2010Private Members' BillsSecond readingSmall and medium-sized enterprisesRameshSanghaBrampton CentreErinWeirRegina—Lewvan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodAccess to InformationInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, in this beautiful sunny week, thousands of public servants are still not getting paid at all. That is how much respect the Prime Minister has for them.[Translation]We can all agree that responding to an access to information request is not optional, it is mandatory. However, a Shared Services Canada employee, who is also the riding association president for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, recently deleted 398 pages of email after receiving a request for access to information, proving that the Liberals choose political gain over transparency.Will the Prime Minister admit today that this goes against the law of the land?Access to information requestsConflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerDocument shredding and destructionElectronic mailOral questionsShared Services CanadaJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2017-18 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Privy Council Office]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (2120)[English]Madam Speaker, I have the honour to sit with my colleague from Edmonton West on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I had the privilege to be with him when we fought against estimates reform. One of the biggest reasons we did it was that oversight by opposition MPs and oversight by the overall Canadian society of the budgetary spending of the government is one of the core principles of our democracy and Parliament. I would like my colleague to explain what would happen if we lost two months of the possibility of oversight of the spending of the government.Budget processMain estimates 2017-2018Parliamentary reformPrivy Council OfficeStanding Orders of the House of CommonsKellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1035)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for her speech. I am not sure that people in her riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe are happy with the budget. Contrary to what she claims, this budget does not do anything for the ordinary Canadians who work hard every day and keep this country going. This budget helps the interest groups that make up the Liberal Party of Canada's electoral base.I find it ironic that the parliamentary secretary thanked the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for its hard work in analyzing the 2017 budget implementation bill, since it is quite likely that the other place will ask that the infrastructure bank provisions be removed from this omnibus bill. We have many questions and concerns about the infrastructure bank, questions that have gone unanswered during question period and in committee.The infrastructure bank protects the investments of private investors to the detriment of Canadian taxpayers. That is ironic since private companies pride themselves on taking risks. Entrepreneurs are the ones who have the moxie to take risks. They have the expertise, the ideas, the innovate spirit, and the courage needed to do things that way. Canadians are already paying taxes to keep the country running. It is not their responsibility to protect private sector investments. That is one of the things that we find worrisome about this bill.What is more, the government has taken $15 billion away from community infrastructure projects to fund this new bank, a measure that my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent has decried before. He has said that the communities in Quebec's regions will not get any support from the infrastructure bank because it deals only with projects worth over $100 million. Rimouski or Baie-Comeau cannot afford a $100-million arena.In reality, this bank will serve only the interests of big cities and those that have been especially selected on the basis of the votes for the Liberal Party in 2015. That was my opening statement. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance had the audacity to say that it was a budget for people, for Canadians, when it is the complete opposite. Bill C-44, like the 2016 budget, targets Liberal interest groups, “post-national” interest groups that have very specific goals and that resort to the Supreme Court to argue their political positions instead of going through the House. This time, they certainly have the government’s ear, and their political demands are being heard loud and clear, because this budget does nothing but meet their needs. There is something else that makes me extremely uncomfortable. The title of the budget is “Building a Strong Middle Class”. What it should have been is “building a strong country for everyone”. Of course we want a strong middle class; I understand that, but I put myself in the shoes of millions of Canadians who are going to look at their pay and wonder whether they belong to the middle class. It is an open secret in Canadian politics that the Liberal government always talks about the middle class because most people want to be able to feel that the middle class includes them, even if they may not really be part of it, based on their income. It is a trick, a catch-all, but people subconsciously hear that the Liberals are working for the members of one class only, and not for all Canadians.(1040) In my opinion, Bill C-44, which would implement budget 2017, does not really reflect Canada’s structural needs, both current and future. It is a bill that amends certain measures and sprinkles money here and there. There is really no overarching vision when it comes to the direction the country is going in. It is really an ideological, vote-seeking budget plan. What it actually offers is deficits and highly targeted expenditures to please a few interest groups. I will name some of them. I note in passing that these interest groups have all the right in the world to exist, but they should be not be the priority in a budget. The priority should be all Canadians in general. This budget focuses on NGOs, groups that generate media interest, various civil society groups, and academic elites—the number of research chairs has grown. All universities are receiving incredible amounts of money. That is fine for research, but here again, that is not what helps average Canadians. Next are the urban and financial elites, the environmentalists, the “post-nationalists”, who pretend that there is no culture or common ground in Canada, that French Canadians do not exist, and that they are just one group among many. Then there are the civil liberties groups. The groups of litigants who have been going to the Supreme Court since 1982 to get preferential rights, to circumvent the House, to get faster decisions that change the course of Canadian politics in their favour. There are the anti-globalists, the social engineers who think that by changing social policy they will be able to make things better. They are doing it for purely ideological reasons without really stopping to think about the potential consequences of their actions, which are based on a world view rather than on rational facts and most importantly on a desire to help all Canadians. What I am essentially saying is that Bill C-44 does not meet Canada’s continental challenges, the North American challenges we face on the economic, military, and social fronts. The bill also fails to meet the international economic, military, social, and even environmental challenges we are facing. Since the end of the 1990s, we have been living in a highly competitive world. More than ever, the west, including Canada, is slowing down. We are seeing the emergence of new world powers, the BRICS we all know about, namely Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. There is also Nigeria, with the largest population in Africa and an economy that is increasingly important in Africa and the world. With their economic growth, their increasing military importance, and their now enormous populations—the countries I named easily represent half of the world’s population—these emerging countries want energy resources. In spite of what they may say in their speeches at the United Nations, they want cars, they want to be consumers, they want oil, they want to be mobile, and they want a western lifestyle. For the last 20 years, and this is certainly a good thing, we have seen a growing transfer of wealth from north to south. This is undoubtedly a consequence of the decolonization of the 1950s and 1960s. It is to be expected and it is a good thing. However, we need a government like the previous Conservative government that understands international geopolitics and understands the major economic challenges that lie ahead. The economic crisis of 2007-08 was undeniably terrible and was perhaps the harbinger of other things to come. There is a certain impoverishment happening in Canada, perhaps not so much for people, but in terms of infrastructure. For example, our icebreakers are completely obsolete, our highways in the Maritimes need repair, and our ports and airports should be updated, particularly Beauport 2020 in Quebec City, which really needs investments.(1045)Sometimes I get the impression that Canada does not realize that it is losing ground in terms of its international role as an economic and diplomatic driver.There is also the North American context. The United States is suffering from the emergence of the BRICS countries. That is one of the reasons why the current president was elected. Americans are extremely worried because 20 million people are unemployed in the U.S. Isolationism is taking hold again. The media talks about this as though it were a new phenomenon, but on the contrary, isolationism re-emerges in the U.S. roughly every 50 years.In this isolationist context, there will be major tax cuts in the United States for businesses and individuals. This political context is reactionary on economic, social, military, and diplomatic levels. It is not up to us to decide whether this is good or bad. The Americans will develop their economic isolationism. I see that in Bill C-44, which would implement budget 2017, the Liberal government does not seem to explain how we are going to deal with this new North American reality or how we are going to make sure that Canadian companies are competitive in the face of American isolationism and a less porous border that allows for less trade. Trade between Canada and the United States is worth $2 billion a day, so that is pretty significant. These isolationist American reactions, which will last at least three years and a few months, are going to have very significant effects on Canada, but we are not hearing the Liberals talk about this. We are also seeing a Canadian context taking shape before our eyes. The economic health of the federation has been going downhill for two years. For example, we are astonished to see that the Liberals never talk about the significant loss of economic growth in Alberta and the major job losses for Albertans. They also do not talk about the employment problems in the Atlantic provinces. They do not talk about the importance of Montreal and Quebec City. Simply put, we are not hearing them really talk about the role of each province in our country’s economic unity. For example, we have been telling them for several months now that it is incomprehensible that there is no free trade between the provinces in Canada, when it is right there in the Constitution. That is why we have asked them to make a reference to the Supreme Court to have the judges interpret the Constitution as it is written, and give us a definitive judgment that sets out, in black and white, that we should have free trade among the provinces. That would certainly help our businesses everywhere in Canada. There is a real need to complete major projects for the next 100 years. Once again, this budget tell us about building a strong middle class, but it does not contain any major projects that will ensure there will be even more wealth creation in 50 years. All the interest groups that the Liberals favour in their platform and their budget are systematically opposed to any long-term major projects. I always like to take the example of the premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, who created gigantic hydro-electric projects in the 1970s, dams such as had never been seen in the history of humanity. Recently, the record was topped by a dam in China, but until very recently, we had the biggest dams in the world in Quebec. That means that today, we in Canada and Quebec are the ones who pay the lowest prices for electricity. That is one of the few things that we pay the lowest prices for, but because of that, we have a healthy welfare state in Quebec and services that are overall quite adequate. What is there in Canada at present, however, that guarantees that in 50 years—I will still be here if I am lucky—our children and grandchildren will enjoy rising wealth? There is nothing in this bill that guarantees us that, because it focuses only on the present moment and aims simply to please vote-getting groups that make up the Liberal voting base, which is slowly but surely crumbling.(1050)According to my own and my Conservative colleagues’ analysis, Bill C-44 shows that the Liberals are working for the financial elite of the infrastructure bank of Canada and the social elites who want to make major policy changes, not to create jobs, but to suit their own world view. There is nothing there for working people, however. That is why the Conservative opposition has a moral and political obligation to be the voice of taxpayers in the House.As I said in the House yesterday, we might be better off talking about the responsibilities of citizenship, the Canadian Armed Forces, and how we can serve our country. Instead, we have no choice but to talk about the importance of lowering taxes and creating jobs because those two things are in peril under this government.Taxes keep going up. This year alone, Canadians' tax burden is going up by nearly $5 billion. That includes taxes on public transit, carpooling, beer and wine, also known as the Friday and Saturday night tax, medication, child care, small business owners, oil and gas companies, which represent millions of jobs in Canada, and tourism. That is a very long list of taxes, and the government is breaking one promise after another.Worse still is the $29-billion deficit, which has nothing to do with economic conditions. Unlike the deficit at the time of the 2007-08 economic crisis, this deficit has nothing to do with a need to stimulate the economy and create jobs. This deficit exists because the government wanted its budget to cater to the needs of the interest groups I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. Plus, these deficits have no end date. This is the first time that we have a Canadian finance minister who is incapable of answering a simple question: when does he plan to eliminate Canada's fiscal deficit? Will it be in 2017, 2018, 2020, 2030, or 2040? He has no idea. He does not take the economy as seriously as he should.It is important to remind Canadians that the deficit has exploded over the past two years. Through words and actions alike, the Liberal government is creating budgets to take money away from taxpayers and spread it around to certain special interest groups, rather than all Canadians. The government is trying to divide Canadians by saying that it is working for the middle class, and not for everyone else. It has no overall vision for Canada, particularly when it comes to continental and international challenges. In addition, it keeps introducing outdated bills in the House, like the one to raise the salary of ministers of state.They should be focusing on more important matters. I am sure you are also concerned about this, Mr. Speaker, but you can rest assured. Until 2019, we will continue to stand up for Canadian taxpayers every day, until midnight if necessary, and we will make sure that this government does not win another term, so that 60 years from now, Canada will not reflect this terrible mismanagement.Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)Budget deficitC-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measuresCanada Infrastructure BankCanada-United States relationsFinancingGovernment billsInfrastructureInternational relationsInterprovincial tradeMiddle classPrivate sectorTaxationThird reading and adoptionUnited States of AmericaGinettePetitpas TaylorHon.Moncton—Riverview—DieppeErinWeirRegina—Lewvan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is interesting because it is very hard to understand what exactly the spending in the budget is. I am not the only one saying that. It is not just the opposition saying that. The media, analysts, and economists have been saying that. It is a very complex omnibus bill with different avenues and spending going all over the place. One thing is for sure though. It is that the money goes to interest groups, not to Canadians. They take money from Canadians to give to interest groups. Concerning veterans, there were some interesting measures put in place, but again, the new charter for veterans that was put in place by the government in 2006, just before the arrival of the new Conservative government, was the wrong paradigm. We should replace the charter with lifelong pensions. That is what the Liberals promised in the last election and that is what they should put in place, not these small measures. They should bring back the lifelong pension. That was one of their major promises and I hope they will not break it. Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measuresGovernment billsGovernment expendituresThird reading and adoptionErinWeirRegina—LewvanGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodRegional Economic DevelopmentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1155)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has been in power for two years. It has spent those two years making endless project and spending announcements all over the place and tooting its own horn about how it is working for all Canadian regions.It has not done anything for Quebec City, though. It has not done anything for Beauport 2020, for the Quebec Bridge, for the cruise ship terminal, or for the Institut nordique du Québec. It does not even have a minister responsible for Quebec City.Do the Liberals even realize that Quebec City exists? What is the problem?City of QuébecGovernment assistanceOral questionsRegional developmentJoëlLightboundLouis-HébertMarcMillerVille-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, I am from Quebec City, and all our major projects are left out. The member that responded said that all over the province of Quebec, mayors are crying, because they are asking for projects. They will be crying for a long time, because the infrastructure bank will not be able to pay for small projects in municipalities.Concerning the protection of the coasts, we cannot protect the coasts without ships. We in the Conservative government put contracts in place with Seaspan Shipyards in Vancouver to build 10 new ships for the Coast Guard and for research projects. Those ships have major delays. We have not heard from the government concerning that. I would say that the most terrible thing about this budget is that it does not speak to all Canadians. It speaks to a particular group of interests. It speaks to one single class, the middle class. The Liberals call it a feminist budget. That is unbelievable. Why is it not a Canadian budget?Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measuresCanada's Oceans Protection PlanCoastal areasGovernment billsSockeye salmonThird reading and adoptionVancouver IslandWater qualityGordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1220)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the answer to my colleague is “certainly not”. To pick up where my colleague left off, tomorrow I will be moving into my first home. For the first time in my life, I took out a mortgage. My banker looked at how I conduct my finances and said, “my goodness, you really are a Conservative!”After being a military student, I became a member of Parliament in 2015. I have not spent lavishly and I put money aside to buy a house. I was able to make a down payment. It is true that we are paid very well, and I have nothing to complain about, but I managed to do it because I was disciplined and reasonable. As well, I have arranged it so that two years from now, if ever I am not a member of Parliament, I will still be able to live reasonably. I made arrangements in order to make it through. Any responsible government should secure its finances and not put itself at risk if the economy were to get worse. I will conclude by saying that they have ended security—Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measuresGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1225)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I do not agree.First, there is the historical context. In 2007, 2008 and 2009, we ran controlled, reasonable, and responsible deficits in response to the biggest economic crisis since the depression of the 1930s. Interestingly, we had fantastic results because in 2011, 2012, and 2013 we posted the best outcomes in the OECD: over 1.2 million jobs created, the best GDP, and the best economic growth of OECD countries. As well, in November 2015, we left a $3-billion surplus, which was confirmed by Department of Finance officials.Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)Budget deficitC-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measuresGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionDavid de BurghGrahamLaurentides—LabelleArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, I do not want him to take advice from the party, but from the Canadian people.We are the voice of the taxpayers, and they are saying that enough is enough. If the Liberals are increasing the deficit, they should do it for a good reason and let Canadians know when it is going to end. That is not the case right now.Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)Budget deficitC-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measuresGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersSummer PartyInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1410)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I invite the constituents of Beauport—Limoilou to my second annual summer party on July 8, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., in the magnificent Domaine de Maizerets park. There will be treats for people young and old, like hotdogs, corn on the cob, chips and other goodies, that will be served between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m., compliments of our generous local sponsors. In case of bad weather, there is the cabin at the Domaine de Maizerets, as well as a tent on location, so the party will go on rain or shine. There will be events throughout the day, including music in a variety of styles and games for the young and young at heart. If there is one party everyone should attend this summer, it is this one.I would add that last year the party drew close to 2,000 guests, so with the help of Mother Nature, we are expecting 3,000 this time around. Thank you very much, and I hope to see a big turnout at the Beauport—Limoilou summer party.Beauport—LimoilouEventsStatements by MembersAliEhsassiWillowdaleSoniaSidhuBrampton South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSalaries ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1905)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this subject this evening. In fact, just this morning, I attended a meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, where the President of the Treasury Board appeared as a witness to answer questions on the use of vote 1c. Since November 4, 2015, the salaries of ministers of state have been increased under vote 1c so that they earn the same as portfolio ministers who have deputy ministers and hundreds of public servants working for them.I will explain later why the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance are concerned about this.I am increasingly disheartened by this government because it seems that, today in the House, we should not be talking about Bill C-24, which seeks to realize one of the federal government's unattainable fantasies. Instead, we should be talking about our duty as citizens, what we can do for our country, what we can do tomorrow morning to improve our community, what we can do to further honour our men and women in uniform, and how each of us can serve their country. We could talk about regional fairness, since Bill C-24 deals with these kinds of discussions, as the Liberals decided to abolish ministers representing Canada’s various economic regions—Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, British Columbia, and the territories. We could also talk about wealth creation. The Liberal government likes to go on and on about working for the well-being of the middle class. I have a problem with that, because we should instead be talking about wanting to make life better for all Canadians. I do not know why the government insists on focusing only on one class instead of talking about all Canadians. What I liked about the Right Hon. Stephen Harper is that he would always talk about all Canadian families. He did not talk just about only one social class. That said, I am duty bound to oppose this bill today, and instead of talking about civic duty and serving one's country, I will speak to you about C-24.Bill C-24 seeks to elevate ministers of state, some of whom do not have a portfolio or a department, to the same status as ministers who oversee an actual department with thousands of employees, deputy ministers, and teams of hundreds of officials, and all the real estate that goes with it. These are the real departments, National Defence, Public Services and Procurement, Transport, the list goes on. There are 25 actual departments, give or take. They want to give the same minister’s salary to those who do not have drivers or real responsibilities; they want to give them the same salary as traditional cabinet ministers. It is ironic because Bill C-24 would create eight new ministerial positions, including three “mystery” ministers, whose duties, objectives and responsibilities are not yet known. The bill would eliminate the positions of six ministers representing the regions; now, there is only one minister representing Toronto with a population of seven million; it is huge and that is a major responsibility. He will be the one now representing the Acadian people, the Acadian peninsula and their concerns about the fishery, lobster and crab. It does not make any sense.Bill C-24 would also amend the Salaries Act, which is a good initiative. The government wants to correct a mistake in parliamentary law, or rather change parliamentary law so that it need not be in breach of it.The very honourable senator Mr. Smith, chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, contacted me to bring the problem to my attention so I could raise it with the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The government is using the supplementary estimates to pay the additional salaries of ministers of state, when the parliamentary rules tell us that there are three reasons for why we must not do that.(1910) For example, Beauchesne, paragraph 935, refers to page 8601 of the Debates of March 25, 1981:A supply item ought not to be used to obtain authority which is the subject of legislation. Then paragraph 937 refers to page 10546 of the Debates of June 12, 1981:The government may not by use of an Appropriation Act obtain authority it does not have under existing legislation.This is what the government is trying to do today. It is trying to use us to obtain an authority it does not have under the Salaries Act. Lastly, paragraph 941 refers to pages 94 and 95 of the Debates of February 5, 1973: If a Vote in the Estimates relates to a bill not yet passed by Parliament, then the authorizing bill must become law before the authorization of the relevant Vote in the Estimates by an Appropriation Act.Therefore, parliamentary rules tell us that ministers of state in the Prime Minister’s Office should not have gotten a pay increase effective November 4, 2015. They should not have had it until Bill C-24 was officially adopted. It will not be adopted by us Conservatives, but by the majority Liberals. Good for them!The senators put it down in black and white: Our committee is concerned about the recurrent practice of using supplementary estimates to pay certain ministers' salaries prior to the enactment of amendments to the Salaries Act, and raises this question in the context of Bill C-24.A Senate committee has been studying these issues for several months and spending a lot more time on it than the House of Commons.When it comes to parity, the Liberals like to implement government policies that fit with their ideology and how they think the world should be, but some of their actions may have unintended consequences that they do not even see because they are so blinded by their ideology.They say they want a gender-balanced cabinet, but, having given the matter considerable thought, I have come to the conclusion that this ideal could have a very unfortunate unintended consequence. If we say that cabinet must be gender-balanced, this means that there will never be a cabinet with a majority of women, yet we have seen plenty of cabinets with a majority of men over the past 150 years. Now we are telling women that they will never be in the majority in cabinet regardless of their skills, their beliefs, and their political strengths. No, now we must have parity, 50-50.I would even add that this means cabinet will never be less than 50% male. What a paradox. They say the goal is to protect and expand women's rights, but if we examine this from a political and philosophical perspective, it looks more like a way to rein in women's progress in the political arena. Is that not an interesting thought? Instead of talking about parity in cabinet, since I have just shown that it is nothing more than a pipe dream that actually hurts the advancement of women in cabinet, we should be talking about parity for the founding peoples. That is what is important in Canada: French Canadians, English Canadians, the fact that Quebec has still not signed the constitution, and the fact that there are demands coming from all sides, whether in the west, which has reforms it would like to see, in the maritime provinces, or in Quebec. We should be talking about parity in our country in terms of English and French culture and making sure that everyone is comfortable in the constitutional environment. Instead, we are stuck talking about a bill that is meant to correct a mistake borne of blind ideological fervour. What I find increasingly deplorable is this government saying it is objective and bases what it does on scientific facts.(1915) First, it is an arrogant thing to say, because it suggests the party previously in government was not. The truth is that the Liberals themselves are so fixated on their own ideology that it is preventing them from acknowledging some of the significant impacts of their legislation. Ultimately, I would like to say that, ideology aside, the Liberals cannot pay ministers higher salaries before the bill is passed, and yet, that is what they have been doing for the past two years, which is no laughing matter. C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration ActCabinet ministersEqual opportunitiesGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsIncome and wagesRegional development agenciesSecond readingSenate and senatorsStatus of womenCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSalaries ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1915)[English]Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege existed even before the creation of Canada. Without privilege in this chamber, without the secure fact of accessing this chamber, we cannot even start thinking about helping our communities. We are here first and foremost to represent our constituents, but the question of privilege is never a question that takes time for no reason. It is fundamental. It is in the convention. It is in the history of Canada and our great parliamentary tradition from Britain.C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration ActCabinet ministersGovernment billsSecond readingCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitbyKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSalaries ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1920)[English]Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, what the member does not say is that the privilege question of two of our members here on the Conservative side of the chamber was part of a build-up of frustration, because the government has treated the opposition basically like garbage. The Liberals tried to repeat the same thing they did last year with Motion No. 6. They tried to cut the speaking time. The forefathers of this country were speaking for three hours here sometimes, every member, but the Liberals said 10 minutes was way too much. Can members believe that? What is the goal of being here if we cannot even speak 10 minutes? That was the situation. C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration ActCabinet ministersGovernment billsSecond readingKenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSalaries ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1920)[English]Mr. Speaker, certainly my constituents feel that the Liberals have been given enough blank cheques already. Again, the member over there spoke about respect, that we took too many days to speak about a question of privilege, which is terrible to say. The Liberals say they respect us, but they say we should just sign on to a bill that would create new ministries that they do not want to tell us about yet. They want us to vote on the bill, but they do not want to tell us exactly what is going on. This is how much respect they have for us. This is how much respect they have had for us for two years now, which is why we came to that situation in March, April, and May, and that is why we are sitting until midnight tonight.C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration ActCabinet ministersGovernment billsGovernment expendituresIncome and wagesSecond readingHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPublic Service Superannuation ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC)(1510)[Translation]Bill C-357. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-357, An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act (Group 1 contributors). He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with honour and pride, but mostly with humility that I rise today because this is the first time in my life that I have had the opportunity and incredible privilege, as a Canadian, to act as a legislator and introduce my first bill. It is a private member's bill, of course, but it would require royal assent. I intend to do everything I possibly can to make the government see the importance of this bill.It seeks to ensure that veterans can benefit from the grandfather provision in the changes made to the federal public service pension legislation.In 2012, some changes were made to ensure the vitality of federal public service pensions. Some grandfather provisions were applied to ensure that those who were public servants before 2013 could benefit from the status quo. Veterans were inadvertently excluded from this.When a veteran who fought for our country for many years brought the issue to my attention, I did not hesitate to move forward. For a year, I prepared everything I needed to and today I am very pleased to introduce this bill.In closing, I would like to say that I love grassroots politics, but I want to be a full-fledged legislator. This is a big day for me and for all the veterans who served this country in another way, in the Canadian federal public service in particular.That is why I am introducing this bill today.(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)C-357, An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act (Group 1 contributors)Canadian ForcesIntroduction and First readingPensions and pensionersPrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsKevinSorensonHon.Battle River—CrowfootTedFalkProvencher//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has managed to mess up yet another an important file, that is, the replacement of Canada's search and rescue aircraft.That is not surprising, however, since the department has been without leadership since 2015, and even more so for the past two months, considering the very partisan parliamentary secretary who is responsible for the department's policy issues. When will the Prime Minister understand how important and how urgent procurement is and finally intervene before this completely falls apart?Canadian ForcesGovernment contractsMilitary aircraftOral questionsSearch and rescueHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthStevenMacKinnonGatineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (2215)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary an objective question. This is not a party line.I read some newspaper articles reporting that there had been negative effects in Colorado. The health of young people and moral issues aside, it seems that motor vehicle accidents are costing the Colorado government a lot of money.I would like to know whether the parliamentary secretary has an opinion on what is happening in Colorado. Without getting into health or moral issues, what is the government's opinion on the objective facts, such as the costs associated with road accidents?C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisColoradoCostsGovernment billsImpaired drivingSecond readingJoëlLightboundLouis-HébertJoëlLightboundLouis-Hébert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (2200)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to say good evening to the minister and thank him for being here with us.I will be asking questions in quick succession, and I would like the answers to follow suit. It will all be fine. It will last 15 minutes, and then it will all be over.What does the minister think of the Davie shipyard's new administration since 2013? Also, is he confident that the Asterix supply ship for Project Resolve will be ready in time?Chantier Davie Canada Inc.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceMain estimates 2017-2018Shipbuilding industrySupply vesselsJeanRiouxSaint-JeanHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2200)[Translation]Mr. Chair, the minister says they are doing great work. Does that mean he has a good opinion of the administration of the Davie shipyard?Chantier Davie Canada Inc.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceMain estimates 2017-2018Shipbuilding industryHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2200)[English]Mr. Chair, I understand the lack of capacity, even if I do not believe him. The minister cannot tell us exactly who told him about the lack of capacity for official reasons and strategic reasons, etc. What I would like to know is whether it was an employee of his political cabinet who told him about the lack of capacity, or was it the DND staff, who are not political?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceMain estimates 2017-2018Military shipsHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2200)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I made a mistake. I was talking about the lack of capacity with regard to fighter jets in our actual air fleet. I should have clarified that point. I will ask my question again. Exactly when was the minister informed of the lack of capacity in the air fleet and who informed him? Was it an employee of his political cabinet or a DND staff member?CF-18 aircraftConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceMain estimates 2017-2018Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2200)[Translation]Mr. Chair, when the minister was made aware of the lack of capacity in the Canadian air fleet, did that information come from an employee of his political cabinet or a DND staff member?CF-18 aircraftConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceMain estimates 2017-2018Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2200)[Translation]Mr. Chair, on what date did the minister inform the Minister of Public Services and Procurement that his fleet's needs were so urgent that he would be going ahead with untendered military procurement?CF-18 aircraftConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceGovernment contractsMain estimates 2017-2018Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2200)[Translation]Mr. Chair, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement is responsible for administering the Government Contracts Regulations, which apply to government procurement.Did the minister have a discussion with the Minister of Public Services and Procurement regarding the Government Contracts Regulations for the potential acquisition of 18 Super Hornet jets?CF-18 aircraftConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceDepartment of Public Works and Government ServicesGovernment contractsInterdepartmental relationsMain estimates 2017-2018Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2205)[Translation]Mr. Chair, did the minister's staff and the staff of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement communicate at a meeting, or by telephone, email, mail, or courier with respect to the valid exceptions to the process set out in the Government Contracts Regulations?CF-18 aircraftConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceDepartment of Public Works and Government ServicesGovernment contractsInterdepartmental relationsMain estimates 2017-2018Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2205)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I would like to know whether his department informed the minister that procurement must be carried out in accordance with the government's procurement policies, especially when there is no call for tender? CF-18 aircraftConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceGovernment contractsMain estimates 2017-2018Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2205)[Translation]Mr. Chair, the next question absolutely requires an answer. Otherwise, we will know that the minister has not done his homework.Which exception to the Government Contracts Regulations does the lack of capacity put forward by the government fall under? CF-18 aircraftConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceGovernment contractsMain estimates 2017-2018Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2205)[Translation]Mr. Chair, fortunately, the deputy minister responsible for procurement answered my question. The government referred to subsection 3(1)(g) of the Government Contract Regulations:...a contract whose purpose is, for operational reasons, to fulfil an interim requirement for defence supplies or services or to ensure defence logistical capabilities on an interim basis, and any related contract.This is the subsection used by the government to proceed without a call for tenders, unless it does not really want to proceed without a call for tenders, or unless it does not really want to buy interim aircraft.If the government does want to proceed, my next is question is as follows: did Public Services and Procurement approach the present minister's department in order to obtain a letter with respect to the exception under subsection 3(1)(g) for the purchase of a fleet of aircraft without a call for tenders?CF-18 aircraftConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceDepartment of Public Works and Government ServicesGovernment contractsInterdepartmental relationsMain estimates 2017-2018Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2205)[Translation]Mr. Chair, did the minister's department write a letter to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement explaining why it was necessary to proceed without a bidding process?CF-18 aircraftConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceDepartment of Public Works and Government ServicesGovernment contractsInterdepartmental relationsMain estimates 2017-2018Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2210)[Translation]Mr. Chair, this is very important. The Minister of Public Services and Procurement has a legal obligation to request that the reason why the government is not holding a bidding process for the Super Hornet fighter jets be written in black and white, even if it is just in a simple letter.Did the Minister of Public Services contact the defence minister's office? If not, did the defence minister intend to move forward diligently and honourably on his own initiative by providing his partner department, Public Services and Procurement Canada, with the necessary explanations that would ensure that the two departments properly comply with the Government Contracts Regulations? It is a law after all. I am not the one saying it. It is the law. CF-18 aircraftConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceDepartment of Public Works and Government ServicesGovernment contractsInterdepartmental relationsMain estimates 2017-2018Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2210)[Translation]Mr. Chair, the Liberals discussed the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces' air fleet among themselves. If letters have not yet been exchanged between the two offices, it is basically because they have not gotten very far in the process to potentially acquire 18 Super Hornet fighter jets without tender. They basically have done nothing to date. I am asking the minister where the Liberals are in terms of the work that has been done between the two departments. This has to happen at some point. It is not me that is saying it. It is the law. The two departments have to work together. It is the law. If they are not at that point yet, when will they be?CF-18 aircraftConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceDepartment of Public Works and Government ServicesGovernment contractsInterdepartmental relationsMain estimates 2017-2018Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2210)[Translation]Mr. Chair, okay, that is too bad. In 2012, Mr. Ferguson, the Auditor General, said that Public Services would have to request a letter from National Defence, but that went nowhere because they did not do anything. We all know what is going to happen. They will not go forward with this. That is why they have done nothing. The law does not even matter, because they have done and will do absolutely nothing.I would like to know if the Seaspan and Irving shipyards can satisfy military needs under the national marine strategy.Does the minister think that these two shipyards can meet the needs set out in the marine strategy?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceIrving Shipbuilding Inc.Main estimates 2017-2018Military shipsSeaspanShipbuilding industryHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2215)[Translation]Mr. Chair, there is an excellent table in the report by the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. It shows that, beginning in 2005, when the Conservatives came to power, the percentage of GDP allocated to the armed forces started to go up. During the economic crisis, it started going down, unfortunately. If only the economic crisis had not happened. However, in 2015-16 and 2016-17, it kept going down: 0.92% and 0.88%.Will the percentage of GDP allocated to military spending start going back up in 2017-18?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDefenceDepartment of National DefenceGovernment expendituresGross domestic productMain estimates 2017-2018Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodTaxationInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1200)[Translation]Madam Speaker, since the Liberal government took office, the people of Beauport—Limoilou have been plagued with tax hikes, the cancellation of tax credits for family activities, extra payroll taxes, and new taxes on various consumer goods.Yesterday, the Liberal government confirmed that it will be imposing a carbon tax on all the provinces. By 2022, gas prices at the pump will increase by 12¢, which is really going to drive up the cost of groceries.Will the Liberals put a stop to this situation before it escalates any further, or is this just the beginning?Carbon pricingCarbon taxOral questionsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingGinettePetitpas TaylorHon.Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Autism Spectrum Disorder]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1055)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and the work that he does on this issue.I missed the better part of his speech, so he may have already gone over this, but beyond the monetary investment that the Liberal government should be making in this area, what else can it do to proactively help those suffering from autism spectrum disorder? I imagine that there is something more tangible than monetary investments that the government should be providing. I wonder if the hon. member could elaborate on that. AutismCanadian Autism PartnershipGovernment assistanceOpposition motionsMikeLakeHon.Edmonton—WetaskiwinMikeLakeHon.Edmonton—Wetaskiwin//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1505)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, for the past year, the Prime Minister has refused to acknowledge his responsibility in the Phoenix fiasco.The Prime Minister laid off 250 compensation experts between February and April 2016 as he was launching the Phoenix pay system. This means that the Liberals are responsible not only for launching the system on February 24, 2016, but also for cutting the number of experts, which has caused delays and compensation errors.Will the Liberals stop deflecting blame and finally take responsibility?BacklogsComputer systemsIncome and wagesLayoffs and job lossesOral questionsPublic Service and public servantsJanePhilpottHon.Markham—StouffvilleStevenMacKinnonGatineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure Bank]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1225)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Out of the $120 billion promised and planned by his government after the election, how much, to date, has been taken out of the treasury to be invested in infrastructure? To my knowledge, it is almost nothing. How is the infrastructure bank going to make sure that the $120 billion promised for infrastructure is distributed to the various projects as quickly as possible?Canada Infrastructure BankGovernment expendituresInfrastructureOpposition motionsPrivatizationMarcMillerVille-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-SoeursMarcMillerVille-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1440)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to answer my question.Ministerial responsibility is a long-standing political convention in our political system. Ministers are honour-bound to uphold such conventions, or else resign.From the outset, the Liberal government has repeatedly said that all that is required to end the crisis of confidence is an apology. This political approach is not in keeping with the convention we have in the House.Why is the minister hanging on to his position, when it is obvious to all Canadians that he should resign immediately?AfghanistanCanadian Forces mission in AfghanistanMembers' remarksMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.JeanRiouxSaint-JeanJeanRiouxSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1530)[English]Mr. Speaker, during his speech, the member suggested that members from this side of the House had only put up examples coming from anonymous sources. That is not true. We spoke about retired Lieutenant-General William Carr, who said that the defence minister's search for recognition was a national embarrassment. We also spoke of retired Major Catherine Campbell, who has also spoken on the subject, and she is quite disappointed.The member also said the same thing when the MP for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles gave his speech. He accused us of talking against the service of the minister. That is not the case. We are arguing that the minister has falsely exaggerated his role during Operation Medusa in Afghanistan. We are not talking about his honourable service to our country, but to his false exaggeration of being the architect of Operation Medusa. When will the member correct his statement?AfghanistanCanadian Forces mission in AfghanistanMembers' remarksMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.JohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1600)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will begin by simply saying that the Minister of National Defence must resign, not only because of numbers or political decisions, but because of ministerial responsibility, a very important constitutional convention in this country. Since he does not want to follow that convention, we need to use an opposition day today to call for his resignation, which is coming soon. By the end of my speech, members will understand why.I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the men and women who serve their country in the Canadian Armed Forces for the hard work they do every day, as demonstrated recently when they took quick action to help address the flooding in many regions of Quebec and Ontario.I would also like to thank the members of the 6th Field Artillery Regiment, with whom I had the honour of serving our country, for the dedication they have shown since the regiment was created to the homeland and in every conflict.Like my other opposition colleagues, today, I want to talk about our motion, which reads as follows: That the House has lost confidence in the Minister of National Defence's ability to carry out his responsibilities on behalf of the government since, on multiple occasions the Minister misrepresented his military service and provided misleading information to the House.This is really very serious. It all began with earlier issues, which I will talk about shortly. First, I want to explain a little about what has brought us to this opposition day, namely Operation Medusa, which took place in Afghanistan in 2006. The minister’s political career began recently, in 2015. Before the November 2015 election, he was still in the Canadian Armed Forces. In a speech in New Delhi, India, for the second time in his political career, he stated that he was the main architect of Operation Medusa. This was not an inadvertent error, since he had made the same false statement, the same exaggeration, previously, during the 2015 election campaign, in an interview with a journalist. Operation Medusa was one of the most important operations conducted by the Canadian Armed Forces in Afghanistan. It has contributed to our national pride, since it was a success, according to a majority of analysts. Since making that false statement, the minister has been severely criticized for this lie by the media, the opposition, and numerous active or retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Today, my colleagues have clearly shown this by referring to a number of retired members of the military who are disappointed and stunned by this minister’s conduct. What is unfortunate, but what reinforces our position on this opposition day, is that the Minister of National Defence is setting a trend in terms of how he performs his ministerial duties. Right at the beginning of his term as minister, in December 2015, when the newly elected government decided to end our CF-18 campaign in Iraq, the Minister of National Defence held talks with certain members of the Iraqi government. When the minister returned to Canada, we asked him several times whether he had actually heard any comments about the withdrawal of our CF-18s in Iraq, and he said that was not the case. However, thanks to the good work done by journalists, we recently learned that, on the contrary, the Iraqi government had informed the minister on numerous occasions of its concerns regarding the withdrawal of the CF-18s. That is the first point on which the Minister of National Defence misled us. The second example of the trend that the minister is setting relates to Kuwait. We have armed forces personnel in Kuwait, and, since October 5, 2014, they have received tax relief that was put in place by the Conservative government, as is often the case for other missions. (1605)Responding to questions on the Order Paper, the Minister of National Defence acknowledged that the Conservative government had in fact put that tax relief in place. In spite of the minister’s clear statements saying that members of the military deployed in Kuwait were entitled to tax relief offered by the previous Conservative government, he kept saying, several months later, falsely, that those soldiers were deployed without receiving tax relief from the Conservative government. Why did he change his mind? Did his parliamentary assistants not bother to tell him that he had signed a paper saying that in the House? That is probably what happened, and that is another example of incompetence. The third thing that further highlights the minister’s pattern of misleading conduct toward Canadians and the House is our fighter fleet’s lack of capacity. There is no such thing. The commander of the air force, Lieutenant-General Michael Hood, said when he appeared before the Standing Committee on National Defence, as my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles who sits on that committee and was there can attest, that there was no lack of capacity when it comes to Canada’s fighter fleet. I have given three flagrant examples that show that the minister has misled the House of Commons, the parliamentarians who must vote for or against the government’s decisions. His pattern seems quite obvious to me, and that brings me to the second part of my speech. I want to come back to the convention of ministerial responsibility. If there is one fantastic thing bequeathed to us by mother England, and its fantastic mother of parliament, Westminster, it is ministerial responsibility, which rests, first and foremost, on the honour of a man or woman, the honour of serving and of acknowledging that, when the time comes, he or she must resign from his position or her position. I have to say that Canada has an interesting history when it comes to ministerial responsibility. I am going to give all the examples of ministers who have resigned, since 1867, for reasons ranging from the trivial to the most serious. I thought that the change in the political culture that had taken place since the 1950s should have meant that very few ministers had resigned recently. We treat politicians as we treat products of mass consumption: we toss them out when they are no longer good. Contrary to what I thought, until this millennium, ministers have had the courage to resign for much more trivial reasons than we are currently discussing in the case of the Minister of National Defence. Mr. Galt, one of the founders of the nation, resigned in 1867 because he no longer had the support and confidence of his cabinet colleagues, who held his policy responsible for the collapse of the Commercial Bank of Canada. In 1878, Mr. Vail, defence minister, resigned because he had violated ministerial directives by being a shareholder of a company that had received government printing and advertising contracts. In 1907, the minister of railways and canals, Mr. Emmerson, resigned because he had been accused of going to a Montreal hotel with a person of ill repute. Is that not unbelievable? In 1965, the secretary of state of Canada, Mr. Lamontagne, resigned because he had been accused by the opposition, not by a court, of being involved in the scandal relating to a bankruptcy close to the prime minister. Mr. Dupuis, a minister without portfolio, resigned in 1965 after exerting undue influence in the matter of a race track in Saint-Luc. In 1986, the minister of regional industrial expansion, Mr. Stevens, resigned because he was being investigated in relation to conflict of interest allegations, which is much more serious. In 2002, the solicitor general of Canada, currently Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, resigned because he was being investigated in relation to conflict of interest allegations. In 2005, the present member for Humber River—Black Creek resigned in the midst of allegations of improprieties. Last, in 2010, minister of state Helena Guergis resigned because she was being investigated regarding allegations relating to her conduct. As we can see, for various reasons, trivial or otherwise, ministers have followed a very important convention in our country, a constitutional convention that requires a man or woman who holds office as a minister of Canada to resign when the members of the House question their confidence in him or her. Here, it is not only us; it is the entire Canadian Forces that are questioning their confidence in the minister. He should simply resign. (1610) When we learn the truth about all of the issues that concern us, and if he did not in fact lie to Canadians, he will be able to return.AfghanistanCanadian ForcesCanadian Forces mission in AfghanistanCF-18 aircraftMembers' remarksMilitary personnelMinister of National DefenceOperation ImpactOpposition motionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Tax reliefCherylGallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeStephenFuhrKelowna—Lake Country//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1615)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the member is simply trying to create a diversion. In my speech and during this opposition day, what is important is talking about a minister. Like all his predecessors, the minister should follow the constitutional convention of ministerial responsibility, and, most importantly, honour it. Right at the outset, in December 2015, the Prime Minister told the House that he was not like Mr. Harper and he had a cabinet government. A cabinet government takes responsibility, and when a minister is in the wrong, he resigns.AfghanistanCanadian Forces mission in AfghanistanMembers' remarksMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.StephenFuhrKelowna—Lake CountryRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1615)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting theory. I hope it doesn't, but if it holds true, the minister must be having a difficult time. That being said, there is no law requiring that he agree to his Prime Minister's request that he not step down. On the other hand, he ought to respect and apply a constitutional convention endorsed for centuries in our British parliamentary system and resign when faced with a loss of confidence brought on by his actions. Personally, I detest conspiracy theories. That said, I hope that this is not the case here.AfghanistanCanadian Forces mission in AfghanistanMembers' remarksMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.RobertAubinTrois-RivièresJeanRiouxSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1615)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, in 1848, the issue was responsible government. I am talking about ministerial responsibility, which is a convention pertaining to a minister who is at fault. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can keep placing his trust in him, that goes without saying. However, the minister must realize, on his own, as a man or woman of honesty and dignity, that no one is listening to him anymore. The defence report that has just been released paints the picture of a terrible Conservative government, even though that was not the case at all. The Canada First defence strategy meant $20 billion more for National Defence. Who is going to believe that report now, dear colleagues? No one. That is the reality. That is why the minister has to resign. He is compromising the work of all of his colleagues, mainly that of the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister has not shown him the door in a few weeks' time, the situation will fester and the government will begin to rot from within. AfghanistanCanadian Forces mission in AfghanistanMembers' remarksMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.JeanRiouxSaint-JeanJeanRiouxSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1150)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the Liberal government has set up a task force to ponder the trials and tribulations of the Phoenix pay system.After a year, this is too little too late, and public servants themselves are the ones saying so. Contrary to what the Liberal government and the parliamentary secretary are claiming, there are still some public servants across this country who have not been paid for six months, including the Drouin family in Montreal. There has been absolutely no progress, and some very desperate cases remain outstanding.When will this government take urgent action to fix the problem once and for all?BacklogsComputer systemsIncome and wagesOral questionsPublic Service and public servantsBillBlairScarborough SouthwestStevenMacKinnonGatineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Ubique Quo Fas et Gloria Ducunt. “Whither right and glory lead” is the motto of the 6th Field Artillery Regiment, where I had the honour of completing my formal military service. Non-commissioned members like myself follow orders not because we fear officers, but because these orders ensure the protection of the federation and the honour of our homeland.The Minister of National Defence has breached that trust. Since his moral authority is gone, will he do the right thing and step down?AfghanistanCanadian Forces mission in AfghanistanMembers' remarksMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1140)[English]Mr. Speaker, the military see the truth. They see it on their paycheque at the end of the month.[Translation]On April 6, the hon. member for Gatineau told me that I would get evidence of the capability gap that was cited as the reason for procuring the 18 Super Hornet jets without a bidding process. He told me that the Department of National Defence would provide me with that information.However, on Tuesday, in committee, the Liberals voted twice against the Conservative motion calling on the Minister of National Defence to come present that evidence.The Liberals keep saying that this capability gap exists. Why are two ministers responsible for this file unable to prove it and unable to illustrate their point in writing in a letter?Canadian ForcesCF-18 aircraftGovernment accountabilityGovernment contractsInformation disseminationInvitation to tenderOral questionsJeanRiouxSaint-JeanStevenMacKinnonGatineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Reference to Standing committee on Procedure and House Affairs]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1400)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor today. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly on his very fine speech. His bilingualism is second to none. There is no question that he honours the forefathers of the two founding peoples of Canada.My colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has quite clearly explained the matter that I am addressing today. He has provided a good history of the last three weeks, laying out each successive question of privilege. I do not intend to repeat that exercise. Although I plan to speak to the importance of a question of privilege in my introduction, my main intention is to analyze the discussion paper on House reforms, while remaining grounded in the subject at hand. For three weeks I have been awaiting the opportunity to address my colleagues in the House on the debate before us, whether on the issue of privilege or the reforms debated in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Although some members are trying to differentiate the debates and separate their elements, they constitute a whole. Whether we are dealing with the question of privilege or the Liberal government's proposed reforms, which are meant to modernise Parliament, the issue remains the same, namely the inalienable rights of parliamentarians, and indirectly, every Canadian’s right to representation. Over the last three weeks, I have tried to speak before the committee by getting my name on the list. I did not succeed. I also tried to speak in the House last Friday. I was here to take part in the debate, like my colleagues on the other side. I am happy to be able to speak at last, and perhaps bring a French Canadian perspective to this debate. Many of my colleagues on this side of the House have tried to demonstrate that questions of privilege are of critical importance to members of the House of Commons as well as to the members of Westminster-style parliaments worldwide. Questions of privilege have been centuries in the making. I think it was my hon. colleague from Yorkton—Melville who aptly explained how, centuries ago in England, kings attempted certain manoeuvres to prevent the lords or members of the bourgeoisie, who were elected members or senators at the time, lords of the upper chamber, from entering the House to vote in due course on a given bill. Over the centuries, the respective English chambers acquired certain means of protection, the most important of which pertained to the issue of privilege which we are debating today. The foremost purpose of the question of privilege is to ensure that access to this democratic precinct is never impaired by any particular situation, the behaviour of an individual, or laws or changes to House procedures and affairs. It is no small matter to say that the question of privilege took centuries to adequately protect. Two weeks ago, two of my Conservative colleagues were unable to vote because they were delayed by a bus which had itself been delayed by the vehicles transporting our right honourable Prime Minister. The privilege of these two members here today to represent and speak on behalf of their constituents has, in effect, been breached, as has the privilege of all members. Every member of Parliament represents approximately 100,000 citizens.(1405)This is a very serious issue for all members of the House, simply because of what could happen. Let us turn the tables. Imagine that this was a confidence vote and that some 30 or 40 Liberal members were unable to reach the House. The government could fall and an election could be called.That is why we must ensure that access to the House is never restricted in any way. That is extremely important. That is why we should not hesitate to debate this for as long as we must. The breach of a parliamentary privilege could have disastrous consequences. This is a very serious matter.The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, directly or indirectly, willingly or not, is trying to manage this debate on the question of privilege. Last Friday, I was here when he tried to manage the debate and call into question the pertinence of debating a question of privilege in the House. He also tried to do something like that today, in my humble analysis of the situation, context, and dynamics in the House. We can see that this is a habit of our Liberal government colleagues and the parliamentary secretary. It is the Liberal habit of wanting to manage, control, dominate, and supervise the elected members of this very honourable democratic chamber.It would be useful to read the definition of the word “manage”. To manage means to administer. To administer what? According to the dictionary I am reading from, to manage means to administer the interests and affairs of another. Only I can manage my interests in the House. I read the definition of the word “manage” so that we can refer to it when we read the discussion paper presented by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons entitled Modernization of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. I invite you to go to page 2, where it states: Therefore, the themes of the proposed reforms are three-fold in addressing the aforementioned issues. They include: (1) the management of the House and its sittings; (2) management of debate; and (3) management of committees. Management is the act of managing. I can hardly believe that none of the professionals in the government ever told the House leader not to put those words in the paper. Those words, along with several other words, do not belong there. I will talk about that later. It is not up to the government to manage the House. The government manages affairs of state. It manages Canada. Fine. The government's job is to manage the interests of Canadians, not the House of Commons. Nevertheless, that is what it says here in the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons's paper on reforming the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The Canadian Constitution is my bible; I refer to it constantly, though I like the Bible too. If we look at the part about legislative powers, it talks about privileges. The word “privileges” is in the Canadian Constitution, right there in the British North America Act of 1867, but there is no mention of the word “manage” in the part about the House of Commons. (1410)Of course, the Fathers of Confederation never planned, anticipated, or intended for the government or members to manage the House. On the contrary, emphasis is put on the question of privilege.Let us look at what is happening with the government's proposed changes, which are in fact at the heart of the current debate, although we are now debating the subamendment to the question of privilege relating to issue of privilege. As I said, I will not get into the entire back story, as my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan explained it all so very well.In fact, the debate is on the opposition members' current frustration with a disingenuous attempt by the Liberal government and especially the Prime Minister to substantially and significantly reduce the right to speak, the right to vote, and the right of all hon. members to act as they see fit in the House. It is hard to see what the government hopes to achieve exactly. I do not wish to impugn their motives. I will leave it to everyone to come up with their own interpretation. However, one thing is clear, the government's discursive arguments are deeply flawed.Many things bother me about the discussion paper on reforming the Standing Orders. On page one, we read that Parliament “should respond to demands of greater accountability, transparency and relevance.” The Fathers of Confederation, constitutional conventions, and parliamentary conventions have never been concerned with relevance. The only thing that is very much relevant to all members and all Canadians is the election that is now held every four years under the new law. The only thing that is very much relevant is the result of the election which then translates into the division of political powers in the House of Commons. The only matter of relevance in the House is the representation of citizens and the representation of the different interests and different political forces in Canadian society. In the second paragraph, we read that the impetus of the reforms is “to balance the desire of the minority's right to be heard with the majority's duty to pass its legislative agenda.” That is incredible. For a political minority to be heard is more than just a desire; it is a right. I was shocked to read such a thing in a text produced by the Canadian government. Is this an essay by a student at Cégep or is it a government document? It is really hard to tell.In the third paragraph, we read that debates need to be more effective so that they are reasonable in length. Good heavens. Today I will be speaking for 20 minutes, although most of the time, I have only 10 minutes to speak. That is already unreasonable, because that is not a long time. In my office I have a book called Canada's Founding Debates. Our predecessors in the House used to speak for two, three, four, or five hours. They would talk all night. Now we speak for 10 or 20 minutes, and we are being told that it is unreasonable. I was shocked to read those things in a government document. The document also indicates that it is time “to re-evaluate the role of members and examine ways to increase their influence in the legislative process.” It is not easy to move forward with these kinds of reforms. In that regard, I have two very simple solutions I would like propose to the government, and I say this in all seriousness.(1415)I have two very simple solutions to propose to the government, and I am confident that they will have the support of the House. I, for one, would champion this my entire life. If the Liberals really want to return true legislative authority to all members of the House of Commons, two things need to happen. First of all, the Prime Minister's Office needs to go. It has only been around since the 1970s anyway. Before that time, many prime ministers were both prime minister and minister of foreign affairs. They were able to pull that off without the benefit of the PMO's 700 employees. I know what I am talking about, because I myself was an intern at the PMO, which has about 200 political staffers and 500 public servants.Then, we need to put an end to party discipline. It does not exist in England, and that is the real Westminster parliamentary system. The concept of a majority and minority is actually an illusion. In a real Westminster parliamentary system where there is a majority and a minority, the majority is constantly changing, at every moment and for every vote. That is how it is in England. A real prime minister, in the British parliamentary system, must have the pride, conviction, and strength to convince all members of the House of Commons to take his side. In England, David Cameron has lost I do not know how many votes. Sometimes 80 of his Conservative colleagues do not vote the same way he does, but he wins the vote anyway because some democratic liberals and members of the workers' party vote with him. That is the strength of a real parliamentary majority. It is always changing.To give power back to members, all we need to do is close the Prime Minister's Office and put and end to party discipline. If he were to do so, the Prime Minister would be acting with incredible audacity and remembered for thousands of years to come.On page 4, the government says that the reforms will provide a greater degree of flexibility, which will “calm the acrimonious proceedings leading up to the summer and winter adjournments.” Once again, when a person knows how liberal constitutionalism works in a Westminster parliamentary system, acrimony is welcome. Our founding fathers wanted political acrimony. The United States uses a system of checks and balances because they have a strict, airtight division of power. Here the division of power is not strict or airtight. You know that better than I do, Mr. Speaker, since you have served in this great chamber for many years.Acrimony provides checks and balances in the House. What is more, works written by political scientists Baker, Morton, and Knopff, from the University of Calgary, and Manfredi, from McGill University in Montreal, teach us that there is acrimony among the three powers, or in other words the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. That acrimony is what allows us to come up with the best solutions for Canadians following a strong and vigorous debate.I want to emphasize that the government's reforms, which are at the root of the question of privilege we are talking about today, and which are the subject of two more questions of privilege, would take away our rights as opposition MPs. If the Liberals really want to give members more legislative power, all they have to do is get rid of the PMO, which would be great, and put an end to party discipline.Dilatory motionsMotion to proceed to the Orders of the DayMotion to refer the matter to the appropriate committeeParliamentary privilegePrima facie breach of privilegePutting the questionRights of the House as a CollectivityStanding Committee on Procedure and House AffairsMatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Reference to Standing committee on Procedure and House Affairs]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1420)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.I am glad she mentioned electronic voting. Although it might be the smallest proposed change in the discussion paper, I am strongly opposed to electronic voting. I am extremely proud to have to be present in the House. It is not a matter of personal pride. In fact, it is about acknowledging my 100,000 constituents. That is what the Westminster model is all about. That is why in England, the House still reflects the 18th-century House of Commons. It is a good thing. I do not want us to be like the U.S. congress where there are big television screens, endless voting, and negotiations between representatives where one representative asks another to change their vote in exchange for the other representative's vote another time. No, we must rise with honour, acknowledge the person saying our name and that of our riding, and do so before all Canadians. It is important. Electronic voting promotes disengagement.Dilatory motionsMotion to proceed to the Orders of the DayMotion to refer the matter to the appropriate committeeParliamentary privilegePrima facie breach of privilegePutting the questionRights of the House as a CollectivityStanding Committee on Procedure and House AffairsJulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthDavidChristophersonHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Reference to Standing committee on Procedure and House Affairs]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1425)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I completely concur with my colleague's analysis.Not only is what he just said true, but, moreover, the government does not understand its role in the House of Commons. This document is peppered with words that should not be there. We see words that do not reflect the expectation, according to the Constitution and the British North America Act, for the House of Commons. The duty of the government is to manage the state and Canadians. We have to wonder about that too.The role of the government is to manage the affairs of the state, not to manage the House of Commons. This document was written by a student.Dilatory motionsMotion to proceed to the Orders of the DayMotion to refer the matter to the appropriate committeeParliamentary privilegePrima facie breach of privilegePutting the questionRights of the House as a CollectivityStanding Committee on Procedure and House AffairsDavidChristophersonHamilton CentreKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Reference to Standing committee on Procedure and House Affairs]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1425)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, what I see in this discussion paper is an attempt to slowly but surely lead Canada toward a republican system. We would no longer have a Westminster system, but rather an executive that does whatever it wants, that is not accountable to anyone, and that is not responsible for its actions. That is why I do not like republics. I like the Westminster system, where the government is held to account every day.Dilatory motionsMotion to proceed to the Orders of the DayMotion to refer the matter to the appropriate committeeParliamentary privilegePrima facie breach of privilegePutting the questionRights of the House as a CollectivityStanding Committee on Procedure and House AffairsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Reference to Standing committee on Procedure and House Affairs]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1425)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals want is to make sure that Canadians have less of a voice in the House. Since the constitutional revolution of 1982, led by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Liberal Party has been trying to do away with the Westminster system. The Liberal Party's ultimate goal is to bring a republican system to Canada. I will never stand for that. We blocked this reform paper before it went to committee to ensure that these proposals will never be passed.Dilatory motionsMotion to proceed to the Orders of the DayMotion to refer the matter to the appropriate committeeParliamentary privilegePrima facie breach of privilegePutting the questionRights of the House as a CollectivityStanding Committee on Procedure and House AffairsToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionM. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, PCC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, since Phoenix was introduced in February 2016, public servants from across the country and their families have been going through some very difficult times.Last week the Minister of Public Services and Procurement shockingly stated that she cannot reverse the decisions made by her deputy minister, specifically the decision regarding the $5 million in bonuses granted to department officials.Considering statements like that, we might as well not have ministers.When will this government finally start governing, show some leadership, and reverse the decision to grant bonuses to officials involved with Phoenix?BacklogsComputer systemsExecutivesIncome and wagesOral questionsPublic Service and public servantsMattDeCourceyFrederictonStevenMacKinnonGatineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1155)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government can no longer hide behind its senior officials when it comes to the Phoenix pay system fiasco. The Prime Minister himself repeated on several occasions that he wanted to solve the problems with the system as quickly as possible.On behalf of all the families who have been adversely affected by the problems with the system, I am asking the Prime Minister to immediately cancel the bonuses for the officials involved with Phoenix.When will the Liberals finally take responsibility for implementing a pay system that was not ready? When will they apologize to taxpayers and the families affected by this decision made in February 2016?BacklogsComputer systemsExecutivesIncome and wagesOral questionsPublic Service and public servantsAnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingStevenMacKinnonGatineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotion in amendmentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1635)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this afternoon. I am pleased that you are the one in the chair right now.I am rising today to share some of my thoughts and, of course, those of Her Majesty's official opposition on Bill C-25, An act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act.It is important to begin by saying that this bill targets some 270,000 federally incorporated companies, which are, for the most part, small and medium-sized businesses that do not sell shares and to which the changes will not apply.It is important to remember that the amendments proposed in Bill C-25 are the result of a legislative review that was conducted by a House of Commons committee in 2010, two Parliaments ago. Consultations were then held by our government and Industry Canada in 2014.Like the majority of my colleagues who have spoken to Bill C-25, I think it is commendable and fantastic in many ways that the current government was open enough to use old legislation from the Conservatives' 2015 budget to develop Bill C-25.However, what my opposition colleagues and I find a little unfortunate is the lack of substance in the bill we have before us at the current stage and, in fact, the lack of substance we see all too often in the current government's bills. I would even say the lack of bills, quite simply. No more than 50 bills have been tabled by the Liberal government since October 19, 2015. The minority government of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper had tabled three times as much legislation by 2007.Certainly, the bills lack substance. In addition, there is a lack of real change. I will come back to the bill after this aside. The Liberals campaign slogan was “real change”. We can certainly change the things we say. That is obviously what the Liberals have done. However, Canadians expect legislative change, and that is not what we are seeing currently. The Liberal government is missing several opportunities to do a good job in the House and bring in concrete measures for Canadian society, to address problems affecting workers, seniors, the unemployed, and corporate boards. This is how I am getting back to the bill. We are delighted that the Liberal government is using legislation that the previous Conservative government worked very hard on. However, in committee, we brought forward two main amendments that, it appears, do not suit the opposition, or rather the government. Excuse me. I misspoke. I saw the future and called the government the official opposition. That will be two and a half years from now. During the committee stage of Bill C-25, the Conservatives proposed amendments that would have strengthened the bill. First, we proposed to define the word “diversity”, which is an integral part of the bill. (1640) It is one of the key components of the bill since the other side of the House wants to impose diversity, which is still undefined, within various federally regulated corporate boards and institutions. The amendment we wanted to bring forward would define the word correctly. The need for this was also raised by a number of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. The official opposition critic responsible for this issue and several of my Conservative colleagues met with these witnesses. The second amendment would require a review of the diversity policy in three years. There is a reason why the Liberal government did not accept this amendment, which would define the word “diversity”. One of the things this government most often does is present sweeping concepts that they do not want to define. In this case, it is diversity. In another case, it is the 1%. For the next two and a half years I will repeat that the 1% does not exist. We are one of the world’s fairest societies, one of the societies where wealth redistribution is unparalleled in the history of mankind. I really find it incredible. I had the chance to go to university and I can say that any professor or academic would tell you that there is no such thing as the 1%. I would like to give a parallel example that will explain why imposing diversity could have consequences that are not necessarily what the government intends. I will go out on a limb: I assume that by diversity, they mean cultural minorities of all kinds. Today it is rather fashionable to identify all kinds of minorities, when what really counts is protecting the political minority, first and foremost. I will give an example of some of the consequences that sometimes result from a desire found only in rhetoric. When the Liberals talk about a gender-balanced cabinet, I see rather significant consequences. It is not in law, thank God, but if by misfortune the next government decides to continue with that, this would then become a convention. We would have a sort of parliamentary convention to have a gender-balanced cabinet. According to the Liberals, having a convention saying that cabinet must be gender balanced means that women will forever hold half the power in the cabinet that forms the government. From another perspective, this also means that from now on, women will never be the majority in cabinet. Is that not a bit ironic to think that for centuries, cabinet was composed mostly of men, and now, with this convention we end up never seeing a cabinet composed mostly of women?I believe this is a first consequence of this rather dangerous convention, based on misconceptions, dangerous social interpretations, and political capital, which, furthermore, in a way endangers—to put it bluntly—the possibility of having the best cabinet possible. I am sure that my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, across the way, would make a wonderful minister. I was with him on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. He is incredible, clever and has an outstanding mind. However, because of gender parity, he will probably never be as close to me on the seating plan as he could be. We will never get the best by relying on sweeping misconceptions. (1645) Creating such misconceptions of social reality that can be interpreted differently can have consequences. We therefore need to define the word “diversity” to ensure that this bill will not have negative consequences on corporate administration. Board of directorsC-25, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition ActCabinet ministersCompaniesCorporate governanceEmployment equityEqual opportunitiesGovernment billsReport stageStatutory reviewTerminologyWomenBruceStantonSimcoe NorthErinWeirRegina—Lewvan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotion in amendmentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1650)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, obviously, liberalism and the capitalist system result in these kinds of problems. A good government must always ensure that wealth is redistributed in the best interests of all Canadians. That said, if I were told that 30% of Canadians were a lot richer than others, I would say we are starting to have a problem. However, the concept of the 1% leads to dangerous political battles, since it makes Canadians cynical. Canadians live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, one of the only countries where anyone, even the poorest of the poor, can do their best and succeed, since there is the crown government. Canada presents all sorts of opportunities. We need to stop talking to Canadians as though they were pathetic children. Quite the contrary, we need to show them that this great country is there for them and for their future. We especially have to stop coming up with sweeping concepts that create cynicism day after day in society.C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition ActCompaniesCorporate governanceEqual opportunitiesExecutivesGovernment billsIncome and wagesReport stageErinWeirRegina—LewvanBrianMasseWindsor West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotion in amendmentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1650)[English]All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that I profoundly believe that the bonuses that were automatically given to the CEOs were outrageous. Twenty-four hours before people in Quebec and most political figures started to be outraged, I had already put on Twitter that it was dishonourable, dishonourable, and dishonourable.To answer the hon. member's question more specifically, I would say that is one of the reasons I support the member for Beauce for the leadership. He just basically stands against any subsidies. He specifically said in his platform that he would strike subsidies against companies. However, I often say to my friend the member for Beauce that we still have to be cognizant of the fact that some regions in Canada need subsidies—for example, the Atlantic provinces—to make sure that we increase and support economic development there. Sometimes we have to be straight with our ideas, but we must always acknowledge the needs and the realities of the different regions.The bonuses for the CEO are outrageous, and we should all hopefully be against that.Bombardier Inc.C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition ActCompaniesCorporate governanceExecutivesGovernment billsGovernment loansIncome and wagesReport stageBrianMasseWindsor WestRobertKitchenSouris—Moose Mountain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1845)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, somebody needs to get the situation at Public Services and Procurement Canada under control yesterday. Just look at the outrageous bonuses paid to executives involved with the Phoenix fiasco in various capacities.I wish my colleague from Miramichi—Grand Lake were still here so I could tell him that the fact is, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement launched the Phoenix pay system on February 24, 2016. All of the access to information requests and all of the questions that we put on the House of Commons Order Paper leave no room for doubt, and the member for Gatineau knows it.We initiated the Phoenix project as any responsible government would have done. We realized the previous pay system was outdated and had to be changed. However, we were not the ones who implemented it. Again, all of the access to information requests show that expert reports to the minister of the day said the system was not ready.This evening, I want to talk about the Super Hornets, which the government plans to acquire very soon. My colleague from Edmonton West spoke about the advisability of procuring these aircraft and how long it would take. I would like to address another aspect of the problem.The Government Contracts Regulations must apply to the Department of Public Services and Procurement because, in the end, that department's minister must give the go-ahead to the department that wants to enter into procurement contracts. The reason we have a framework for government procurement, the Government Contracts Regulations, is to prevent questionable acquisitions of this magnitude.What I suspect, and I am confident in saying that my party colleagues agree, is that the exceptions in the regulations were rigged by the Liberal Party because it often mentions the exception contained in subsection 3(1)(g), which allows a contract to fulfill an interim requirement for defence supplies. I would like the record to show that this is not simply a legal void that the Liberal Party can use to contravene the Government Contracts Regulations.For greater clarity, if the Minister of Public Services and Procurement approved the future purchase of the Super Hornets without a tender, she must have a letter from the Department of National Defence stating, in black and white, why an exception is being made to proceed without a tender. There are four possible reasons for the exception: state of war, an emergency, a gap, and so forth. In this case, the Liberals are saying that there is a capability gap. I do not believe it, and my party does not either. Where is the proof?Can the parliamentary secretary show us a document from the Department of National Defence, signed by the minister, that proves there is a capability gap?Adjournment ProceedingsCanadian ForcesCF-18 aircraftGovernment accountabilityGovernment contractsInvitation to tenderNegotiations and negotiatorsThe Boeing CompanyAnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1850)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned an honest political disagreement between the two of us. That is indeed the case, but that is not what I am talking about.I would point out that Denmark was able to complete an open, transparent competition in 11 months.I am speaking to the parliamentary secretary, and it is not up to the Department of National Defence to answer me. My question is this. The rules surrounding government contracts demand that the Minister of Public Services and Procurement play a role. Any department can say that it wants this or that, for any given reason. It is too easy. Public Services and Procurement and the Government Contracts Regulations necessitate, require, and demand that the minister of public services receive a letter that explains why there is an exception, why the need is exceptional. I assume that, for the Liberals, the exception here is the capability gap. Personally, I do not think the capability gap exists—Adjournment ProceedingsCanadian ForcesCF-18 aircraftGovernment accountabilityGovernment contractsInvitation to tenderNegotiations and negotiatorsThe Boeing CompanyStevenMacKinnonGatineauAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1505)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should be ashamed of the decisions being made by his Minister of Public Services and Procurement. Thanks to the good work done by the member for Edmonton West, we now know that the public servants who worked on Phoenix, either directly or indirectly, received bonuses totalling $5 million and $14,000 per employee. How could the Prime Minister possibly want to grant bonuses? Did he not in fact want to set an example for Bombardier executives? BacklogsComputer systemsIncome and wagesOral questionsPublic Service and public servantsJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial Statement of Minister of Finance]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1655)[Translation]Madam Speaker, can my colleague tell me how many billions of dollars out of the $80 billion provided for infrastructure will be invested this year?Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)Budget debatesInfrastructureWays and Means No. 10MajidJowhariRichmond HillMajidJowhariRichmond Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial Statement of Minister of Finance]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1710)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Bourassa the same question I asked his Liberal friend from Richmond Hill: of the $80 billion in infrastructure spending pledged in the 2016 budget, how many billions of dollars have actually flowed since then, including in this budget?Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)Budget debatesInfrastructureWays and Means No. 10EmmanuelDubourgBourassaEmmanuelDubourgBourassa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial Statement of Minister of Finance]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1715)[Translation]Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here today. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock. I am starting to learn the names of all the ridings.It is a great honour and a great privilege to rise in the House today, because it is my birthday. I am 31 years old, and this is probably the best gift I have ever received in my life, namely, to be able to deliver a speech in this democratic chamber on my birthday.My colleagues likely knew what I was getting at when I asked my friends from Richmond Hill and Bourassa how much of the $80 billion allocated for infrastructure would be invested this year. The reason I asked the question is that, in fact, of the $80 billion that was supposed to be invested in infrastructure as announced by this Liberal government in 2016, almost nothing has been invested. In my mind, then, budget 2017 is a vote-seeking sham, and that will be more or less the subject of my speech today.In fact, this budget is a false budget, a chimera. According to the dictionary, a chimera is defined as a thing that is hoped for or wished for but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve. This budget is nothing more than an ideological agenda. It is filled with endless meaningless rhetoric. For instance, on page 11, it talks about keeping Canada’s promise of progress. That is rather interesting. I do not really understand exactly what that means. It talks about innovation on nearly every page, and it also talks about a feminist budget and a green budget. Today, in rather exceptional fashion, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent said that even though they called it a feminist budget and a green budget, the Liberals nonetheless eliminated the public transit tax credit in their budget. He also rightly pointed out that 60% of the people who claim this credit are women, in particular elderly women. Thus, the Liberals are not walking the talk.In terms of procurement, no significant investments have been made. Nothing has been said about balancing the budget. In fact, there are reports that we will be in a deficit position until 2051, which is shocking considering that Canadian families cannot be in the red at year's end.Expenditures for National Defence alone are deplorable. Just in budget 2016, the Liberals deferred $3.7 billion in spending until 2020-21. This $3.7 billion was included in our Canada first program, which was inspired by the Conservative Party of Canada's plan, under the leadership of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, to bring Canada out of the decades of darkness of the Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin governments in the 1990s, and to revitalize the army, ensure that military infrastructure returns to good working condition, and to make significant acquisitions to meet all military needs. Instead of getting back on track, the Liberals announced in the 2017 budget the deferral of $8.4 billion in spending to 2035-36.As I mentioned at the beginning, almost nothing has been spent on infrastructure to date. I suspect that the Liberals will invest the entire $80 billion in 2019 so that there will be construction cranes right across the country. We are going to be tripping over cranes and Canadians will think that this government is incredible.The Liberals also broke their promise. They said that they would run a small deficit of $10 billion when they are actually running a deficit of about $30 billion a year. What is more, they have no plan to balance the budget, and they did not lower taxes for small and medium-sized businesses as promised during the 2015 election campaign. (1720)Budget 2017 also significantly raises taxes. When we, the Conservatives, had the opportunity and honour to govern the country, we were the advocates and defenders of taxpayers. We lowered taxes in many ways, first by decreasing the GST from 7% to 5%. We then created the universal child care benefit, the children's fitness tax credit, the children's arts tax credit, and the post-secondary education and textbook tax credit. We instituted income splitting for families, which the Liberals unfortunately did away with. We did all of that with the exceptional result of making taxes lower for Canadian families than they had been since the 1960s. That means that, under our government, after 10 years under a Conservative government, Canadian families were paying about $7,000 less in taxes a year than they were prior to 2004. That is not to mention the fact that we created 1.2 million jobs in 10 years, with the best employment rate of all OECD countries.Unlike us, the Liberals are raising taxes for families, small businesses, and children. In budget 2016, they already increased taxes on gas and heating, increased taxes on Canadians' savings accounts, increased payroll taxes for businesses, and cancelled many of the tax cuts that I mentioned earlier.Canadians, thinking it was going to stop there, were very saddened last month to see that the tax increases would actually start all over again. The government is going to tax public transit users by eliminating the public transit tax credit, Uber and ride-sharing, beer and wine, which basically comes down to introducing a weekend tax, as my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent so aptly put it. Donated medicine will be taxed, as will childcare, and small business owners will be saddled with an increase in payroll taxes. Oil and gas companies will be taxed, and so will tourism. In short, this is a disgrace.I am an elected official from Quebec City, from Beauport—Limoilou. We can see that there is nothing in this budget for Quebec City, which is as surprising as it is appalling; there is nothing there for the Port of Québec, which needs $60 million to attract private investment and launch the Beauport 2020 project. There is nothing for the Institut nordique du Québec for political, social and anthropological research on northern Canada, research that remains very important. There is nothing for the National Optics Institute, a technology innovator in the heart of the Parc technologique du Québec. There is nothing for the Quebec Bridge, which was supposed to be dealt with before June 30, 2016. Finally, there is nothing about the SRB, the bus rapid transit system and there is nothing about the third link.Conversely, in the last 10 years, the Conservative government, under the fantastic leadership of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, invested almost $1 billion for the Quebec City region alone: in Gilmour Hill, in community infrastructure, in the Port of Québec, in l'Anse au Foulon and in the Ross Gaudreault terminal. A number of investments were made then, to be sure.In closing, I would like to say that the government should focus on what will really give Canadians a vision and help them 100 years from now by balancing the budget, eliminating the deficit by the end of the year, and paying off the debt. How can we be one of the richest countries in the world and still have so much debt? We need to cut Canadians' taxes, not raise them. If the economy were going well, MPs could take care of the important things, the things that help us all get along. We could talk about the Constitution, community, and Canadians' rights, but because of this government, we keep talking about the economy when we should be talking about other issues.(1725)Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)Budget debatesBudget deficitCity of QuébecEqual opportunitiesFamilies and childrenGovernment expendituresIncome splittingInfrastructureInnovationMilitary equipment and facilitiesPublic transit tax creditResearch and researchersSplitting speaking timeTax creditsTax policyWays and Means No. 10WomenEmmanuelDubourgBourassaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial Statement of Minister of Finance]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1725)[Translation]Madam Speaker, any academic could tell us that the whole concept of the 1% is false. This is incredible. It is demagoguery.We did not vote against a tax cut. We voted against a fake tax cut. It was nothing but a vote-seeking ploy, just like this budget and the whole Liberal agenda.When I go door to door every week, I listen to Canadians. I would like to know if my colleague ever does that, ever listens to Canadians. He wants to take away our right to speak in the House now. They have been doing this for two months now.Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)Budget debatesIncome tax bracketWays and Means No. 10KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthBernardGénéreuxMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial Statement of Minister of Finance]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1725)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I fully agree with my colleague. It is an appalling sham.The Liberals had told Canadians that they would run a deficit to invest in infrastructure. By the way, we, the Conservatives, had created the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history, worth $120 billion. The Liberals told Canadians that they would run a deficit of only $10 billion, when it is now $28.5 billion.They also said that it was to invest in infrastructure, but two years after their election, almost zero dollars have been invested in infrastructure. It is a vote-seeking sham. They want to dole out the money in 2019.Budget 2017 (March 22, 2017)Budget debatesBudget deficitPolitical programsWays and Means No. 10BernardGénéreuxMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-LoupKenMcDonaldAvalon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial Statement of Minister of Finance]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1725)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I remain very proud of the benefit we created because it was reasonable. Yes, it was taxed, but that was so that people would be responsible. I am very proud of it.Benefits for childrenBudget 2017 (March 22, 2017)Budget debatesFamilies and childrenWays and Means No. 10CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKenMcDonaldAvalon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial Statement of Minister of Finance]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1730)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it was universal. We knew how to do the calculations, and we knew how to index it. The Liberals, though, have not been able to get the math right. They will have to spend another $4 billion on an ill-conceived benefit.Benefits for childrenBudget 2017 (March 22, 2017)Budget debatesFamilies and childrenWays and Means No. 10CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Procedure and House Affairs]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1630)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gave a very good speech. I would first like to make a comment, and then I have a question for him.Page 2 of the document tabled by the minister regarding the modernization of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons talks about ways “to empower Members...to increase their influence in the legislative process.” What needs to be done is simple: just close the Prime Minister's Office, which was created by former Prime Minister Trudeau, and put an end to party discipline. That would be fantastic. It is not complicated. Those are the two things that prevent members from doing their work and representing their constituents properly.We have heard about electronic voting. I came here to safeguard the honour of this institution, as much as possible and as much as I can as a private citizen. The idea that someone could vote while sitting at their desk and simply pushing a button seems completely dishonourable to me. Plus, if that were to be done from our constituency offices, I see all kinds of terrible scenarios potentially playing out. Imagine if a staffer were to vote instead of the member.Does my colleague not find dishonourable this effort to ensure that one day members are no longer required to stand up before Canadians to vote?8510-421-79 11th Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (Initiatives toward a family-friendly House of Commons)Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 8Members of ParliamentOffice of the Prime MinisterParliamentary reformPolitical allegianceRemote votingStanding Committee on Procedure and House AffairsStanding Orders of the House of CommonsWork life balanceDanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by Members150th Anniversary of ConfederationInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1405)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, this year, 2017, all Canadians from coast to coast to coast will be emphatically united in proudly celebrating the 150th anniversary of our great Confederation. That is why, in the first weeks of my term in Beauport—Limoilou, it was my goal to make sure we organized unique festivities for all to enjoy.Together with Limoilou en Vrac and Société d'art et d'histoire de Beauport, I am very proud to announce today that there will be two distinct celebrations of Canada's 150 anniversary this summer in my riding. One will be held in Limoilou and the other in Vieux-Beauport. Combining historic celebrations and family activities, each event promises to be exciting. We expect that more than 10,000 people from Beauport—Limoilou will attend. In closing, I want to point out that the purpose of these festivities is to celebrate Canada, its strength, courage, dynamism, and tenacity, but especially the extraordinary people who live and work here day after day.150th Anniversary of Canadian ConfederationBeauport—LimoilouStatements by MembersNicolaDi IorioSaint-Léonard—Saint-MichelAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is not just a question of role and money. It is a question of principle and honour, and the government has none.[Translation]A prime minister must adhere to three guiding principles: he must show humility, show restraint, and manage finances carefully.When will this Prime Minister finally act with honour, lead by example, and stop wasting Canadians' money?Aga Khan IVAircraftBahamasConflict of interestGovernment expendituresOral questionsPrime MinisterReferences to membersTravelTrudeau, JustinBardishChaggerHon.WaterlooBardishChaggerHon.Waterloo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1445)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, this week marks one year since the minister introduced the Phoenix pay system despite a number of reports advising against it. That decision has had some harsh repercussions for thousands of Canadians.I have some examples to share. Mr. Little is a federal correctional officer who has not been paid for months and is in danger of losing everything. Ms. Leclerc wrote to tell me that she is under enormous stress. She has been serving the Canadian government for 35 years, but she is still missing whole chunks of her pay and other things she needs to retire with dignity.There are thousands of cases like these. Does the minister regret the decision she made last February 24?BacklogsComputer systemsIncome and wagesOral questionsPhoenixPublic Service and public servantsMélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-CartiervilleJudyFooteHon.Bonavista—Burin—Trinity//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, in this story, the government is not the victim, it is the accomplice of the Phoenix fiasco.[Translation]The opposition, the media, and public servants do not believe the Liberal government's story. It is refusing to take responsibility, and it is hiding behind excuses that nobody buys. The software should have been phased in to ensure that everyone was prepared to implement it properly. That was clear from the Gartner report commissioned by Treasury Board, whose minister is here. On behalf of all Canadians, I am asking the minister to apologize for the bad decision she made last February 24.BacklogsComputer systemsIncome and wagesOral questionsPhoenixPublic Service and public servantsJudyFooteHon.Bonavista—Burin—TrinityJudyFooteHon.Bonavista—Burin—Trinity//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Systemic racism and religious discrimination]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1125)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for his speech. I have enormous respect for him. He is entirely right. Every democratic state, especially liberal democracies, must exercise great vigilance toward all hateful or radicalizing trends, but also toward all political agendas of any religion whatsoever. All the same, I would like to ask him a question. For him, what exactly is Islamophobia? Does he not think that in the Liberal motion it would have been appropriate to clearly define what Islamophobia is, as such?Islam and MuslimsOpposition motionsRacial equalityReligious discriminationTerminologyPierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-HubertPierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my riding is home to 200 public servants who work for the Canada Revenue Agency. These public servants work very hard for Canadians and their families, and, as one can well imagine, they have bills to pay. For the past year, the Phoenix fiasco has been hitting them hard. They cannot even get basic updates about their cases. What are they doing now? They are coming to my riding office to get help that the government should be giving them but is not.When will the minister at the very least admit that she made a mistake in February 2016 when she gave the system the green light despite advice to the contrary?BacklogsComputer systemsIncome and wagesOral questionsPhoenixPublic Service and public servantsKirstyDuncanHon.Etobicoke NorthJudyFooteHon.Bonavista—Burin—Trinity//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1145)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, there is clearly a political controversy surrounding the procurement of the Super Hornet fighter jets.At the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates yesterday, the Liberals refused to hold an emergency debate, even though that committee's mandate is to examine procurement contracts. The goal is to ensure that everything is done by the book and that Canada's Government Contracts Regulations are followed.Will the Liberal government allow our committee to do its job on these important matters and will it respect the parliamentary process?Canadian ForcesCF-18 aircraftCommittee studies and activitiesGovernment accountabilityGovernment contractsInvitation to tenderOral questionsStanding Committee on Government Operations and EstimatesStevenMacKinnonGatineauStevenMacKinnonGatineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1150)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, let us talk a little about Phoenix. The parliamentary secretary and his minister have been providing very poor leadership.First, the minister never admitted that she made a mistake by implementing the Phoenix pay system in February 2016.Second, she is not taking responsibility for the situation. Instead, she is sending the deputy minister to all of the press conferences.Third, since the fiasco began, the minister has been trying to minimize the seriousness of the crisis, which is affecting thousands of Canadian families.When will the minister show some political courage in this matter?BacklogsComputer systemsIncome and wagesOral questionsPhoenixPublic Service and public servantsStevenMacKinnonGatineauStevenMacKinnonGatineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1250)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-31, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.I want to take a moment to talk about the history of humanity, which will hopefully yield some insight into the notion of free trade. What is trade, essentially? According to the Canadian Oxford, a well-respected dictionary, trade is the exchange of goods between peoples.That is an interesting first take on what free trade is. When two individuals meet to trade something, no matter the period in history, whether they barter or anything else, they exchange one commodity for another. That is trade. I consulted the dictionary again to look up the meaning of free trade. It says that free trade is a theory, an economic doctrine whereby exchanges are free from obstacles and international transactions are free from protectionist intervention.The free trade doctrine was formulated in the eighth century. It was also discussed by physiocrats such as David Hume and Adam Smith and in the writings of Mr. Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, where it is explored in greater detail. To those authors, the freedom of nations to trade is founded on the international division of labour, where each nation specializes in the production for which its aptitudes are greatest and where production is most cost effective. This theory underscores the positive effects of competition, which allows consumers to get products of the best quality at the lowest price.Here is what we know about free trade. Theorists apply this concept more to international relations, but I would like to apply it to any form of trade without restrictions, whether at a national, international, or community level, or between two individuals. My colleagues will understand my logic.I asked myself what we, human beings, have been doing for thousands of years, if not trading freely. If we look back at the Neolithic age, it seems to me that any men who ever met would know right away that they were going to trade products.Even this spontaneous trade between tribes or individuals involved a certain degree of expertise, similar to the definition used by philosophers which states that free trade seeks to divide work sectors between different countries based on their skills and expertise, as well as their resources, of course. I am sure we can all agree that Canada will never have much expertise in growing bananas, for example, because we do not have the right climate to do so.It seems to me that free trade has always happened. That is my argument. Being an evolutionist, I believe that we have been trading freely for millions of years. Long before we had countries and borders, humans traded with one another. In short, free trade is definitely not a modern or post-modern construct. Nevertheless, I went and had a look at protectionism. The definition in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary is this: the theory or practice of protecting domestic industries. Trade tariffs are imposed in order to protect the local economy from foreign competition.(1255)That is exactly what we are worried about right now, for example, with the hon. President of the United States, Mr. Trump, who is talking about potentially imposing tariffs and thus moving forward with a form of protectionism.Protectionism has always been around. The Conservative Party of Canada was once in favour of protectionism. It depends on which way the wind is blowing. It is a matter of historical and political circumstance.That being said, for the past 30 years, the Conservative Party has been the ultimate champion of free trade. I think that is a good thing because, as I demonstrated earlier, free trade has always existed from a philosophical perspective.However, protectionism can be dangerous when it is fully applied because then the market is controlled by the government. In its milder form, this state is referred to as socialism, and in its more extreme form, it is referred to as communism.The implementation of any type of trade system that is not free trade takes us in a rather dangerous direction. What is the best way to control populations? As I already mentioned, people have been trading with each other for millions of years. When governments were formed and kingdoms established, they quickly discovered that the best way of controlling people was to control the trade they were doing with each other.What I am trying to say is that free trade has always existed, it is part of the very ontology of humanity, and we therefore should not be afraid of it; quite the contrary, we should celebrate free trade as a form of absolute liberty and an inalienable human right. To come back to the bill, it is absolutely impossible to oppose, because it implements the free trade agreement between Ukraine and Canada. In fact, just a few years ago and under our government, Canada signed 45 free trade deals, for instance with Peru, South Korea, and the European Union. I could go on and on, but I cannot remember all the countries off the top of my head.Furthermore, under the incredible leadership of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, we also created the largest free trade platform in the history of humanity, namely, NAFTA, an agreement between Canada, the United States, and Mexico.We believe that the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement is certainly a very positive way for us to show support for that great country, which is home to Kiev, the cradle of Russian civilization. That probably explains the tension between Russia and Ukraine, and that is why our support for Ukraine is so important. After all, history is such that Ukraine is now an independent country.Let us explore why it is good for us to trade with Ukraine. I will speak from a monetary perspective, never mind international relations. Ukraine's GDP, its purchasing power, is $339.2 billion U.S. annually. The per capita GDP is a little more bleak at $7,900 U.S. That is why Ukrainians are certainly going to benefit from our free trade agreement with them. We are certainly going to contribute to increasing GDP to the benefit of every inhabitant of Ukraine, which will be excellent for them, their families, and their quality of life.The population of Ukraine is 45.2 million, which is 10 million more than Canada's. By all accounts, we have similar population profiles. Their exports and imports account for 82% of the GDP, at the exchange rate.Finally, Ukraine is a large exporting country like Canada and that may be because it is a bread basket nation, just like Canada is. Ukraine has always supplied wheat, oats, and other grains to the Soviet Union, or modern-day Russia, and to many other countries in the European Union, I imagine.(1300)Ukraine is Canada's 75th-largest merchandise trading partner out of 200 countries in the world. That is not bad, but I imagine that it could reach 50th or 40th place with this agreement, which will also help increase its per capita GDP. That was Ukraine's profile.C-31, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementFree tradeGovernment billsGrain and grain growingGross domestic productNorth American Free Trade AgreementProtectionismThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineUnited States of AmericaJohnNaterPerth—WellingtonAlupaClarkeBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1300)[Translation]I have a very interesting document here that gets into the nuts and bolts of what trade with Ukraine would look like on a day-to-day basis. Bilateral trade between Canada and Ukraine averaged $289 million from 2011 to 2015. That should go up by 19% once this agreement comes into force. Once the agreement is in force, Canada and Ukraine will immediately eliminate tariffs on 99.9% of their imports. That is sure to be good for Canadian and Ukrainian exporters and consumers.Oh my goodness, here is something interesting. Canada's GDP will rise by $29.2 million. That is not peanuts. Similarly, Ukraine's GDP will go up by $18.6 million. The really wonderful thing is that, in terms of international relations, this free trade agreement with Ukraine will bring that country into the fold of our great federation. Canada has more international agreements, whether commercial or military, than any other country. It is as simple as that. Any country that wants to feel even a little bit at ease at the UN wants Canada as a friend.Not only will Ukraine be more comfortable in terms of its international relations and its relationship with neighbouring Russia, but it will also not be losing out either. We are going to increase our GDP by only $10 million more than Ukraine, which will see its GDP increase by $18.6 million. That is a fairly balanced relationship.Once again, this shows how Canada is, without question, one of the greatest trading nations in the world, since this agreement is more beneficial to us than the other party. We always come out on top. Even NAFTA was a winning situation for us.The value of Canadian exports to Ukraine will increase by $41.2 million a year. The expected gains for Canada will vary and will come from the export of pork, machinery, and equipment. That is great news for Quebec, which is the largest exporter of pork in the world. It exports a lot of pork to China, but now it will also be able to export it to Ukraine.Manufactured goods, vehicles, parts, and chemicals will also be exported. This agreement will therefore also be good for the auto sector in southern Ontario, a region that has been struggling since the 2007-08 crisis. What is more, in the past five years, there has been a significant drop in the number of manufacturing jobs in Canada. This free trade agreement will definitely help increase the number of jobs in that sector. It is important to remember that the Conservative government is behind this free trade agreement. All the Liberal government is doing is making the implementation agreement official from a legislative standpoint. The Conservative government is the one that initiated and negotiated the agreement with the Ukrainian government at the time.Since I am running out of time, I will say that we fully support this free trade agreement. To end this Friday on a positive note, for once, I can say that I am proud of this government, which made a good decision regarding this free trade agreement.Let us now see what it will do to stand up to the superpower to the south, where rising protectionist sentiments threaten our economy. As I said in my earlier philosophical musings, protectionism is incompatible with the absolute freedom of each and every being on this wonderful planet.(1305)Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today. I look forward to doing it again.Automotive industryC-31, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementEconomic impactExportsGovernment billsGross domestic productPig farmingProtectionismThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineUnited States of AmericaAlupaClarkeBeauport—LimoilouGabrielSte-MarieJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1305)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I wish my memory was that good. I do not know which word comes after “free trade” in the dictionary. I assume the hon. member knows which one it is, even if he is asking me. I sure would like to know.C-31, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementFree tradeGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineGabrielSte-MarieJolietteDianne L.WattsSouth Surrey—White Rock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have to be aware that the impacts might be numerous, wide-ranging, and certainly scary, if not problematic, for our economy, for the well-being of all Canadian citizens, and certainly for the residents of my riding. That is why I call upon the government to not just try to publicly seem to be doing a good job. Some of its ministers went there a few days ago to chat with different secretaries of the administration. Our Prime Minister should try to be more responsible and confident. He should stop just giving us talking points, which is completely pathetic, and tell us that he will see the President of America and ensure that all of our interests will be safeguarded. C-31, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsNorth American Free Trade AgreementThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineDianne L.WattsSouth Surrey—White RockBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Phoenix pay system fiasco has been going on for over a year now and things just keep getting worse. One day, public servants are being paid too much. The next, they are being paid too little. The worst part is that the Liberal government is going to lose hundreds of millions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.I will be very clear. The Phoenix software is not to blame. The minister, who has demonstrated a lack of judgment, transparency, and accountability over the past year, is.When will the minister take control of her department and stop hiding behind her officials?BacklogsComputer systemsIncome and wagesOral questionsPhoenixPublic Service and public servantsJanePhilpottHon.Markham—StouffvilleJudyFooteHon.Bonavista—Burin—Trinity//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersStatistics ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1130)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to speak this morning. I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond Centre. Like the members who have already spoken today, I want to talk about Bill C-36, which is meant to strengthen Statistics Canada's independence. Together, we will look at whether this bill can achieve that official objective because it might also have unofficial objectives.I think it would be useful to explain to our constituents, including the wonderful people of Beauport—Limoilou, that Statistics Canada was created in 1971 because the federal government has a duty to collect and compile statistics on Canada and its people. Its duty is right there in the law that sets out the federal government's responsibilities. Statistics are therefore under federal jurisdiction. Even provincial statistics are within the agency's purview.Statistics Canada has been serving Canadians for 40 years. It has produced many studies that I am sure have formed the basis for many of Canada's public policies. Those studies have led to positive outcomes for all Canadians.In our Liberal democracy, data are extremely important. I used data when I was studying political science, and I use them now in my day-to-day work.Statistics Canada seeks to produce statistics on the country's populations, resources, economy, society, and culture. Statistics Canada is currently conducting over 300 studies, which will provide us with objective information that will help us make informed decisions while ensuring that the source of that information, the everyday lives of our fellow Canadians, is kept confidential.I use these data in my capacity as an MP and so do my employees. The data are also used by businesses, universities, and scientists. They are used by the parties to determine their political platforms so that, when a party wins the election and takes office, it can develop informed public policies.What does Bill C-36 do exactly? After reading the bill, my understanding is that it makes changes to four key areas.First, the chief statistician would be appointed for a fixed term of five years, renewable for good behaviour and removable only for cause by the Governor in Council. That seems commendable. Although it is not the bill's intention, the chief statistician would nonetheless be authorized to choose where the statistical data would be stored. We think that could be problematic since the government gave the new Canadian statistics advisory council its name and so it obviously expects that council to advise the chief statistician.Second, the bill provides for the creation of a new Canadian statistics advisory council made up of 10 members. It would replace the National Statistics Council, which currently has 13 members. I will come back to this later since it seems that this change will negatively impact provincial and territorial representation.Third, under the bill, the consent of Canadians will no longer be required to transfer their census information to Library and Archives Canada. Fourth, the bill will remove the penalty of imprisonment for Canadians who fail to fill out the census forms, a change that we strongly support.I would like to say that one of our Conservative colleagues in the previous Parliament, Mr. Preston, had brought forward a bill to repeal the penalty of imprisonment for all surveys. Unfortunately, the bill did not receive royal assent before the writ was dropped.(1135)Obviously, we support this aspect of the bill given that we wanted to make this change.I will now speak to our position on this bill. We want to debate it in the House and vote to send it to committee for more in-depth study in order to make some amendments. In particular, we find that it is very important to amend the provisions of the bill that would change the National Statistics Council to the Canadians Statistics Advisory Council, a body with 10 members instead of 13.We believe that this new advisory council would give the Liberals another opportunity to appoint their cronies. We have another concern. Since the council will provide advice about relevance, the surveys could be biased towards the Liberals and even friends of the council.We find it hard to understand why the government must establish a new council rather than just revising the mandate of the current National Statistics Council, which currently has 13 members representing the 10 provinces and three territories.Much like we did during the debate on the selection of the next Supreme Court of Canada justice, we voiced our grave concerns regarding the importance of ensuring strong representation from all regions of Canada on the Supreme Court.Because the council is going to have only 10 members instead of 13, we find ourselves debating the issue through the lens of defending the federation. Obviously, the representation of three jurisdictions in Canada will have to be cut from the council. Does this mean that three of the 10 provinces will no longer be represented on the new council, or have the Liberals decided that the three Canadian territories, that is, Nunavut, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories, will no longer be represented? In either case, whether representation on the council is taken away from three provinces or the three territories, we think it is appalling.As I said earlier, the mission of Canada's statistics agency is to provide information to Canadians, particularly for the development of sound public policies with objectives based on reliable hard facts. At present, the council that is supposed to support the work of the chief statistician so that he can effectively run the agency will not have the support of people who understand the realities of the provinces and territories.Furthermore, the bill does nothing to address the concerns raised by Mr. Smith, the former chief statistician. He resigned last summer after voicing his concerns, which are being ignored. When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on November 16, 2016, Mr. Smith shared his three main concerns with us. This first was this:(1140)[English]...Shared Services Canada represented a major and unacceptable intrusion on the independence of Statistics Canada.[Translation]His second concern was as follows:[English] ...the arrangement with Shared Services Canada imposed on Statistics Canada was inconsistent with the confidentiality guarantees given by the Statistics Act to persons and organizations providing information to Statistics Canada for statistical purposes.[Translation]His third concern was:[English]...dependence on Shared Services Canada was hobbling Statistics Canada in its day-to-day operations, reducing effectiveness, increasing costs, and creating unacceptable levels of risk to the delivery of Statistics Canada's programs.[Translation]The former chief statistician says he was not satisfied with the government's response to his concerns. I get the impression that this new bill does not fare much better.For all these reasons, we hope that during review in committee, the government will accept our key amendments.C-36, An Act to amend the Statistics ActCanadian Statistics Advisory CouncilCensusesChief Statistician of CanadaConsentGovernanceGovernment billsNational Statistics CouncilPenaltiesPolitical appointmentsPrivacy and data protectionRegional diversitySecond readingShared Services CanadaSplitting speaking timeStatisticsStatistics CanadaJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockPierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersStatistics ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1140)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, when I saw my colleague here today, I knew he would be the first to ask a question.The bill states right there in black and white that its purpose is to strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada and give the chief statistician more tools with which to exercise that independence. We should, however, look at the Liberal Party's record on this issue so far. Its chief statistician resigned last summer, and its bill does not address Mr. Smith's concerns.Mr. Smith would appear to be in a better position than the government to ascertain what Statistics Canada needs. The government's response to the needs he expressed is inadequate. I would like the government to explain how its bill will address the chief statistician's concerns.C-36, An Act to amend the Statistics ActChief Statistician of CanadaGovernanceGovernment billsSecond readingShared Services CanadaStatisticsPierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-HubertKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersStatistics ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1145)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, all surveys are very important to our democratic society. They provide basic information, real objective data that enable members of society, such as academics, political parties, and departments, to design public policy that meets Canadians' needs. I myself have always been proud to respond to Statistics Canada surveys. I think they are essential to our democracy.C-36, An Act to amend the Statistics ActCensusesChief Statistician of CanadaGovernment billsLong-form census questionnaireSecond readingStatisticsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthIreneMathyssenLondon—Fanshawe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersStatistics ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1145)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada must absolutely be independent.In passing, when we were in government, Canadian agencies and all crown corporations had the privilege of having a government that absolutely respected their independence. We see quite the opposite with this government.For example, I participated in the study on the future of Canada Post. Government members issued an extremely intrusive report in which they brazenly told the crown corporation what it was to do instead of telling it to carry out its mandate and provide proper service to all Canadians.The independence of our crown corporations and government agencies is very important. I will repeat that, ultimately, the former chief statistician was not pleased with the government. That may be a sign that the current government does not respect Statistic Canada's independence.C-36, An Act to amend the Statistics ActChief Statistician of CanadaGovernanceGovernment billsSecond readingStatisticsAnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingAliceWongHon.Richmond Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic ServicesInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is the main point: it is not the right equipment.(1445)[Translation]The Super Hornets will be operational for about 12 years, at most, and will cost Canadian taxpayers over $300 million per plane. Worse still, there are no significant industrial benefits on the horizon for Canadian workers or businesses. The Minister of Public Services and Procurement has a duty to manage taxpayers' money prudently, while also supporting Canadian industries.How far is the minister willing to go to promote the Liberal Party's political interests rather than the interests of all Canadians in this great federation?Canadian ForcesCF-18 aircraftEconomic impactGovernment accountabilityGovernment contractsGovernment expendituresOral questionsHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPort of QuébecInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1845)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor this evening. I am glad to have the opportunity to address my colleague from Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs for the first time.This evening, I would like to talk about the Port of Québec, an extremely important port and the oldest one in Canada. It is more than four centuries old and part of Quebec City's very foundation.The Port of Québec has reached a turning point. If it does not look to the future, focus on development, and expand its operations, then, sadly, it will soon die. Three projects are under way. Beauport 2020 is of utmost importance. L'Anse au Foulon is an extension of Samuel-De Champlain Boulevard. During the election campaign, there was a promise to invest $12 million in it. The Louise Basin is another Port of Québec site with plans for development.During its first year in power, the Liberal government did not have much to say about those projects. It was silent on the subject of l'Anse au Foulon, the Louise Basin, and Beauport 2020. There was nothing about Beauport 2020 in the throne speech or in the budget, and not much talk about it in general other than brief mentions by the Minister of Transport during his infrequent stops in Quebec City.Beauport 2020 is vital to helping the Port of Québec remain competitive internationally and in North America. This project is also important to maintaining 8,000 direct and indirect jobs in the greater Quebec City area. Among other things, Beauport 2020 includes plans to double the area of the port's wharves. It is important because investments tied to this project will make it possible to complete significant repairs to the port facilities so that the Port of Québec can remain competitive in North America.The environmental assessment is well under way. We are currently at the public hearing stage. Social licence will not be a problem, I am quite sure, because the port authorities are doing a good job. There has been constant dialogue between the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Port of Québec. The agency has given the green light for public hearings to begin. By July 1, Canada Day, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change should receive a positive report from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. I am confident that she will receive a positive report for this project. The Government of Quebec and municipal authorities all support this project. The Liberal Government of Canada has also said that it supports the project. However, it has been very tight-lipped about it for the past year.My question is very simple. One month before the election, the Conservative government confirmed that there was a $60 million envelope for the Port of Québec's Beauport 2020 project. The Minister of Transport repeatedly stated that he would honour the previous Conservative government's commitment in due course. My question is for the parliamentary secretary. Is this $60 million envelope, which was allocated by the Conservative government, still available? Is this amount still on the books? Other than saying that the government supports the Beauport 2020 project, can the government tell us whether this envelope exists and is still available today?Adjournment ProceedingsCity of QuébecPort of QuébecPorts and harboursSergeCormierAcadie—BathurstMarcMillerVille-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPort of QuébecInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1855)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his answer.I understand that this is the first phase and that the government needs to conduct an assessment. That being said, when the member mentioned that the federal government has approved 57 infrastructure projects in Quebec, I could not help but notice that there does not seem to be anything for Quebec City.What about the third link? The Liberal minister for the region, who says that he is not the minister for the region, has not said anything about it. No solution has been proposed regarding the Quebec Bridge, nor have we heard anything about the bus rapid transit system, a key project of the Quebec City mayor.I understand the importance of government procedures, but regardless of what steps the government needs to take in relation to Beauport 2020, I would like to know whether the $60-million envelope is still there. That is what port authorities, the Government of Quebec, the mayor of Quebec City, and my constituents want to know.Adjournment ProceedingsCity of QuébecPort of QuébecPorts and harboursMarcMillerVille-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-SoeursMarcMillerVille-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1200)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Phoenix pay system fiasco has reached a new low.Over 150 desperate public servants have turned to the Access to Information Act in order to find out the details of their pay file. The minister is bragging about being proactive and taking quick action on this file. I do not believe that to be the case, however. In fact, thousands of families have been hung out to dry, without knowing what happens next.After all this, does the minister seriously expect us to believe that public servants still have faith in her leadership?Access to Information ActAccess to information requestsBacklogsComputer systemsIncome and wagesOral questionsPhoenixPublic Service and public servantsCatherineMcKennaHon.Ottawa CentreStevenMacKinnonGatineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1815)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to take part in this evening's proceedings. I want to begin by congratulating the member for Gatineau on his new role. I look forward to working with him on the many issues related to the Department of Public Services and Procurement.First of all, I would like to talk about the fiasco that is the Phoenix pay system for those watching us. It began in February 2016 when the Liberal government decided to approve the implementation of a new pay system, that is a new computer system meant to ensure that all public servants receive their pay properly on a given date, in other words every two weeks.It was a huge change, especially considering the more than 300,000 public servants in the system, and the fact that the previous pay system had been in place for over 40 years. Thus, it was considered a huge change, one that had been planned by the previous Conservative government. In 2016, we were not there to assess its effectiveness and operational readiness.Last February, the government, through the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, gave the go-ahead to implement the system. A month later, government workers began to notice major problems. Some of them were not getting paid, which is pretty serious. Some of them were not getting their employment benefits, such as maternity leave or a pay raise following a promotion. Others were not getting the correct pay. Some were getting too much, which made no sense to them, and others too little. As the months passed, the situation got worse and worse. The problem ballooned from a few thousand public servants having trouble with their pay to tens of thousands of cases. By July 5, 2016, there were 80,000 cases.At that point, after three months of pressure from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and budget forecasts by the opposition parties, both Conservative and NDP, the government acknowledged the situation and said it would take action. The minister held a press conference on July 5. She stated that there was a backlog of 80,000 cases of people with the kinds of pay problems I mentioned. She said that the backlog would be cleared by October 30. It is now February 2017, five months later, and there is still a 13,500-case backlog. The problem is not the government's process. The problem is the lack of accountability. The minister says she was not made aware of the Gartner report that was submitted to her department in February which said that the Phoenix pay system was not ready to be implemented. The minister says she did not see that report, but approved the system anyway.Accordingly, the deputy minister did not respect the minister's responsibility and worse, if the minister did indeed see the report, which is my personal opinion, then she went ahead knowing that the system was not ready to be implemented.BacklogsComputer systemsIncome and wagesPhoenixPublic Service and public servantsAnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingStevenMacKinnonGatineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1820)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable. My colleague is talking about new transparency measures, but we know what happened this morning. We learned from a journalist that 150 employees who are currently having problems with the Phoenix pay system have turned to the Access to Information Act to find out what is happening with their pay, when it will be resolved, and what errors have been made. They had to turn to the Access to Information Act. I do not know what these new measures are, but they are obviously not working.I would like to come back to what I was saying earlier. The real problem here is the minister's lack of accountability. It very much seems like she is not managing her department. First, she approved the activation of the Phoenix pay system in February when three reports, including the Gartner report, indicated that the system was not ready—BacklogsComputer systemsIncome and wagesPhoenixPublic Service and public servantsAnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government keeps saying that it blames no one for implementing the Phoenix pay system. However, last year, the minister actually ignored the warnings issued in a number of screening risk assessment reports.How many Canadians have to confront the Prime Minister directly, as we saw last week, for example, before the minister finally admits that she is entirely to blame for the Phoenix pay system fiasco?BacklogsComputer systemsIncome and wagesOral questionsPhoenixPublic Service and public servantsLawrenceMacAulayHon.CardiganJudyFooteHon.Bonavista—Burin—Trinity//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersComprehensive Economic and Trade AgreementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1220)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.She mentioned in her speech that there used to be three dairy farms along her road. The idea of living out in the country like that, in nature, really appeals to me too.Can she tell my why they shut down? Did that happen recently or a while ago? Did those dairy farms have to close up shop because of Agropur's huge monopoly? Did they go out of business because of a previous free trade agreement? Was it because nobody wanted to carry on the family tradition?I am curious about why those farms went out of business.C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measuresCanada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade AgreementDairy farmingEuropean UnionFarmsGovernment billsSecond readingTrade agreementsBrigitteSansoucySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBrigitteSansoucySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersComprehensive Economic and Trade AgreementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1230)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the member for Sherbrooke's main argument. I wholeheartedly support this free trade agreement, but it definitely has some measures that, in some ways, take away from our great federation's sovereignty.However, I get the feeling that his argument cuts both ways because he uses it in this case but not in others. We belong to all kinds of international treaties that diminish our sovereignty in areas such as maritime law. If fishers from Newfoundland and Labrador want to venture farther than 12 or 200 kilometres to catch a certain kind of fish, they could face consequences for that, such as legal action elsewhere in the world.We belong to all kinds of treaties that diminish our sovereignty. I cannot name them just now, but I am sure there are plenty of them. The NDP supports them wholeheartedly.Will the member for Sherbrooke admit that he uses this argument when it suits him?C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measuresCanada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade AgreementEuropean UnionGovernment billsSecond readingSovereigntyTrade agreementsPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookePierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersPort of QuébecInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1405)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Port of Québec is the furthest-inland deep water port in North America. More importantly, it provides the best direct access to railways and markets in the heart of the continent.This deep water port boasts a 15-metre draft at low tide, which means that it can accommodate ocean-going vessels that cannot sail farther than Quebec City, making it the envy of many other ports.Beauport 2020 will provide the port with additional sources of revenue, which it needs to upgrade many of its existing facilities. If some of these renovations are not done immediately, the port's long-term viability will be jeopardized, plain and simple. Furthermore, the project to double the area of the port's wharves will make it more competitive relative to its direct competitors on the American eastern seaboard, which recently received massive state investments.The various Port of Québec projects will not only contribute in a very meaningful way to our region's economy, but will also help revitalize the old capital.City of QuébecPort of QuébecPorts and harboursStatements by MembersAndrewLeslieHon.OrléansSukhDhaliwalSurrey—Newton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1555)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.I heard something that really surprised me. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought she said that jobs in the Canadian Armed Forces are precarious. I would like to tell all Canadians who are listening that, on the contrary, working for the Canadian Armed Forces is wonderful. I did it, as did my brother, father, grandfather and great-grandfather. It is a very well-paid job.I strongly encourage all young millennials who are watching at home to contact their closest recruitment centre and join the Canadian Armed Forces.If the member is saying that being a member of the Canadian Armed Forces is precarious because it involves dangerous missions, I would like to remind her that statistics show that it is much more dangerous to be a fisherman in Acadie or a city firefighter than to be part of the Canadian Armed Forces.I want Canadians to know that being part of the Canadian Armed Forces is a wonderful experience.C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measuresCanada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade AgreementCanadian ForcesEuropean UnionGovernment billsSecond readingTrade agreementsWorking hours, terms and conditionsNikiAshtonChurchill—Keewatinook AskiNikiAshtonChurchill—Keewatinook Aski//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1340)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his great electoral victory. I have great confidence that he will serve his constituents with all his strength.Our colleague was on the electoral trail just a few weeks ago. He had the chance to knock on doors, go to many events and organizations, and hear from his constituents. We all did that during the election. Now we might do it a bit less because we are always here. As the member was there a few weeks ago, I would like him to tell us what was the most common criticism that always came back again and again against the current government from his constituents.Budget 2016 (March 22, 2016)C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measuresGovernment billsPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement indicated that she did not intend to provide Canadians with the financial details of the contract to purchase Super Hornet fighter jets. She said that she wanted to talk to Boeing and the American government about it first.The minister suggested that her government has not yet entered into discussions with Boeing, which is rather unbelievable. What is worse, Canadians are being treated like a second-class third party in this transaction, even though the minister is accountable to Canadians and Canadians only.When will she rectify this situation and tell Canadians the unit price of the Super Hornets?Canadian ForcesCF-18 aircraftGovernment accountabilityGovernment contractsGovernment expendituresOral questionsMaryamMonsefHon.Peterborough—KawarthaJudyFooteHon.Bonavista—Burin—Trinity//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1840)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I was only able to hear the end, so I hope my question is relevant.I have spoken with my colleague many times, and he is very professional. He is a lawyer with a large Montreal firm. However, I never thought he would be so partisan as to portray the Conservative era in such a negative light, when we gave the most substantial tax breaks in 50 years thank to 63 successive measures. We also created 1.2 million jobs after the recession. As a lawyer, my colleague from Louis-Hébert should stick to the facts. Does he not find it odd that he and his government are talking about a tax cut for the middle class, when in reality, it applies only to people who earn over $140,000 a year? A Conservative senator, Larry Smith, did some excellent research that proves it. In other words, this tax cut does not at all apply to those who need it most.Budget 2016 (March 22, 2016)C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measuresGovernment billsMiddle classPersonal income taxReport stageTax reliefJoëlLightboundLouis-HébertJoëlLightboundLouis-Hébert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1445)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we know three things for sure.First, the Minister of Procurement does not know how much Super Hornet fighters cost. Second, in negotiations with Boeing and the United States, the Liberals put their cards on the table before the game even started. Third, the process to replace our fighter jets will not be done before the 2019 election.Obviously, either the Liberals are totally incompetent, or they have a hidden agenda.Can the minister tell us which is true?Canadian ForcesCF-18 aircraftGovernment accountabilityGovernment contractsInvitation to tenderNegotiations and negotiatorsOral questionsThe Boeing CompanyMarcGarneauHon.Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—WestmountJudyFooteHon.Bonavista—Burin—Trinity//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Public Services and Procurement a very simple question yesterday. She did not answer me, so I would like to repeat my question.Her government's controversial decision to purchase 18 outdated Super Hornet fighter jets makes no sense. The minister's mandate is to ensure that all contracts awarded by the Canadian government are as profitable as possible and represent the best possible value for Canadian taxpayers.Will the minister finally confirm the unit price of each Super Hornet? If she cannot do so, we will have to assume that she went ahead without full knowledge of the facts.Canadian ForcesCF-18 aircraftGovernment contractsGovernment expendituresOral questionsBillMorneauHon.Toronto CentreJudyFooteHon.Bonavista—Burin—Trinity//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, the truth is simple. She is not answering because she does not know the cost of the planes. That is what we call bad governance.[Translation]In Norway, their open and transparent process to replace their fleet of fighter jets took two years. The same kind of process took 16 months in South Korea and 11 months in Denmark.The Liberals know that their management of this file will be a turning point for Canadians, who will judge the current government's performance very severely. That is precisely why they extended the bidding period over five years, until after the next election.When will the minister properly fulfill her ministerial mandate instead of—Canadian ForcesCF-18 aircraftGovernment accountabilityGovernment contractsOral questionsJudyFooteHon.Bonavista—Burin—TrinityGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1445)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, one of the duties of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement is to ensure, first, that government contracts are financially viable; second, that they are in line with the priorities and interests of the federation; and third, that they are executed with broad benefits to Canadians and our businesses.We are currently missing important salient details to be able to properly judge the contract to purchase the F-35 fighter jets.Can the minister now confirm the price of each individual jet?Government accountabilityGovernment contractsInvitation to tenderJoint Strike Fighter F-35 aircraftOral questionsHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthJudyFooteHon.Bonavista—Burin—Trinity//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1340)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I was going to rise to ask a question, but it seems that I will be starting my speech now. I would like to say hello to all those Canadians who are watching us right now, especially my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou. I am very pleased to speak in the House to Bill C-26, regarding the Canada pension plan.My Conservative colleague from Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan spoke just before me. I admire his exemplary oratory skills and aspire to achieve the same some day. He talked about how this bill is typical of this and every Liberal government since the dawn of Canada. In fact, this is about taxing Canadians even more in order to fill the government's coffers to help carry out the Liberal government's agenda.My colleague also talked about the Liberals' paternalistic approach to everything. All the while, he was able to illustrate with clear and concise definitions that increasing CPP contributions was in fact a tax from an economic and social policy perspective. He described in detail the Liberals' typically paternalistic approach to raising taxes.That was encouraging to me as I wanted to explain that this bill is typical of this government, one that, despite its claims, has been increasing Canadians' taxes every month since coming to power one year ago.It cancelled various tax credits that we introduced, such as those for children's sports activities or books and educational items. It refused to move forward with its promise to lower the small business tax, which represents a tax hike. It cancelled the universal child care benefit and replaced it with a benefit that was poorly implemented and that, by 2020, will incur extraordinary costs that were not anticipated. The government did not think of indexation, for example. That is not revenue neutral.The Liberals have also proposed the Liberal tax on carbon of 11.5¢ a litre, which will soon be implemented. They are also increasing the CPP contribution by $1,000 a year for every employee and every employer. Furthermore, they did not reduce the small business tax. They are also making it more difficult to obtain a mortgage in order to buy a home.On this side of the House, we understand full well that the exponential growth in real estate prices in places like Vancouver and Toronto is a problem that needs to be addressed. However, the Liberals decided to draft a bill that makes no distinction with respect to the different regions of Canada in order to resolve a problem that is affecting only certain cities.Bill C-26 is part of a general plan to raise taxes for Canadians. This bill is proof that the Liberals are saying one thing and doing another. For the past year, we have been hearing the Liberals talk about strengthening the middle class, but what we are seeing is that they are imposing more taxes on the middle class and introducing measures that will prevent the middle class from developing as it should.We could even go so far as to say that the government is using the middle class to achieve its own ends and improve its electoral fortunes three years down the road. The government promised us a modest deficit of $10 billion a year. However, that deficit has now grown to $30 billion because of the government's poor decisions and bad management. To fill its coffers, the government has to raise taxes in all sorts of areas, and that includes the Canada pension plan.In a nutshell, because of Bill C-26, workers will take home $1,000 less every year and employers and entrepreneurs, the people who lead the way in job creation in Canada, will have to give up another $1,000 per year. (1345)I heard what my Liberal colleague said about seniors working hard all their lives and being entitled to a good Canada pension plan. He was talking about workers who are seniors right now. I stood up to ask him a question. Nowadays, more and more of our seniors keep working after retirement. My father-in-law retired from the Quebec public service a few years ago and is now working part-time. The higher Canada pension plan premium will be deducted from every one of his biweekly paycheques. Moreover, the changes to the Canada pension plan will not come into effect for another 40 years. Many seniors, including anyone who is currently a senior, will not benefit from the higher premiums, which are supposedly intended to reduce poverty among seniors. I would also like to reiterate what my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent was saying a little earlier when he began the debate on Bill C-26. As he explained, what we are seeing right now are two different and opposing political and philosophical outlooks. My colleague from Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan provided a good description of the Liberal Party's vision. The Liberals think they know better than Canadians what they should do with their money and how they should use it at the end of the day. That is so paternalistic. It is in this government's DNA. It always thinks it knows better than Canadians what to do about all kinds of things, including how to invest and prepare for a comfortable retirement, if that is possible.Conversely, we the Conservatives believe that individuals, Canadians themselves, know best what suits them to meet their own needs. That is why, during the 10 years we were in power, we took action and introduced policies that would help return as much money as possible to taxpayers, to maximize the amount of money that would stay in their pockets at the end of the year, as well as maximize the tools available to enable them, in turn, to maximize everything themselves. For instance, I think that the tax-free savings account is an excellent tool. Many people in my immediate family use that measure, as do my neighbours and constituents.I also want to say that we should look to our ancestors. For example, my great-grandfather built his own retirement nest egg. I am not saying that we should go back to a time when there was no government plan to support those among us who forget to do our due diligence and prepare for old age. However, we must not implement measures that encourage people to neglect their needs and their responsibility to take care of their own retirement. We must always keep in mind the sage advice that our ancestors lived by. In other words, we must create our own nest eggs and ensure that when we reach old age we are able to take care of ourselves as much as possible for as long as possible.I also think that Bill C-26 reflects two rather different political approaches. I would go so far as to say that my NDP colleagues share this same vision. Currently, every policy from this government is about short-term political gains with a view to re-election in three years, or so they think and want. How many decisions did we make in the past 10 years that were not at all popular? We still went ahead and made them anyway. We were courageous and proud to make those decisions. I am talking about increasing the age of retirement from 65 to 67. That was an extremely courageous and necessary decision. I am sure that I will likely never retire. I will work until I die, as people did for thousands of years. It is too bad. I wanted to close by saying that one of my hobbies is to watch political debates. I have watched the debates in France, England, and in Germany, and the majority of the western European countries are saying that the age of retirement needs to increase. We said that, but this government is going in the opposite direction. It is very unfortunate.Benefits for childrenBudget deficitC-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax ActCanada Pension PlanCanada Pension Plan contributionsConservative Party of CanadaConservativismCostsEmployersEuropeFinancial managementForeign countriesGovernment billsGovernment policyGovernment revenuesHome ownershipIncome securityIntergenerational equityLiberal Party of CanadaMiddle classMortgagesNew Democratic PartyPart-time workersPayroll taxesPensions and pensionersPolitical doctrinesReport stageRetirement from workRetirement termsSavingsSenior citizensSocial valuesTax Free Savings AccountTax policyTaxationWorkersGaganSikandMississauga—StreetsvillePierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1350)[Translation]Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the government has continued on the same path as the Conservatives in that they are increasing the guaranteed income supplement, which is a good thing. We can acknowledge that.However, the government is preventing seniors who are currently working part-time from thriving. In my riding, most seniors that I meet work part-time. They therefore have to contribute to a retirement plan that they will not benefit from.C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax ActCanada Pension PlanCanada Pension Plan contributionsGovernment billsGovernment policyGuaranteed Income SupplementIncome securityIntergenerational equityPart-time workersPensions and pensionersReport stageSenior citizensPierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-HubertFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1350)[Translation] Madam Speaker, it is not up to me to suggest measures. The Liberals are in government. What I can say is that their current proposal will not increase or strengthen the CPP, but instead will provide the government with additional revenue to cover its poor financial management.I would like to say to my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell that in 2007, 2008 and 2009, the world went through the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. We ran deficits at the time to weather that great storm, and we did so with the best record of all G7 countries as we created more than 1.2 million jobs and had the best employment rate of all OECD countries.We believe that the government should follow our lead.Budget deficitBudgetary policyC-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax ActCanada Pension PlanCanada Pension Plan contributionsConservative Party of CanadaFinancial crisisFinancial managementGovernment billsGovernment revenuesPensions and pensionersReport stageFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1350)[English]Madam Speaker, we voted against Bill C-2 because it is a false decrease of taxes in Canada. I would invite my colleagues to chat with Senator Larry Smith, who has done great research and has put forward some amendments at the Senate committee on finance. This is research that shows, without doubt, that the decrease of taxes will only benefit households that make between $140,000 and $170,000 per year. It will not help any household with revenue under $100,000 per year. People with lower incomes are not better off with that. That is my answer to my colleague.C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax ActCanada Pension PlanConservative Party of CanadaGovernment billsHigh incomeMiddle classPensions and pensionersReport stageTax reliefKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1155)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as we speak, the Liberal government is making 235 members of the Canadian Armed Forces and public servants involved in replacing our CF-18 fighter jets sign lifetime non-disclosure agreements. That is a first.I have no intention of wasting my question by asking the Liberals what they have to hide. It is clear that they are just going to repeat, as they just did, that they do not want to disclose the information because it is supposedly commercially sensitive and that they are following the appropriate procedures. Instead, I would simply like to know whether public servants are being forced to sign these agreements because they did not agree with the government's decision.Canadian ForcesCF-18 aircraftCommunication controlGovernment accountabilityGovernment contractsInvitation to tenderOral questionsPublic Service and public servantsJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1445)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, our participation in the joint strike fighter program over the past few years has injected more than $1 billion into the Canadian economy and created and maintained thousands of jobs across the country.Yesterday the Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Pallister, expressed his concerns about the plan to purchase the Super Hornet, and with good reason, since those aircraft will be built almost entirely in the U.S.Is that what leadership means to this government, creating jobs outside the country?Can the Minister of Public Services say otherwise? Has she forgotten her mandate?Canadian ForcesCF-18 aircraftGovernment contractsInvitation to tenderOral questionsGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestNavdeepBainsHon.Mississauga—Malton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the joint strike fighter program has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in investments in Canada's aerospace industry. It would have created thousands of jobs in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick.The government says that it will hold an open and transparent process after having awarded a sole-source contract for the Super Hornet today. Its approach lacks credibility. Why is the government buying CF-18 Super Hornets now given that the capability gap is a complete fabrication? Canadian ForcesCF-18 aircraftGovernment contractsOral questionsHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an open competition for five years, bringing the decision to after the election. All Canadians know that is a joke. [Translation]Lieutenant-General Hood and Chief of Defence Staff General Vance both confirmed in a committee hearing in Parliament that our current fighter jets do not have a capability gap. They can be flown until 2025.Why is this government refusing to launch an open and transparent competition right now in order to identify the best contract for our Canadian Forces and provide good jobs in Canada right away?Canadian ForcesCF-18 aircraftGovernment contractsOral questionsHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPort of QuébecInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1505)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, in July 2015, our Conservative government pledged to commit $60 million to the Port of Québec's Beauport 2020 project. This project is very important for the economic vitality of Quebec City. That is precisely why the mayor of my city supports it.However, since coming to power, the Liberal government has said nothing about Beauport 2020, or the Anse au Foulon harbour walkway project and the Ross Gaudreault Cruise Terminal.Is the Prime Minister trying to punish the residents of Quebec City for voting Conservative? When will he confirm his support for these major projects?City of QuébecOral questionsPort of QuébecPorts and harboursJonathanWilkinsonNorth VancouverMarcGarneauHon.Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond ReadingInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1800)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-29, which seeks to implement the series of budgetary measures and tax changes announced in budget 2016, tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016.First, I would like to thank the Canadians who are watching at home right now, particularly those from my beautiful riding of Beauport—Limoilou.It is rather ironic that I am rising in the House today to speak to Bill C-29. Two weeks before the House adjourned for the week of Remembrance Day and we returned to our respective ridings, I tried to see if I could participate in this debate, but I was not able to get a time slot. I was quite disappointed, but this week, I am able to debate this bill during a very special week for Canadian businesses and the entire world, Global Entrepreneurship Week.Under the leadership of my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, our finance critic, and through the arguments that the Conservative Party has been presenting over the past two weeks concerning Bill C-29, we have been able to see that many aspects of this bill are harmful to our small and medium-sized businesses.Last week in my riding, I visited over 100 companies. I usually try going door to door to see my constituents at least two evenings per week. This time I visited businesses. Why? Because I am organizing a business reception for Thursday evening, not only to mark Global Entrepreneurship Week, but also to speak with small business owners in my riding, to find out exactly what they think of the Liberal government's budget, and to hear what they are most concerned about right now. I would like to remind the House that these are our businesses. Canada has over 1.16 million small and medium-sized businesses that employ nearly 10.5 million people. It is therefore safe to say that small businesses are definitely important job creators and wealth creators for our Canadian nation.Here is something interesting. I googled “Global Entrepreneurship Week” today, and one of the first hits was a statement from Canada's Prime Minister. His statement said:The Government of Canada is committed to helping Canadian entrepreneurs grow their businesses and thrive—here at home and abroad.I find it ironic that the Prime Minister made that statement today to mark Global Entrepreneurship Week. It is entirely appropriate and de rigueur, but I am not so sure his actions are consistent with today's statement.For example, the government introduced measures that hurt small and medium-sized businesses, including those in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou. Those measures will be implemented by Bill C-29. He brought in the Liberal carbon tax and hiked Canada pension plan costs, though that does not affect Quebec as much as it does the other nine provinces. He broke his promise to cut the small and medium-sized business tax rate. The way I see it, that is probably the worst thing the Prime Minister has done to small businesses. He made that promise during the election campaign, as did the Conservatives and New Democrats. His decision to break that promise boggles the mind. He got rid of several tax credits, which I will talk about later. To top it off, two weeks ago, the minister announced plans to abolish several more yet-to-be-determined tax credits. We do not know yet which ones, but I hope we will find out soon.Let us talk about Bill C-29 and why it is disappointing. It is disappointing because it is the next phase of the Liberal government's plan, which is clearly not working.(1805)Let us not forget what the original idea was behind this plan that was developed a year ago following the federal election. The idea was to create jobs by investing heavily in infrastructure. When we look at the facts, including those presented by the parliamentary budget officer, we see that only $3.8 billion of the $25-billion deficit will be invested in infrastructure and not a single job has been created so far. The plan is not working. That is the only real conclusion we can come to.Bill C-29 is disappointing because of the uncertainty. The minister is unable to say when there will be a return to balanced budgets. The economic update talks about a $25-billion deficit and the only reason it is not $30 billion is because the government used the $6-billion contingency fund it had created barely six months before to bring the total down.Rudy Le Cours from La Presse calls the disappearance of this $6-billion contingency fund a shell game. Even Gérald Fillion from Radio-Canada, whom I follow religiously, says the government fiddled with the numbers to make the deficit appear smaller. Radio-Canada seems to support what the Conservative Party is saying in this debate, which is rather extraordinary. What is more, not a single job has been created in Canada in a year. On the contrary, we are losing jobs and the unemployment rate keeps going up.The Canada child benefit is the brainchild of a bunch of amateurs, while our program was viable and gave Canadian families money they could use. The Liberals not only abolished existing programs, but their new program is not revenue neutral. It will cost more than $4.3 billion over the course of its second year and $3.4 billion this year. Since they forgot to index it, they are going to have to find an extra $42.5 billion by 2020.Bill C-29 is a reflection of our national accounts. It is a reflection of a government's exactness and strength. Through Bill C-29, this Liberal government is showing us several things. First, it is showing us that it is unable to calculate a balance sheet properly, as evidenced by the fact that the government forgot to index the Canada child benefit. Second, as the bill tells us, the government is not being careful with taxpayers' money because it promised a deficit of $10 billion per year but is now planning to run a deficit of $30 billion per year, and it does not have a specific date for returning to a balanced budget. Third, the government did not invest taxpayers' money properly and did not create jobs to help grow the economy. Finally, and this is my favourite point, this bill shows that this government is simply arrogant because it did not want to correct its mistakes and change its plan, even though it is not working at all.Bill C-29 represents one broken promise after another. Breaking promises is becoming standard practice for this government. That is shameful because it is causing organizations and individuals in Canada to become ever more cynical.This government broke its promise to run a modest deficit by borrowing three times more than necessary. It did not even need to borrow the $10 billion because we are not in a recession. It broke its promise to lower the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses and its promise to offer a revenue-neutral fiscal plan. Take, for example, the infamous tax cut for low-income Canadians that my Liberal colleagues have been bragging about since early this afternoon. This tax cut will not help low-income Canadians because it does not apply to those who earn less than $45,000 a year. Instead, it will help Canadians with an annual income between $140,000 and $170,000. The NDP and the Conservative Party both raised that point. Once again, what I dislike about this government is its arrogance. It is selling Canadians a dream, making wild claims about the wealthiest 1% having a monopoly, and inventing tax cuts in flamboyant speeches. I am therefore very disappointed with Bill C-29.Benefits for childrenBenefits indexationBudget 2016 (March 22, 2016)Budget deficitBudgetary policyC-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measuresGovernment billsInfrastructureJob creationMiddle classSecond readingSmall and medium-sized enterprisesTax reliefWayneLongSaint John—RothesayDavid de BurghGrahamLaurentides—Labelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond ReadingInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1810)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will answer the question asked by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle. I am beginning to know the names of my colleagues' ridings, which is a good sign. Since the election, I have knocked on 30,000 doors in my riding. The comment I hear most about the government's child benefit is that the $2,000 or $3,000 paid out to people with two or three children lets them buy a few bottles of wine or bigger steaks. They laugh when they say that because they know that they or their children will be stuck with the bill in five or ten years. Mothers have told me that they put this money in a bank account that only their children can access because they will have to pay for the deficit caused by this benefit. Benefits for childrenBudget 2016 (March 22, 2016)C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measuresGovernment billsSecond readingDavid de BurghGrahamLaurentides—LabelleDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond ReadingInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1810)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which reflects the NDP approach, and that is very good.I do not know if it will be more private than public because I have not really looked into the matter. However, it is symptomatic of another problem that is clear to everyone on this side of the aisle: the Liberals have spent so much that, to roll out their infrastructure plan, which is supposed to be their priority, they have to look for money in places other than the public treasury. To me, that is what we are seeing here. Budget 2016 (March 22, 2016)C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measuresGovernment billsInfrastructureInvestmentPublic sectorSecond readingDanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaBevShipleyLambton—Kent—Middlesex//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond ReadingInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1815)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.I do not like having to say this in the House, but unfortunately the government has no integrity whatsoever. It breaks all of its promises.Take electoral reform. The Prime Minister of Canada recently said that electoral reform might not be a priority because Canadians wanted reform while the Right Hon. Stephen Harper was in office. Now that we are in wonderland and the Liberal government is in charge, the Prime Minister has decided on his own that reform might not be such a great idea after all.In answer to my colleague's question, I would say that the government has no integrity.Budget 2016 (March 22, 2016)C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measuresGovernment billsSecond readingBevShipleyLambton—Kent—MiddlesexRajSainiKitchener Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersRemembrance DayInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1415)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Great War ended on November 11, 1918, which we commemorate at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.Today, it is a day to honour and remember our veterans and their efforts to defend Canada. As the official opposition critic for veterans affairs, I know how proud veterans are of their service to their country and, in return, I wanted to show them how proud I am to serve them and listen to them.In November, all Canadians must be of service to and recognize our veterans for what they have done for Canada throughout their lives.In that regard, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a veteran from Beauport—Limoilou, Raoul Fournier, who is now 92. This proud Second World War veteran is finding it difficult to get the care he needs. That makes me sad.However, Remembrance Day will remind all of us to be there for our veterans and to ensure that we do not let them down.Remembrance DayStatements by MembersVeteransMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelagaOmarAlghabraMississauga Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, according to new union reports, the office in Miramichi is processing files from just 46 of the 101 departments that are experiencing problems with the Phoenix pay system.This means that the minister was not aware of these 55 other departments that also deserve to be given priority, or worst still, was attempting to conceal the situation altogether. In other words, the number of problem cases might be much higher than the 80,000 known cases.Instead of setting impossible deadlines, will the minister finally just fix the pay system so that all public servants can pay their rent or their mortgage and put food on the table? BacklogsComputer systemsIncome and wagesOral questionsPhoenixPublic Service and public servantsGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestLeonaAlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada Pension PlanInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1220)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my question is for the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, my colleague from the greater Quebec City area. Over the past year, the Liberal government has broken a number of its promises. My colleague also talked about the Minister of Finance, who has contradicted himself somewhat, in terms of his current policies compared to what he has written in the past.I wonder if the member could comment on what he thinks of the Liberals' pattern of breaking their promises and abandoning the convictions they have expressed in the past.C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax ActCanada Pension PlanGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsPensions and pensionersPolitical programsSecond readingJoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierJoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-Cartier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada Pension PlanInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1335)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly for those very interesting remarks.There are a lot of seniors in my riding, and I am very concerned about their living conditions. Every week, when I go to my riding, I can see that most of them are living in deplorable conditions. When I work with Meals on Wheels, I see their circumstances up close.In addition to their fragile economic situation, they lack a stable support network. They are so alone. I think that is due in part to the major social upheavals of the 20th century that led to community fragmentation. Seniors no longer have their cousins, aunts, uncles, brothers, and sisters nearby to help.Aside from what the state can do to help our seniors, I would like to know if my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly has thought of ways to restore the sense of social solidarity that is fading away or gone altogether. C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax ActCanada Pension PlanGovernment billsPensions and pensionersSecond readingSenior citizensSocial marginalityMatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGenetic Non-Discrimination ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1825)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent and very informative speech. I also learned a thing or two this evening.In the research that was done for him, did he see anything that might explain why Canada is lagging so far behind the other G7 countries? Can he explain this decade-long delay?BacklogsDiscriminationForeign countriesGenetic testingGroup of SevenLegislationPrivate Members' BillsS-201, An Act to prohibit and prevent genetic discriminationSecond readingSenate billsLucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeteransInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1155)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, approximately 150 people participated in the veterans summit this week, yet one-quarter of them had never been in the Canadian Armed Forces and nearly half were not recipients of Veterans Affairs Canada programs or services.Must I remind the minister that the point of this type of summit is to improve the benefits offered by his department, not to serve the Liberal government's own agenda?The minister told veterans to be patient because he was still working on identifying the most pressing issues.Why then does he not consult the veterans who are most affected by his department?Government servicesOral questionsPublic consultationVeteransVeterans Affairs Canada Stakeholder SummitJean-YvesDuclosHon.QuébecKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeteransInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, what is happening with Mr. Lalancette, one of our veterans? Let me tell you. He has been on a hunger strike for three days and slept outside on Parliament Hill for three nights, but he has not received a visit from either the Prime Minister or his minister.What the parliamentary secretary said yesterday in the House should worry all members. Some ministers are said to have used a parliamentary committee as a negotiating tool. We all know very well that the committees are mandated to take action beyond the reach of the government. Why did this government make promises when it knew very well that it did not have the authority to keep them?Committee witnessesLalancette, ClaudeMandates of committeesOral questionsVeteransRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1455)[Translation] Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening I had a visit from Claude Lalancette, a veteran who fought bravely for us overseas. He was in tears, and he is clearly in a very serious situation.He has been on a hunger strike for two days and has slept outside for two nights. The first was at the National War Memorial here in Ottawa, and the second was in front of Parliament itself. This situation concerns all members of the House. What is the Prime Minister going to do for Mr. Lalancette right now?Adverse drug reactionsCanadian ForcesLalancette, ClaudeMalariaMefloquineOral questionsJohnMcCallumHon.Markham—ThornhillKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersParis AgreementInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1725)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges on his speech. I have a question for him.I think my colleague is well aware that many Canadian municipalities, especially in rural areas, sadly have no public transit to speak of. Nonetheless, countless workers have to put gas in their cars to get to work.What does his government intend to do for the workers who will be unable to afford rising gas prices resulting from the carbon tax? What does his government intend to do to help these people get to work?Agreements and contractsClimate change and global warmingDaily commutingGovernment Business No. 8Public transitPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1455)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, last Friday in Winnipeg, the Minister of Veterans Affairs informed veterans that they were going to have to wait a very long time before getting an answer on the option of a disability pension.It is becoming increasingly clear that this government was making empty promises during the election campaign. On top of that, this summer it broke its solemn commitment to veterans when it took them back to court in the Equitas case.When will the minister admit that his promises to our veterans were simply window dressing during the election campaign? Disability benefitsDisabled veteransOral questionsVeteransMaryAnnMihychukHon.Kildonan—St. PaulKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion--Appointments to the Supreme Court]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1325)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I, too, believe that I am the voice of the people of Atlantic Canada, where I lived between the ages of two and 11. Acadia is still very much a part of me, and that is why I absolutely had to speak about it today.Right in the middle of summer, the Prime Minister arrogantly and unabashedly announced that he intended to change the historic process for appointing Supreme Court justices that has been in place since 1875.More than any other, this government announcement has made me dislike the political party that currently governs our great country. Yes, like many Canadians, I am outraged by such actions and attitudes that show the true arrogance of this government. I am saddened by this unsettling desire, so brazenly expressed by the Prime Minister, to radically alter our constitutional customs, the very customs that have informed government policy for so long in Canada. If this Liberal government decides to change the constitutional convention for choosing Supreme Court justices without first obtaining the consent of all parliamentarians in the House, it will be going too far. Therefore, and I am choosing my words carefully, this government's actions in the past few months make me fear the worst for the federal unity of this great country.The Prime Minister is not just interfering in provincial jurisdictions whenever he feels like it, but also interfering in his own areas of jurisdiction by planning to make sweeping changes without even consulting the opposition parties or the public. This is nothing short of anti-democratic. There are other examples of this. First, the Prime Minister plans to change Canada's nearly 150-year-old voting system without holding a referendum to do so. It is no secret that he and his acolytes are doing this for partisan reasons and to protect their political interests as well.Then, this same Prime Minister shamelessly suggested just this morning that he wanted to put an end to a 141-year-old constitutional convention. I am talking about the constitutional convention whereby a Prime Minister selects and appoints a judge to the Supreme Court when a seat becomes vacant while ensuring that the new appointee comes from a region similar to that of the person who occupied the vacant seat.The purpose of this constitutional convention is to guarantee that the decisions rendered by the highest court in the country reflect the regional differences in our federation. Must I remind the political party before me that Canada has five distinct regions and that those regions are legally recognized?The fact is that Jean Chrétien's Liberal government passed a law that provides for and gives each of the regions of Canada a quasi-constitutional right of veto. Accordingly, the Atlantic provinces, and their region as a whole, do have a say when it comes to the Constitution Act of 1982.What is more, the British North America Act guarantees the Atlantic provinces fair and effective representation in the House of Commons. For example, New Brunswick is guaranteed 10 seats. The same is true in the Senate, where it is guaranteed just as many seats. Under the same convention, each of the Atlantic provinces holds at least one seat on the Council of Ministers.How can our friends opposite justify threatening, out of the blue, to reduce to nil the Atlantic provinces' presence in the highest court of the country? If the government moves forward with this new approach, will it do the same to Quebec, the national stronghold of French Canadians? That does not make any sense.I invite the government to think about this: can the Supreme Court of Canada really render fair and informed decisions on cases affecting the Atlantic provinces without any representation from that region?(1330)Justice for Atlantic Canadians means treating them as equals. It seems the Liberals could not care less about the regions even though every one of them includes distinct communities that want Supreme Court decisions to reflect their values, goals and ideas about the world.For the Prime Minister to suggest, if only in passing, we defy the convention whereby one seat on the Supreme Court of Canada's bench is reserved for Atlantic Canada is offensive to many legal experts and associations, including Janet Fuhrer, a past president of the Canadian Bar Association, and Ann Whiteway Brown, president of the New Brunswick branch of the Canadian Bar Association.Echoing this sentiment are the Law Society of New Brunswick, the Atlantic Provinces Trial Lawyers Association, and the Société nationale de l'Acadie, which advocates on behalf of Acadians worldwide.Disregarding this constitutional convention is tantamount to stripping four out of ten provinces of their voice in the highest court in the land.Must I also remind members that the Atlantic provinces have a large pool of extremely qualified legal professionals who come from every region and background and who are perfectly bilingual? More importantly, these are candidates who have a vast knowledge of the Atlantic provinces' legal systems and issues. Is there anyone in this House, or elsewhere, who would dispute that?Even more importantly, there are a few significant constitutional cases on the horizon that could have major repercussions on the Atlantic provinces. Consider, for example, the case referred to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal regarding the elimination of protected Acadian ridings. Hearings on this are currently under way.Is the Prime Minister really thinking about having judges from other regions rule on a case that deals with how Acadians are represented, when Acadians have been fighting for their survival on this continent for generations?Is that really what our friends across the aisle want? Do the Liberals from Atlantic Canada really want to muzzle New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, two founding provinces of this great country? The change that the Prime Minister wants to make to how judges are lawfully appointed to the Supreme Court is essentially a total and complete reversal of this country's established constitutional practices. How shameful and how arrogant.It would seem the son is following in his father's footsteps. Do hon. members not see what is happening? Just like his father before him, the Prime Minister wants to alter the constitutional order of our country.Fear not, however, because we in the Conservative Party are not buying it. We not only see what this Prime Minister is doing, but we also see know full well that behind this change in convention is a much greater ideological design.There is an underlying desire to profoundly change Canadian constitutional arrangements and replace them with a post-materialist world view that is a departure from our constitutional traditions.In this world view, the main objective is to eliminate from our government institutions, in this case the Supreme Court, the historical and traditional community characteristics that have defined Canada since day one by replacing them with individual and associational characteristics.In other words, the Prime Minister obviously wants to eliminate the political predominance of certain constituencies in the Canadian constitutional order, at the Supreme Court in particular. He wants to promote a new political predominance, that of associational groups that bring together individuals who share individual rights rather than constituent rights.Although that may be commendable in some ways, it is a major change because the Prime Minister is ensuring that the very essence of political representativeness and the concept of diversity within the judiciary is changed. The Prime Minister wants a representativeness based on a concept of individual diversity and fragmented by idiosyncratic characteristics.In light of this potential change, Canadians across the country, including those from Atlantic Canada, must protest and call on the Prime Minister to answer for this. The Prime Minister cannot act unilaterally in this case and must involve all the players concerned.AcadiansAgreements and contractsAssociations, institutions and organizationsAtlantic CanadaCabinetCollective rightsCommunities and collectivitiesConstituenciesConstitutionConstitution challengesConstitutional amendmentConstitutional lawElectoral reformElectoral representationFederal judgesGovernment policyJuristsLiberal Party of CanadaMembers of ParliamentNational unityOpposition motionsPolitical appointmentsPolitical behaviourPolitical doctrinesPrime MinisterProvince of QuebecPublic consultationReference to a court of lawReferences to membersRegional diversitySelection processSenatorial divisionsSocial valuesSupreme Court of CanadaTrudeau, JustinVeto rightsJohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilJoëlLightboundLouis-Hébert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion--Appointments to the Supreme Court]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1335)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my dear colleague from Louis-Hébert that it is all well and good that the committee will consider regional representation, but that it should not be a consideration. It should be a given for the government, which would do well to accept it and choose a judge from Atlantic Canada. As for the new consultative groups, I believe that they are puppets whose role is to hide the true interests of the Prime Minister.Application processFederal judgesIndependent Advisory Board for Supreme Court of Canada Judicial AppointmentsOpposition motionsPartisanshipPolitical appointmentsPrime MinisterPublic consultationRegional diversitySelection processSupreme Court of CanadaJoëlLightboundLouis-HébertAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion--Appointments to the Supreme Court]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1335)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything my colleague said. The important thing to remember is that, in a letter published in a newspaper, the Prime Minister announced his intention to change the process for selecting Supreme Court justices in Canada. That is what we need to remember.Just this morning, the member for Louis-Hébert mentioned that his colleagues were going to support the motion, but they announced it this morning. This is not just about supporting a motion. It is about appointing a judge from Atlantic Canada to fill the next vacancy in the Supreme Court of Canada.Atlantic CanadaFederal judgesLiberal Party of CanadaOpposition motionsPolitical appointmentsPolitical behaviourRegional diversitySelection processSupreme Court of CanadaAnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion--Appointments to the Supreme Court]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1340)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.I completely agree with her, particularly since, if we want to be completely loyal to our colleagues from Atlantic Canada, we need to recognize that, since 1867, the Atlantic region has been shortchanged within the Canadian federation. It has been shortchanged in terms of public contracts and wealth creation. The government therefore needs to recognize constitutional conventions, not just in institutions such as the House of Commons and the executive branch, but also in the Supreme Court. These constitutional conventions are extremely important even if it is only to leave a little bit of room for the Atlantic provinces, which are at a numerical disadvantage.Atlantic CanadaCanadian ConfederationCanadian historyEconomic impactFederal judgesOpposition motionsPolitical appointmentsRegional diversitySupreme Court of CanadaWealthAnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeteransInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1445)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister said that no veteran would have to fight their own government to get the support and compensation they deserve.Now we know that those words were nothing more than empty rhetoric, given that the Prime Minister and his party took veterans back to court instead of concluding the settlement negotiations initiated by our Conservative government.Why are the Liberals distancing themselves from their election promises by turning their backs on veterans?Disabled veteransOral questionsVeteransVeterans benefitsRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeteransInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1445)[English] Mr. Speaker, veterans are sick and tired of hearing the same old story all the time. However, it gets worse than that. In mail-outs to the riding of Winnipeg Centre, the Liberals deliberately misled Canadians when they said that they have reinstated lifelong pensions for aging veterans. Such a statement is clearly false. People now expect the Liberals to break promise after promise, but it is a totally different story to directly mislead veterans.When will the Liberals begin to tell the truth to our veterans?Disabled veteransOral questionsVeteransVeterans benefitsKentHehrHon.Calgary CentreKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersSummer PartyInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1405)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the House that the countdown has begun for the best party of the summer in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou. Folks will not want to miss it.In fact, I am beginning a new annual tradition. On August 20, 2016, I will be hosting a summer party at the Domaine Maizerets from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., with plenty of activities already on the schedule. Come and celebrate summer, and enjoy a hotdog, corn on the cob, and refreshments on me. There will also be music, water games, and many other activities for one and all. A large tent will be set up in the middle of the park to keep everyone dry in the event of rain or provide some shade in the warm August sun, as needed. I invite everyone to bring their families and spend the day with my family and my team. I hope to meet as many of my constituents as possible as I go knocking on doors in Beauport—Limoilou in the days leading up to my summer party. I would like to wish all my constituents a wonderful summer and a nice summer vacation, for those who are taking one.Beauport—LimoilouEventsStatements by MembersPeterFonsecaMississauga East—CooksvilleCherylHardcastleWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, three months ago we asked when the Liberals would start funding the cenotaph program again. The Minister of Veterans Affairs claimed to be on top of it, but we have heard nothing since. The Liberals do not like military symbols and it is clear that honouring our veterans is no longer a top priority for them.When will the minister do what he said he would do and reinstate the funding for the cenotaph program?Cenotaph and Monument Restoration ProgramOral questionsVeteransWar memorialsLawrenceMacAulayHon.CardiganKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[Translation]There is more, Mr. Speaker.With the funding cuts to the cenotaph program came the cancellation of a monument to honour the 40,000 military personnel who served honourably in Afghanistan and the 158 who unfortunately gave their lives there. It is shameful that the government cannot pay a small price to recognize the huge price paid by those military personnel.How and when are the Liberals going to honour our Afghan veterans?Canadian Forces mission in AfghanistanOral questionsVeteransWar memorialsKentHehrHon.Calgary CentreKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersGeorge Harold BakerInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, June 2, 2016 marks the 100th anniversary of Lieutenant-Colonel George Harold Baker. Lieutenant-Colonel Baker was elected as the MP for Brome in Quebec and is one of only two sitting MPs to have died during the Great War. Sadly, he was killed in action at the Battle of Mount Sorrel. Here in Centre Block, a monument can be found that is dedicated to Lieutenant-Colonel Baker's personal sacrifice to Canada. Despite such commemoration, it seems that there is no official memory of this event in Ottawa. Indeed, there are no gatherings at the war memorial or of the militia units who carry the battle honour of Mount Sorrel.[Translation]We cannot find government sites or CBC reports that teachers could use to educate young people about this historic event. Nearly 8,500 Canadians were injured or killed during this battle.Here in Ottawa, in a city where Canadians gather to debate the legislation that governs us, we must remember the sacrifices made by our ancestors, especially in major battles.Baker, George HaroldBattle of Mount SorrelFirst World WarStatements by MembersWar memorialsPeterFonsecaMississauga East—CooksvillePamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs recently supported the decision made by his colleague, the Minister of Justice, by agreeing that the government should take our veterans back to court in the Equitas case.By supporting this legal action, the minister is clearly demonstrating that his political relationship with the Minister of Justice is more important than his sacred relationship with veterans.The minister needs to take over this file, because it pertains to veterans. When is he going to reverse his decision and put an end to this disgraceful lawsuit?Class actionDisabled veteransOral questionsVeteransVeterans benefitsPabloRodriguezHonoré-MercierKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about benefits, we are talking about a broken promise. On Tuesday, the Conservatives submitted an amendment to the budget bill at finance committee. This amendment would have ensured that the Liberals' modification of the earnings loss benefit would not affect the most vulnerable veterans. This amendment was rejected by the Liberals and veterans around the country have been voicing their concern.Why is the minister playing political games and putting veterans at risk instead of working with this official opposition?Disabled veteransEarnings Loss BenefitOral questionsVeteransKentHehrHon.Calgary CentreKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessIncome Tax ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1725)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cambridge for his fine speech and his bill, which is quite laudable and very hard to oppose. My question is very simple. I was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces for a few years. Every year we had to take a first aid course, so that we would be able to give first aid to anyone who might need it, whether it was during our missions or while on exercise in the forest.My colleague wants to offer a tax credit for that. That is good. As members know, we on this side of the House love tax credits. In his bill, did the member include any guidelines or provisions to ensure that official, recognized organizations would be the ones to provide the first aid courses, in order to ensure that this tax credit does not become a means for private companies to set up shop simply to make money while offering poor-quality courses?Adult education and trainingC-240, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit — first aid)First aidOversight mechanismPrivate Members' BillsSecond readingTax creditsBryanMayCambridgeBryanMayCambridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsVeteransInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1835)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in the adjournment debate, or what is known in parliamentary jargon as the late show, for the first time. I will learn how this works in the next few minutes.I am also pleased to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Kanata—Carleton, is here. I hope that she will be able to give me some answers. I am here to share some concerns that have been expressed by Canadians in general, not just veterans. The House will understand why. Recently, the minister introduced new financial benefits for veterans under Bill C-12, which unfortunately no longer exists because those measures have now been inserted into omnibus Bill C-15. These amendments include increasing the disability award, expanding access to the higher grades of the permanent impairment allowance, and increasing the earnings loss benefit. Veterans tell me that these improved benefits are worthwhile, but that the government could have made a better decision. For example, veterans would have liked the government to invest more in mental health clinics, provide more assistance for families, such as military spouses, and improve help for the transition from military to civilian life.This evening, I will talk about the fact that the disability award was increased and that the increase is retroactive to 2006. We are talking about approximately $3.7 billion that will be spent on these retroactive payments. This expenditure is highly questionable. I am going to tell a story that explains why I think that we need to ask questions in that regard. One of my constituents came to see me. She earns about $100,000 a year. She was a soldier and she has hearing problems. Although she will not do so, if she were to apply for a disability award from the Department of Veterans Affairs, she would be eligible to receive a cheque for between $5,000 and $10,000. I think that everyone here will agree that this person, who earns $100,000 a year, does not need that money and that her loss of hearing does not prevent her from working.Imagine how many cases like that there are in Canada and how many people, in the coming months, without thinking of their fellow soldiers, will apply for disability awards for physical injuries that do not necessarily prevent them from working. Under the law, they are eligible for that money and it is good that the government is trying to help them. However, when it comes to veterans, there are urgent needs in many other areas, including those I talked about earlier.My question for my colleague from Kanata—Carleton is very simple. According to her estimates, how much money will be paid out retroactively to 2006 for hearing-related injuries?Adjournment ProceedingsC-12, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsC-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measuresDisabled veteransLawsuitsVeteransVeterans benefitsFrançois-PhilippeChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsVeteransInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1840)[Translation]Exactly, Mr. Speaker, we want to work together.I always thought that veterans affairs should not be a partisan issue. That is why I was pleased to see that the minister treated it separately in Bill C-12. However, that is no longer the case.I would like to say to my colleague from Kanata—Carleton that unfortunately, she did not answer my question, which was on the amount of money that will be allocated retroactively to 2006 for hearing loss. The reason I want to know this sum is that Canadians are wondering if that was the right thing to do. Instead of making this retroactive payment, the government could have used this $3.7 billion implementing a lifetime disability pension effective immediately.The concerns my colleague is talking about are indeed those of interest groups representing veterans. However, the veterans I meet in person talk to me about the lifetime disability pension option and not the disability benefits for hearing loss.Adjournment ProceedingsC-12, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsDisabled veteransLawsuitsVeteransVeterans benefitsKarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersBeauport-Limoilou Fishing FestivalInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1400)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, the arrival of summer is synonymous with a brand-new season of outdoor activities in the vast green spaces of my riding, Beauport—Limoilou. One of the most popular of these activities is the Festival de la pêche at the Rivière Beauport linear park, the 23rd edition of which will be held this Saturday, June 4. This is a major event, free for the whole family, that exposes the young and the curious to the joys of fishing right in the heart of Beauport—Limoilou.The Education and Water Monitoring Action Group will stock the river with nearly 4,500 trout for the festival. This event is part of the provincial fishing festival, so people do not need a licence to come fish.I invite everyone in Beauport—Limoilou to tie some flies, take some pictures, and eat some hot dogs with their neighbours starting at eight o'clock on Saturday morning at the Rivière Beauport.I know I will be there.BeauportFestival de la pêche de la rivière BeauportHunting and sport fishingStatements by MembersMattDeCourceyFrederictonGregFergusHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1150)[Translation]Madam Speaker, during the election campaign, the Liberal Party solemnly promised in writing, and I have the proof in my office, to never force veterans to battle the government in court.This government is so arrogant that it thinks it can browbeat veterans by increasing a benefit here and there, while not keeping its most important promises. The minister must keep his party's sacred promises.When will he drop the Equitas lawsuit?Equitas Disabled Soldiers Funding SocietyLegal casesOral questionsVeteransVeterans benefitsChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is being hypocritical when it comes to veterans. He made a solemn promise that they would never have to go to court against the government. Once elected, he reneged on that promise.The Prime Minister is disrespectful toward our veterans and the members of the House.Can he confirm right now that he will keep his word and drop the lawsuit in the Equitas case?Disabled veteransLawsuitsOral questionsVeteransVeterans benefitsCarlaQualtroughHon.DeltaKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the reality is crystal clear. The Prime Minister misled veterans during the last election. In contrast, our Conservative prime minister always did what he said he would do. He certainly never made false promises, offering false hope.Canada needs a respectful and consistent leader, not a schoolboy who shoves his colleagues. Can the Prime Minister finally show some leadership and stop this legal fight with our veterans in the Equitas case? Disabled veteransLawsuitsOral questionsVeteransVeterans benefitsKentHehrHon.Calgary CentreKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the press is reporting that the Equitas lawsuit between a group of veterans and the Canadian government is back in full swing.The Conservative government managed to secure an agreement in this case. After countless broken election promises, such as reinstating the lifetime disability pension, the minister is getting his government involved in a case that seeks to reduce our veterans' rights.How does the minister explain this affront?Disabled veteransLawsuitsOral questionsVeteransVeterans benefitsKentHehrHon.Calgary CentreKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs appears to be two-faced with respect to the Veterans Affairs files. The minister is now siding with the Department of Justice, which has chosen to prevent veterans from obtaining benefits that the minister and his party had promised during the last election. Does the Minister of Veterans Affairs no longer believe that the government has a sacred obligation to veterans?Disabled veteransLawsuitsOral questionsVeteransVeterans benefitsKentHehrHon.Calgary CentreKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (2215)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I am pleased to rise this evening. I would like to start by seeking the unanimous consent of the members of this committee of the whole to share my time with the member for Yorkton—Melville. Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceMain estimates 2016-2017Splitting speaking timeHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2215)[Translation]Mr. Chair, of course the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada share many ties. I am pleased to speak to this committee of the whole as the official opposition critic for Veterans Affairs. The ties between the two departments stem from the fact that all soldiers will one day become veterans, and any cuts made to the Department of National Defence will have a direct impact on the well-being of our veterans. I am a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. We are currently conducting three studies, specifically one on service delivery, one on mental health, and one on the transition from military to civilian life. My goal is to ask the minister and his officials a few questions and to get some answers in real time to some of the questions pertaining to our studies at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.The three topics I want to address with the minister have to do with the integrated personnel support centres, the veterans family centre pilot project, and finally, the medical diagnostics done by the Canadian Armed Forces medical corps.The integrated personnel support centres were created to mentor serving members who are released from the Canadian Armed Forces. Soldiers sometimes have to leave the military because of mental or physical injuries that prevent them from meeting the demands of their job and the more general requirements of the department, such as the principle of universality of service. These integrated personnel support centres have been in operation for a number of years now and so it is necessary to determine whether the mentoring is meeting its objective of preparing members to be released or sometimes helping them to fully reintegrate into their regiment, unit, or occupation.My questions on this topic are as follows. First, could the minister tell me what is the total budget allocated by the Department of National Defence to all integrated personnel support centres?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceIntegrated Personnel Support CentresMain estimates 2016-2017VeteransAnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2220)[Translation]Mr. Chair, can the minister tell us what the budget is for each of those centres or does the budget vary from one military base to another?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceJoint Personnel Support UnitMain estimates 2016-2017Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2220)[Translation]Mr. Chair, many veterans have told me on many different occasions about the problems in those centres. For example, there is not enough senior staff to mentor the members at the centres. Does the department plan to increase the budget for these centres so that they can increase the number of senior staff who are there with the soldiers and officers?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceJoint Personnel Support UnitMain estimates 2016-2017Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (2220)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I understand that we need to focus on prevention, but we also need to act immediately. Some of the members at these centres right now need more mentoring and staff.How many suicides have occurred in these centres since they opened?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of National DefenceJoint Personnel Support UnitMain estimates 2016-2017SuicidesHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersQuebec City Food CupboardInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1400)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, today I want to commend an organization called La Bouchée généreuse, which helps fight hunger among the least fortunate in the greater Quebec City area.La Bouchée généreuse, which is in my riding, Beauport—Limoilou, provides front-line services by helping to feed the least fortunate from all walks of life. More specifically, this independent organization helps people in need by giving them all sorts of basic food products and a bit of human warmth.This organization stands out not just because of the noble work it does, but also because of its volunteers, who actively help improve the lives of their fellow citizens.These volunteers very generously give their time to make La Bouchée généreuse a success. They also influence the strategic direction of the organization. Three of the volunteers sit on the board and report to the other volunteers on decisions that will affect the well-being of the recipients.This organization is necessary for the well-being of my riding, and I am proud to contribute to it as a volunteer whenever possible.City of QuébecFood banksLa Bouchée généreuseStatements by MembersColinFraserWest NovaDarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—Chezzetcook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeteransInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Liberals announced that a monument would be established in Ottawa to commemorate trade unions.Unfortunately, we are still waiting for a monument to honour our veterans of the Afghanistan War. Clearly, even though some of our soldiers gave their lives for Canada, the Liberals simply cannot give priority to a tribute in their honour.Why does this government have the political will to go ahead with certain monuments, when it is clearly incapable of honouring our 40,000 veterans of the Afghanistan War?Canadian Forces mission in AfghanistanOral questionsVeteransWar memorialsLawrenceMacAulayHon.CardiganKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodSmall BusinessInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1505)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, this morning, the House Leader of the Official Opposition moved a motion to remove the provisions concerning veterans from the budget implementation bill and to immediately pass them at all stages. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not support that motion, so I would like to give them another chance to do so.I therefore ask the House for unanimous consent for the following motion. “That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be divided into two Bills, namely, Bills C-15A and C-15B, as follows: (I) Bill C-15A shall contain all the provisions of the Bill respecting the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to, among other things, (a) replace “permanent impairment allowance” with “career impact allowance”; (b) replace “totally and permanently incapacitated” with “diminished earning capacity”; (c) increase the percentage in the formula used to calculate the earnings loss benefit; (d) specify when a disability award becomes payable and clarify the formula used to calculate the amount of a disability award; (e) increase the amounts of a disability award; and (f) increase the amount of a death benefit; and All the provisions that provide, among other things, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs must pay, to a person who received a disability award or a death benefit under that Act before April 1, 2017, an amount that represents the increase in the amount of the disability award or the death benefit, as the case may be, and the consequential amendments to the Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, the Pension Act and the Income Tax Act; (II) Bill C-15B shall contain all the remaining provisions of Bill C-15 and retain the status on the Order Paper that it had prior to the adoption of this Order; and That Bill C-15A be deemed read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole—” C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measuresDividing a billGovernment billsLeave to propose a motionBillMorneauHon.Toronto CentreGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1305)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her military service.I think it is important to speak to members in this House about the specific measures in budget 2016 for veterans and how those measures will affect them. Nevertheless, before I address the more specific aspects of the budget, I want to note that my colleagues, the people of my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, and I all share concerns that the Liberal government is planning some exorbitant spending for this year and the years to come.In light of Canada's current economic climate, the Liberal government's plan to run large deficits over many years is unjustified. Unfortunately, the government is essentially handing out money that has been borrowed instead of earned.Furthermore, the government is breaking a number of its election promises, and we are just a few months in. This is surprising, since some of these promises were key planks in the Liberal platform. First, there was the promise to restrict deficit spending to a maximum of $10 billion, which has changed. I would remind members that the deficit spending was supposed to be used to invest in infrastructure, not to subsidize new recurring programs.Then, the government promised to focus upcoming financial efforts on balancing the budget by the end of its term, which is no longer achievable. The other disappointment was the broken promise to lower the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses, which create wealth for everyone.I will set these concerns aside and get to the essence of my speech, which is the budget measures put forward to address the needs of our veterans.I want to note that these measures were first presented separately from the federal 2016 budget, in Bill C-12, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. This bill was introduced barely one month ago. I thought it was a good sign that the Liberals introduced this legislation, since there was no notion of partisanship on veterans' issues. As a result, as the official opposition veterans' critic, I was planning to support Bill C-12 and vote in favour of it to help this government take positive action for our veterans, even though I felt that some amendments were necessary to fix certain technical issues. Balanced budgetBudget 2016 (March 22, 2016)Budget deficitC-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measuresDisabled veteransGovernment billsGovernment borrowingSecond readingVeteransVeterans benefitsLeonaAlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillAlupaClarkeBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1305)[Translation]This is also why I worked enthusiastically and passionately to urge my Conservative colleagues to do the same and vote in favour of Bill C-12, since, overall, it seemed that this bill would improve the well-being of our veterans.Budget 2016 (March 22, 2016)C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measuresDisabled veteransGovernment billsSecond readingVeteransVeterans benefitsAlupaClarkeBeauport—LimoilouAlupaClarkeBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1InterventionM. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, PCC): (1305)[Translation]Right now, though, that bill no longer exists. It is part of Bill C-15, the 2016 federal budget, an omnibus bill. As a result, since I will be opposing the 2016 federal budget for reasons of both content and form, and since the measures for veterans have been absorbed by that bill because of inappropriate partisanship, I will have to bear the burden of voting against those measures.I would like to tell the veterans who are watching that my support for them is unwavering and that my vote against the budget in no way means that I am voting against measures that are good for them. I will promise veterans this: raw, ruthless honesty that holds nothing back when necessary.That is why I will be loud and clear today about which of these measures are acceptable to me and which ones are problematic and counterproductive.No, the government’s approach to veterans’ issues is not perfect, and yes, it is my duty as the official opposition critic to identify major flaws.Together, then, let us identify the measures put forward in the 2016 federal budget that will help veterans, measures that pertain to financial benefits in particular.The budget proposes increasing the disability award, expanding access to higher grades of the permanent impairment allowance, and increasing the earnings loss benefit.One observation immediately comes to mind regarding the political will and, in this case, the legislative will of the Liberal government to move forward with these improvements to allowances and benefits.They are consistent with the approach that the Conservative Party of Canada had been taking since 2006, an approach that involves constantly improving the financial benefits that veterans are entitled to under the new veterans charter. The charter must be interpreted and amended through the lens of the living tree doctrine, which allows for changes in how our laws are worded and interpreted.That is why, in recent years, in accordance with this philosophical approach, we in the Conservative Party brought forward various modifications and new measures with respect to this charter that have had a positive impact on veterans. Those measures include things like improvements to the permanent impairment allowance, the new retirement income security benefit, the new family caregiver relief benefit, and the new critical injury benefit.Like us, the Liberals are adding benefits and allowances to the charter, in other words, increasing financial benefits here and there as the needs of our veterans evolve.By all accounts, that is commendable. However, I think there are a few glaring problems arising from the Minister of Veterans Affairs's determination to proceed down this path. The improvements in budget 2016 do not address the urgent issues that individual veterans have brought to my attention.As far as the disability award is concerned, the retroactive increase to the maximum payout draws on considerable financial resources, roughly $3.7 billion that could have been used more effectively. For example, that money could have been used to improve the assistance provided to family members of a veteran who is suffering, to enhance mental health services, and to implement a completely renewed approach to the transition from military life to civilian life and to the bureaucratic services provided to our veterans.When it comes to these transition services, I very sincerely believe that we are currently at a crossroads regarding our veterans and the help we would like to give them.Either we continue increasing the benefits, since that is the easiest thing to do, or we cut through the Gordian knot at the root of the problem that veterans are experiencing in their everyday lives. This is the next battle in their lives, the one they must wage in order to get help and an attentive ear at Veterans Affairs Canada, where they unfortunately face a systematically rigid and calculating bureaucracy.Budget 2016 (March 22, 2016)BureaucracyC-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measuresDisabled veteransGovernment billsNew Veterans CharterOmnibus billsSecond readingVeteransVeterans benefitsVeterans Transition ProgramAlupaClarkeBeauport—LimoilouAlupaClarkeBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke(1310)[Translation]The minister says he wants to help veterans, and that is a good thing. Therefore, he must get rid of the department's sometimes abusive bureaucracy once and for all, as it is characterized by a structure that too often dismisses veterans' requests and needs.We must acknowledge one irrefutable fact: our veterans suffered in battle and they often return with problems that give rise to terrible mental health issues or physical conditions. These men and women in uniform not only made personal sacrifices. Above all, they dedicated their lives to serving Canada by defending our political principles, which from time to time vacillate even here in the House. That is why those who are forced to leave the Canadian Armed Forces for medical reasons more often than not feel bitter and betrayed and as though they have lost their country's support for their commitment and ultimately for themselves.The current veterans' movement includes a multitude of groups and claims often involving an increase in financial benefits.I truly believe that these financial claims are motivated by injuries that go much deeper and require systemic help that goes far beyond any specific amount of money.Veterans want respect from their own department, Veterans Affairs Canada. This department, which is the main source of assistance for our veterans in need, has to make major changes to its administrative approach and its established culture. The government needs to take real action on this, not just make announcements with no real meaning.I believe that the Minister of Veterans Affairs needs to launch a comprehensive review of his department's administrative culture, including a review of staff conduct and of the regulations and structures that determine employees' everyday practices as well as the type and nature of services offered to veterans.The minister needs to change the status quo. That is the real task he needs to undertake.Budget 2016 (March 22, 2016)BureaucracyC-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measuresDepartment of Veterans AffairsDisabled veteransGovernment billsMedical discharge from armed ForcesMental healthOperational reviewsSecond readingVeteransVeterans benefitsAlupaClarkeBeauport—LimoilouRobert-FalconOuelletteWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1315)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent question.What I was trying to say in my speech is that the Liberals are implementing measures to increase financial benefits, which we did. It must be done because that is what veterans' advocacy groups want.I am going farther than that today. I am saying that although the system that has been in place in Canada for the past 15 years is important because benefits have to be there, it must do more. We have to tackle one of the other problems veterans are facing, and that is their everyday relationship with Veterans Affairs Canada officials. Not only is the transition problematic, but there is a problem with having to fill in forms and the department's attitude toward veterans.We have no choice but to tackle this issue. We are doing so in committee, and that is why I am talking about it today.Budget 2016 (March 22, 2016)BureaucracyC-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measuresDepartment of Veterans AffairsGovernment billsGovernment servicesSecond readingVeteransRobert-FalconOuelletteWinnipeg CentreBrigitteSansoucySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1315)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right; the bill is hardly all-inclusive. I want to say to my colleague that I have no qualms about answering this in regard to omnibus bills. The problem with the Liberals is that they refuse to take personal responsibility. We never said that omnibus bills are necessarily bad; meanwhile, the Liberals say they are against them, but then turn around and use them barely six months later.An omnibus bill might be introduced for partisan or rational reasons, for instance, to pass measures quickly before the end of a parliamentary session.In this instance, I am convinced that the government included measures for veterans in this omnibus bill not for pragmatic or rational reasons, but rather for partisan reasons.Budget 2016 (March 22, 2016)C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measuresDisabled veteransGovernment billsOmnibus billsSecond readingVeterans benefitsBrigitteSansoucySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1320)[English]It is a lasting legacy, indeed, Mr. Speaker.[Translation]My colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska used an excellent metaphor. When a couple goes to the bank to get a mortgage for their home, measures are taken to ensure that the couple's children will not be left to pay for the house later on, and that is exactly what a federal budget should do.Unfortunately, we can see today that the Liberals are not making sure that the mortgage will be paid off before the kids get the house.Budget 2016 (March 22, 2016)C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measuresGovernment billsPublic debtSecond readingHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeteransInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1505)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has created six advisory groups whose mandate will apparently be to assess various urgent issues affecting our veterans and to advise the minister accordingly.However, veterans themselves find that the mandate and membership of those groups remain nebulous. On April 22, 2016, right here in the House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs remained silent when I asked her questions about this.Can the minister share a few salient details about these advisory groups with the members of this House, in order to provide some clarity? Associations, institutions and organizationsDepartment of Veterans AffairsOral questionsPublic consultationVeteransJean-YvesDuclosHon.QuébecKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1145)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the Liberal government recently announced that it was setting up six ministerial advisory groups at Veterans Affairs Canada. Veterans are wondering about that and are talking to me about it more and more.Can the minister explain to the House the precise mandate of these groups?Associations, institutions and organizationsDepartment of Veterans AffairsOral questionsPublic consultationVeteransJonathanWilkinsonNorth VancouverKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1145)[Translation]Madam Speaker, that is very good and quite commendable.Nonetheless, beyond the mandate of these six advisory groups, the veterans want to know the following. Who will be part of these groups? What qualifications are needed to sit on them? Do members of the group have to sign non-disclosure agreements?Veterans expect transparency. They want to know why the list of members of each of these advisory groups has not been made public yet.Associations, institutions and organizationsDepartment of Veterans AffairsOral questionsPublic consultationVeteransCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by Members Centre d'action bénévole Aide 23 Volunteer OrganizationInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1400)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Centre d'action bénévole Aide 23 for the excellent work it has been doing for my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou over the past 40 years.This organization's 160 volunteers help the community in many different ways. Their humanitarian mission is to provide services to vulnerable people and help them combat social exclusion.Centre d'action bénévole Aide 23 plays a huge role on the front lines in my riding. It has received a number of honours and has a special relationship with Quebec City regarding all volunteering matters and issues. The organization's volunteers work very hard on many initiatives, including Meals on Wheels, which delivers nearly 5,000 meals a year to people who are unable to cook for themselves.I commend Centre d'action bénévole Aide 23 for its involvement and the work it does, and I recognize that its dedication to the community serves as a model for similar organizations across the country.Centre d'action bénévole Aide 23Community organizationsStatements by MembersVolunteering and volunteersDougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyPaulLefebvreSudbury//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1445)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs keeps repeating the words “care”, “respect”, and “compassion” when talking about our veterans. One veteran, Robin Brentnall, recently went on a hunger strike to protest the bad decisions made in his case by the department. Can the minister confirm that he has been in contact with this veteran, that he has gone to visit him in order to save him before it is too late?Brentnall, RobinHunger strikesOral questionsVeteransVeterans benefitsMarie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Compton—StansteadKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1445)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, this veteran is expecting more than just administrative procedures. He is expecting a visit, or at least a call, from the minister.The 2016 budget provides for a retroactive increase in the maximum disability award. Can the Minister of Veterans Affairs share with us today how much will be paid for loss of hearing, which many veterans suffer from?Oral questionsVeteransVeterans benefitsKentHehrHon.Calgary CentreKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersWounded Warriors CanadaInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1415)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about an exceptional group that has helped many of our veterans. The group is called Wounded Warriors Canada and is a national leader in funding innovative mental health programs that help support our soldiers and veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces, their families, and first responders in the community. Wounded Warriors Canada is able to offer programs thanks to the care, compassion, and generosity of Canadians and Canadian businesses. I therefore want to thank all Canadians for supporting our women and men in uniform when they need it most. As the official opposition critic for veterans affairs, I want to thank Wounded Warriors Canada for the important work it does in order to help our veterans.Health services accessibilityMental healthStatements by MembersVeteransWounded Warriors CanadaBrigitteSansoucySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotJoyceMurrayVancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1140)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister did not attend the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs meeting as planned. Moreover, by failing to answer any of the opposition's questions, the minister is turning his back on veterans. After the mission in Afghanistan ended in 2014, we planned to erect a memorial in honour of our 40,000 veterans who served there.Instead of leaving Canadians in the dark, can the minister tell us today whether or not this memorial will be erected?Canadian Forces mission in AfghanistanOral questionsWar memorialsMichelPicardMontarvilleKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1510)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Veterans Affairs indicated that he was working with the Department of Canadian Heritage to identify opportunities for advancing the construction of a memorial monument. However, we still do not know whether there will be a national monument specifically for the Afghanistan mission.My question is for the minister. Will the budget include an envelope for the national monument announced by our Conservative government, yes or no?Canadian Forces mission in AfghanistanOral questionsVeteransWar memorialsJonathanWilkinsonNorth VancouverKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1510)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the minister has insinuated several times over the past four months, the previous Conservative government did more for veterans than any other Canadian government since the Pension Act of 1919 was passed. The Liberal government cancelled the community war memorial program. This clearly shows that this government is not interested in honouring our veterans. Properly honouring our men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces is not militarism, it is quite simply a moral imperative.Now that the Liberals are cancelling this program, how do they intend to honour the achievements of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force who fought against ISIS?Community War Memorial ProgramIraqIslamic State of Iraq and the LevantOperation ImpactOral questionsVeteransWar memorialsKentHehrHon.Calgary CentreKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, 40,000 brave Canadian soldiers served in the war in Afghanistan. One hundred and fifty-eight of them gave their lives and many others were physically or psychologically wounded. The former Conservative government announced a national memorial for these veterans, as well as a second memorial for the soldiers who were awarded the Victoria Cross. These plans are now obviously in limbo.Will this government finally honour our veterans by committing today to follow through with building these two memorials?Canadian Forces mission in AfghanistanOral questionsVeteransWar memorialsCatherineMcKennaHon.Ottawa CentreKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have had enough. This House has been sitting for four months already, yet the minister has not been able to give me one real answer regarding the veterans.We are talking about memorials for veterans. Will the Liberals honour our commitment to the Afghanistan memorial in the upcoming budget, yes or no?Canadian Forces mission in AfghanistanOral questionsVeteransWar memorialsKentHehrHon.Calgary CentreKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1530)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to the unfounded and wrong-headed nature of the mission the current Liberal government has adopted in the fight against the so-called Islamic State.There is no doubt that this group poses a real and tangible threat. No one in this chamber can deny it. This armed terrorist group claims to be the equivalent of a sovereign state, although nothing could be further from the truth. This clearly illustrates its clear desire to be a lasting, structured organization.To achieve that, this group and its acolytes have managed to embroil a region of the world that has never truly known peace even more deeply in extremely violent armed conflicts and by so doing, pushing that region even further away from becoming the just and peaceful society that every population in those imperilled areas certainly dreams of.Peace defined as an in-between period is a consequence of war and not the opposite. Thus, before we prepare for peace, we must face war. For that reason, since the start of Canadian air operations in Iraq and Syria, there have been almost 250 air strikes resulting in the destruction of almost 270 fighting positions, 102 pieces of equipment and 30 explosives factories by only six Canadian jets. In light of this objective and factual statement, we will simply say that operation Impact is aptly named.However, in light of these facts, I would like my dear parliamentary colleagues, especially those in government, to realize that this is not the type of record often associated with the fight against a simple terrorist group. On the contrary, we must unfortunately acknowledge that we are at war with an organized and well-funded group, not to mention one that is motivated by certain intangible spiritual considerations, obscure reasons and other irrational motivations.This democratic institution of the Canadian Parliament must provide a qualified and strong response, that is, a response that makes use of the entire arsenal available to Canada.As we have heard many times in this House, it is true that we have access to all kinds of advantages in this combat, but, from the beginning, our greatest advantage against the so-called Islamic State has come from the air. In all of the chaos caused by its recent appearance, this terrorist group has managed to get its hands on tanks, heavy machine guns, and a staggering amount of ammunition. This is a sophisticated and well-armed enemy, which means that Canada's involvement must be equally aggressive. I have to wonder why this government insists on sending Canadians and, indirectly, our allies, an incoherent, inconsistent, and deceptive message. The government claims to want to increase Canada's presence in the armed conflict and to consolidate our impact over there, yet is rushing to withdraw the one thing that has been hugely successful on the front lines, which, has, so far, made us a strong and effective ally. With foresight, retired General David Fraser rightly said that, although we would not win this war with only air strikes, we certainly would not win the war against ISIL without them. As always, history is repeating itself. Obviously, the Liberals are trying to get out of the Middle East without getting their hands dirty and with a feeling of moral certainty that they did everything in their power to help our allies and the people who are being oppressed by an organization as abhorrent as ISIL. However, I would like to give them some advice. How can they hope to achieve their desired goal with the contribution they have planned for Canada? In fact, the dice have already been thrown. The air mission has already been terminated, whether we debate it or not. Once again, the international approach being taken by the Liberal government shows its one-dimensional objective to create a utopian history for our country by denying our past military contribution and our combat expertise.(1535)I would like to remind Canadians that, historically, Canada has participated in more combat missions than peacekeeping missions. A combat mission is not the antithesis of a peacekeeping mission. On the contrary, it is the foundation for a peacekeeping mission.Canada has always been known for its fiercely hard-working and dedicated soldiers. That is still the case today. It is only since the Liberals decided to rewrite history that we have accepted the government's false claim that Canada has never helped countries in need by providing military support and engaging in direct combat.What our allies are asking us to do today is not to claim that we are acting in good faith and brag about taking some sort of moral high ground in this conflict but to put our military expertise and professionalism to good use in fighting the enemy.I took the time to mention that because, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the Liberals have never sent our country to war or waged one. What this government is doing is a blatant example: they want to send more troops on the ground without providing them with any domestic air support.Our troops are going to wonder where Canada's planes are. With fewer resources and less support, we will be exposing our troops to elevated risk. Moreover, our Griffon helicopters are vulnerable to ground-based fire, in contrast to our fighter planes, which operate at higher altitudes out of range of lighter weaponry. The Liberals' current strategy is utter nonsense. I will be asking the government for formal justification in the unfortunate event we experience Canadian losses because of this political mess.Let us instead do the opposite. Let us show that Canada can make a strong contribution to the conflict. Let us send our allies a clear message. Need I remind the House that our allies considered us as equals when we showed our willingness to use necessary force in the context of a just war?Here we are in 2016, and the Liberal government is claiming quite arrogantly that Canada is back in the international arena. However, quite unbelievably, it is doing so by positioning itself as vassal to an international coalition, not as a leader among leaders.On another note, we have every reason to ask ourselves if this is a just war. The answer, although quite complex, is unequivocally yes. Long before our time, the philosopher Thomas Aquinas, the father of the school of Christian optimists , established a series of criteria for determining whether a war was morally justifiable. First, do we have just cause to go to war? Second, do we have a legitimate authority to wage war? Do we have a plan and formal intention? Lastly, are there any other possible, appropriate solutions to the problem we are trying to solve? Like the world wars that Canada has had to face in the past, the answers to those questions, in the context of the conflict with the so-called Islamic State, are as follows: we have a moral obligation to fight, and in doing so, to provide any assistance that we can in this struggle in order to help those most affected by this scourge. We also cannot forget that this terrorist group is already on their doorstep and, in many cases, in their homes.It is also important to note that beyond the combat mission, which is proving to be the most important part of our involvement in those distant lands, the Liberals have no plan for the distribution of food or the humanitarian resources it plans to send, and yet that aspect is a key element of their specific approach.Need I remind this House that we have seen on many occasions that the organizational aspect of humanitarian assistance is needed to ensure success? How are we going to protect convoys of food supplies or ensure that medical services are provided at the heart of an active conflict?The Liberals have simply forgotten that before preparing the land for peace, and enjoying it even a little bit, we must first win the war.To sum up what I am submitting this afternoon, I can only reiterate how wrong the current government's decision is, and that it will have negative consequences for our troops on the ground and for the civilians we are trying to help. We have a duty to ensure that the so-called Islamic State stops hounding people in the world who want to live in peace and security. Finally, we have a duty to ensure that the so-called Islamic State never gains official state status.Canadian ForcesExtremismGovernment accountabilityGovernment Business No. 2Humanitarian assistance and workersInternational cooperationIraqIslamic State of Iraq and the LevantMilitary aircraftMilitary operations and eventsPeacekeeping and peacemakingSafetyTerrorism and terroristsJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockGinettePetitpas TaylorHon.Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1540)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question. I grew up in New Brunswick, so I appreciate any questions from members from New Brunswick.In no way did I minimize the government's plan to provide more humanitarian aid and training on the ground. That is what our threefold mission was over the past two years: to provide humanitarian aid, welcome refugees, and provide military support in Iraq and Syria.What we on this side of the House disagree with is the fact that this government is continuing with the plan but taking away the third component, or possibly the first, depending on your perspective. I am talking about the military mission itself, the mission undertaken by our CF-18s.Canadian ForcesGovernment Business No. 2IraqIslamic State of Iraq and the LevantMilitary aircraftMilitary operations and eventsTerrorism and terroristsGinettePetitpas TaylorHon.Moncton—Riverview—DieppeK. KellieLeitchHon.Simcoe—Grey//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1545)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question. There are three reasons for that.First, it is because it is dishonourable and shameful that has Canada has withdrawn from an ongoing mission for the first time in history. Second, it is because we committed to contributing our jets and we should keep our word. Third, it is because we need to be aware that we are no longer living in Pearson's internationalist era, when there was a power struggle and cold war going on between the United States and the former Soviet Union.Today, Canada is more or less a world power. We deal with very significant emerging powers. It is time for Canada to muster up its courage and present itself as a leader among leaders. I think that is very important. That is why I mentioned it in my speech.Canadian ForcesGovernment Business No. 2International cooperationIraqIslamic State of Iraq and the LevantMilitary aircraftMilitary operations and eventsTerrorism and terroristsK. KellieLeitchHon.Simcoe—GreyDanVandalSaint Boniface—Saint Vital//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1545)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.First of all, the American president is required to be diplomatic in exchanges with other countries. However, according to other internal sources, the American government is not so happy with this government's decision. As I told the member's colleague, this is not a matter of providing more or less humanitarian assistance. This is about maintaining the CF-18 military mission, which could have been done.Canadian ForcesGovernment Business No. 2International cooperationIraqIslamic State of Iraq and the LevantMilitary aircraftMilitary operations and eventsTerrorism and terroristsDanVandalSaint Boniface—Saint VitalJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1455)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs is misleading Canadians. Contrary to what he said, it was the Conservative government that introduced important measures to fight veterans' homelessness.We launched projects in Toronto, Calgary, Victoria, and London, which helped keep veterans off the street. Furthermore, it was our party that gave the department the specific mandate of helping homeless veterans. Will the minister pledge today to renew this mandate?Homelessness and homelessOral questionsVeteransJimCarrHon.Winnipeg South CentreKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1725)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fine speech. I want to acknowledge that the government is holding this debate in the House and carrying on the tradition started by the previous Conservative government.That being said, I was surprised by one of the statements made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I would like to know what my colleague to my left thinks about it. The Minister of Foreign Affairs talked about the fact that he wanted to put more emphasis on deradicalization in Syria and Iraq. We know that even here in Canada the various social sciences experts who study this phenomenon of radicalization, namely political scientists, anthropologists, and psychologists, all say that the root of the problem has not yet been determined and that we are far from finding the solution to this problem.What does my colleague think about the fact that the minister wants to deradicalize people in a combat zone when we are having such a hard time doing that here at home?Canadian ForcesCrime preventionExtremismGovernment Business No. 2IraqIslamic State of Iraq and the LevantMilitary operations and eventsTerrorism and terroristsJamesBezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanJamesBezanSelkirk—Interlake—Eastman//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1505)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, acting on the ombudsman's recommendation, the Conservative Party promised to give personal identification cards to all veterans. The card would have been given to veterans upon discharge from the armed forces regardless of the length of their military service.Today the government is talking about ceasing production of the old identification card, which is neither specific to veterans nor given automatically following discharge from the armed forces.Will the government immediately replace the old card with an official identification card for veterans, not a discount card like it is planning to do with the proposed CFOne card? Identity cardsOral questionsVeteransBillMorneauHon.Toronto CentreKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodVeterans AffairsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1505)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for the Liberals to make good on the promises they made to veterans. At the same time, it is important to point out that the government will have to run annual deficits to pay for the new measures it has promised.How does the Minister of Veterans Affairs intend to ensure the long-term viability of these promises when the government plans to run structural deficits?Budget deficitOral questionsVeteransVeterans benefitsJanePhilpottHon.Markham—StouffvilleKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersPort of QuebecInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1405)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, since it was founded, Quebec City has had a port that plays a vital role in its economic prosperity. The word “Quebec” means “where the river narrows”, and that is even truer today because the port of Quebec is the last inland port that can accommodate offshore vessels.According to KPMG, the Beauport 2020 plan, which was announced in 2015 by Quebec City port authorities and supported by the previous Conservative government with $60 million, will allow the port of Quebec to remain internationally competitive while creating nearly 3,000 new jobs in the region. It is important to note that expansion and revitalization of the port facilities are necessary to ensure the port's long-term viability.Finally, a large part of this port is located in my riding, Beauport—Limoilou. I therefore encourage the current government to support the work being done by the Port of Quebec, particularly when it comes to this particular project. It is part of a vision for the future for Beauport—Limoilou, Quebec, and Canada.Port of QuébecPorts and harboursStatements by MembersTransportation infrastructureJohnOliverOakvilleLindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISIS]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1350)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I want to speak in this honourable House today to talk about ISIS. To do so, I must first address some of the consequences of the very existence of this terrorist group, specifically for free societies around the globe. Second, it is important to discuss the need for us, Canadians, to respond decisively to the international challenges that can arise at any time, especially those that can have dangerous consequences for this country and for our allies.As I have previously indicated, my family has served in the Canadian Armed Forces since the 1890s. It should therefore come as no surprise that many of the decisions recently made by this government regarding our armed forces and their overseas engagement are particularly important to me.I am referring of course to the hasty decision made by this government to withdraw Canadian CF-18s from the combat mission currently under way in Iraq as part of a coalition led by the President of the United States. Colleagues, for both historic and contemporary reasons, this decision strikes me as misguided and ill-considered. Need I remind the House that our country has never shirked its duty to the international community? Need I further remind the House of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere around the world?Colleagues, ISIS controls several cities in Iraq, many of which are home to dozens or hundreds of thousands of people. In those cities, the so-called Islamic State has set up tax collection systems, a major economic activity within the area it controls. It has a stranglehold on the region's economy and even hands out parking tickets.The self-styled Islamic State is pillaging many regions of Iraq and Syria, appropriating the resources and destroying cultural and historic property. Let us not forget one more important fact: this terrorist group collects billions of dollars a year, enabling it to recruit thousands of people to its cause around the world every year. Because of that, this group is a major threat to our country, Canada.The election is over. As the President of France said, we are at war against terrorism. Canadians understand that. Does the Prime Minister understand that? Does the Prime Minister and this government realize that following the recent terrorist attacks on its soil, in the city of light no less, France effectively asked for help and expects us to stand by its side?We on this side of the House want to know: when is Canada going to offer its unwavering support to a country that has been an ally at every moment of Canada's history? Hon. members of this House need to understand that terrorist attacks are looming. The threat is not limited to some faraway place on another continent. On the contrary, terrorism can strike anywhere here in Canada, even at the heart of our democratic institutions. Need I remind hon. members that terrorism has already targeted us more than once and spit its venom right here in the Parliamentary precinct?What the official opposition wants is simple. We are calling on this government to get serious on both domestic issues and international issues. We are calling on this government to take the right approach to terrorism, and to acknowledge that it is a serious problem and that ISIS is the brains behind these low-lifes.We must remain strong in our belief that we are right. We must remain determined to make no concessions to those who want to destroy us. We must remain united in the face of this threat. That is why we must hit the terrorists precisely where they are plotting against us, before it is too late.(1355) My colleagues opposite are saying that we need to combat ISIS more effectively. We agree. Indeed, we should help train local anti-terrorism forces. We should increase aid to the hundreds of thousands of poor people driven from their homes by terrorism. That is all good. We must increase our efforts, not reduce them. Everyone agrees on that, of course. However, that would also mean that we need to keep our fighter jets where they are. Our colleagues opposite keep repeating over and over that the Royal Canadian Air Force's participation is basically not very significant and that they simply do a few strikes here and there. I want to ask these members what they are waiting for to take action, to do something and to reverse their decision to recall the Canadian CF-18s currently participating in the mission. As a G8 country, should we not contribute to this international mission in every way we can? Canadian ForcesFighter aircraftIslamic State of Iraq and the LevantMilitary operations and eventsOpposition motionsTerrorism and terroristsCandiceBergenHon.Portage—LisgarMarioBeaulieuLa Pointe-de-l'Île//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISIS]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1515)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am glad I can continue my speech.To explain my position to those of my colleagues who feel that we should be doing more, I said that we should reconsider the decision to end the CF-18 mission. As a G8 country, should we not contribute as much as we are able to this international fight?Have we forgotten our traditional allies, our most precious alliances, and our friends? France, the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States have answered the call for air strikes. Other countries are sure to join them soon.While the international community rallies to a common cause, will Canada beat a retreat? To withdraw our fighter jets and our courageous pilots would be to send the wrong message to ISIS. We might as well be saying that it is not important to fight terrorism and support our allies and that we could not care less about ISIS. We need to take this more seriously. No self-respecting government can act on a whim, not when it comes to ISIS and certainly not when it comes to the safety of Canadians.That the government think before it acts is not too much to ask. Let us wait before taking any ill-conceived action. We need to begin by listening to and consulting Canadians, our allies, and first and foremost, this House, in the spirit of collaboration and transparency.Here on this side of the House, the only message we want to send beyond our shores is that Canada is standing up. If Canada will not stand up to ISIS, who else will?We have the means, the materials and the equipment. Our soldiers are very well trained, and in that regard, as a former soldier myself, I know what I am talking about. We have everything we need to do our part with pride and conviction. Imagine what a difference we could make. After all, that is what Canadians expect from their government.At the end of the day, what is the Prime Minister so afraid of? Is he afraid of terrorism or is he afraid of being wrong?In closing, and in keeping with the mood here as this session begins, I urge all members of the House to reflect carefully on the thoughts and criticisms my colleagues and I have shared here today. Canadian ForcesFighter aircraftIslamic State of Iraq and the LevantMilitary operations and eventsOpposition motionsTerrorism and terroristsGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISIS]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1515)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the very good question.If the member had been here for the beginning of my speech, he would have heard what I said about his government, namely that it should take note of how international relations are developing right now. As we know, there have been a number of attacks in recent weeks, including one in Paris.Under the previous Conservative government, we had a three-pronged strategy: bring in refugees, provide humanitarian assistance to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and go into battle with our CF-18s. Today we are not asking the government to break any promises. We are just asking the government to recognize the current chaotic reality of international relations and reverse its decision.Canadian ForcesFighter aircraftMilitary operations and eventsOpposition motionsTerrorism and terroristsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISIS]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1520)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, whose riding is quite close to Beauport—Limoilou, for his question. I find that way of thinking shameful. I would like to reiterate that, in those 2% of cases, 100% of the individuals are serving our country and putting their lives in danger every day to protect our freedoms.Canadian ForcesFighter aircraftMilitary operations and eventsOpposition motionsTerrorism and terroristsGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentBorysWrzesnewskyjEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISIS]InterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1520)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that very good question.I will not comment on American politics or on the U.S.'s decisions on international relations. I do not understand “reconsider the focus” to mean redefining the U.S. air strike approach, so I do not see how that changes what we are saying here. Canadian ForcesFighter aircraftMilitary operations and eventsOpposition motionsTerrorism and terroristsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingSvenSpengemannMississauga—Lakeshore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, unfortunately there is more. On November 11, the Minister of Veterans Affairs sent an email bearing his title and promoting the Liberal Party. Not only was it inappropriate to use Remembrance Day for partisan purposes, but it was also clearly a violation of the Prime Minister's rules for cabinet.Does the Prime Minister agree that it is inappropriate for his Minister of Veterans Affairs to use Remembrance Day to promote the Liberal Party?Cabinet ministersElectronic mailEthics and ethical issuesFundraising and fundraisersHehr, KentLiberal Party of CanadaMinister of Veterans AffairsOral questionsPolitical influenceReferences to membersRemembrance DayGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestDominicLeBlancHon.Beauséjour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1535)[Translation]Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker, hon. members of Parliament, and all Canadians.I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville. I want to acknowledge my colleague and congratulate her on her election.I want to start by congratulating all the members of the House on their wins and on their dedication, which is so important to keeping the democratic institutions that make up our political system alive and well. I am honoured and extremely proud to rise here for the first time to address all Canadians, and in particular Quebeckers in Beauport—Limoilou. Because of them, I have the unbelievable privilege of being a member of this very important parliamentary institution.If I am here today, it is also thanks to some important people in my life. First, there are my parents, without whom none of this would have been possible. They are the ones who, throughout my childhood, guided me, taught me, and most importantly, loved me. Then, there is my wife Pascale, who has been by my side for 11 years now and supports me in all of my incredible adventures, including politics. Finally, my daughter, Victoria Clarke, reminds me every day of what is important in this life here on earth. I would like to thank all of those who are dear to my heart, including my brother and my sister.Last, but not least, I would like to thank all of our ancestors who built a country based on the principles of the rule of law and political freedom.Canada, as a whole, is part of my identity. In fact, my parents are from opposite ends of the country. My mother is a French Canadian from Beauport, Quebec, and my father is an English Canadian from Victoria, British Columbia. Canada's duality, an undeniable part of our common history and our political past and present, is alive and well in me and is always driving me.I do not want to boast, but I have believed from a very young age that having this personal characteristic meant that I had an inescapable duty to participate in Canada's political community.That is why, since my teen years, my sole purpose has been to serve my country and my fellow citizens. This burning desire, coupled with an iron will, compelled me to become actively involved in Canadian politics at 18 and to join the Canadian Armed Forces at 24.In recent years, I have been an active member of the Conservative Party of Canada, I have served as a member of the 6th Field Artillery Regiment in Lévis, I have worked with charities in my community, and, to better understand the significance of these activities, Canada's history, and our political system, I earned a master's in political science. I applied for and received my discharge from the Canadian Armed Forces on November 11, Remembrance Day. On my father's side, fathers and sons have served in the Canadian Armed Forces since the 1890s. My great-grandfather, my grandfather, my father, my brother and I are all veterans.That is why the privilege of being named the official opposition critic for veterans affairs is so deeply symbolic to me: it is linked to a long-standing, deeply rooted family tradition.On that point, I want to thank our party leader for the trust she has placed in me. Our leader and all veterans in this country can rest assured that I take this role very seriously. I will remain politically invested every day, and I will work as hard as I have to in order to hold this government to account when it comes to veterans.I would also like to present to the House my priorities as the member for Beauport—Limoilou. My team and I have three main objectives we want to achieve. We call them the three Ps: pursue, promote, and participate. The first objective is about pursuing the economic revitalization of our riding. More specifically, it is about focusing on the development of these main arteries: d'Estimauville, Canardières and des Capucins, 1st Avenue, 3rd Avenue and Seigneuriale. The second objective is to promote the flow of ongoing investments in local infrastructure. The third objective is to participate in nurturing the personal growth of newcomers and those most in need by reaching out to them, by knocking on doors throughout my term, in order to meet their needs and, more importantly, overcome the feeling of social exclusion.(1540)Last summer, the previous Conservative government announced its support for a very important project for my riding and the entire greater Quebec City region. I am talking about the Beauport 2020 plan to almost double the area of the port of Québec's wharves. This makes sense because “the port of Québec is a strategic transshipment point between the industrial and agricultural heart of North America and the world. The port is open to navigation year-round and is one of the largest ports in Canada in terms of tonnage and economic spinoffs.” Consequently, I would hope that the new government will stay the course on this crucially important project and ensure that it is completed in accordance with the strictest environmental criteria around.On another note, I think nothing illustrates the ideal of serving one's country better than donning a military uniform and confronting the dangers that face any free society. We have courageous veterans who did just that for our country and our freedom during the 20th century in various places around the world, and more recently in Afghanistan. Today, in Canada, we have more than 700,000 veterans. If we include their family members, we are talking about millions of individuals. They all have served and serve Canada in their own way.What amazed me the most when I met with veterans in recent years was the unwavering passion with which they spoke about serving their country and ensuring a better future for all of us, including the MPs in this House.I was stunned that there was only one sentence about veterans in the Speech from the Throne that opened the 42nd Parliament on Friday. However, the Liberal government has used other communications tools to announce measures that will generate significant annual deficits in the coming years, even if the Canadian economy does well in the global economic context.The government is proposing to post deficit after deficit, have Canada go into debt in a period of economic prosperity, increase taxes and thereby discourage consumption and economic growth. This will inevitably lead to a significant slowdown in job creation.Furthermore, the government is proposing to create new measures and to improve others for veterans, which is a very good thing. However, that is where we part ways, because the Conservatives want to finance these measures with the money generated by a healthy economy and not by running deficits in future years.Where is the long-term vitality of these measures? How can they be permanent if the government is incurring national debt to pay for them? How can the government be sure that these new measures will be sustainable in the long term when they are incurring a deficit to pay for them? Will it do so by raising taxes for Canadians and businesses?My friends, this is a Liberal smokescreen designed to make Canadians believe that all of the new measures that have been proposed will be implemented. They will not be, at least not permanently. Veterans will be the first to doubt the Liberals' proposals, which I will refer to as the Liberal smokescreen from now on.We, on the other hand, were and still are in favour of measures for veterans that are sustainable in the long term, measures that are not funded by incurring continuing deficits. In that respect, the previous Conservative government focused on the long-term sustainability of essential services for veterans. That is why we made major cuts to the department's bureaucratic red tape in order to make the department more productive. This measure also made it possible to make necessary cuts to spending and especially to bring about welcome improvements in services to veterans.Our first priority has always been to ensure that programs and measures for veterans are sustainable in the long term, while maintaining a strong economy based on balanced budgets and, of course, continued tax cuts. The holiday season is approaching. Soon, we will all gather with our families to celebrate, but also to remember the many sacrifices that our veterans made and are still making today. It is thanks to them that I am here today.In closing, I would like to say that there is no doubt in my mind that everyone here only wants what is best for veterans. In that respect, when it comes to working for the well-being of veterans, the government will always find in me an ally.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneBalanced budgetBureaucracyEconomic slowdownEnvironmental assessmentGovernment accountabilityInfrastructureMaritime transportationPort of QuébecPublic debtRoad construction and repairSettlement of immigrantsSplitting speaking timeStructural deficitVeteransVeterans benefitsWharvesGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1545)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and I want to congratulate her once again on her election.Like my colleague from Yorkton—Melville, I am comfortable with the new measures put forward. However, our concern is that these measures cannot become permanent because of the deficits announced by the new government. That is what is dangerous for veterans. They need long-term measures, not election-time measures.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneEducation and trainingGovernment accountabilityStructural deficitVeterans benefitsCathayWagantallYorkton—MelvillePierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1550)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I congratulate him on being re-elected.I will reiterate what we said throughout the campaign. Canada Post is a public corporation that makes its own operational decisions. The previous Conservative government expressed concerns about decisions affecting mailboxes in ridings. I would say to my colleague that it is up to the current Liberal government to talk to the corporation to see what the priorities are and figure out how to reverse the decision.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneCanada Post CorporationDoor-to-door postal deliveryPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookeK. KellieLeitchHon.Simcoe—Grey//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgSpeech from the ThroneResumption of debate on Address in ReplyInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1550)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, and I congratulate her on being elected.As I said, we believe that, on the whole and in principle, the measures are laudable. When I talk to veterans, including family members and fellow members of the armed forces, they all want to see a model that prioritizes open-ended measures. The opposition, the Conservative Party and veterans want viable, long-term measures that they can count on now and for the rest of their lives, not electioneering.Address in Reply to the Speech from the ThroneVeteransVeterans benefitsK. KellieLeitchHon.Simcoe—GreyCathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleINTERVENTIONParliament and SessionOrder of BusinessDiscussed TopicProcedural TermPerson SpeakingSearchResults per pageOrder byTarget search languageSide by SideMaximum returned rowsPagePUBLICATION TYPE