Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 1655
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2019-06-06 11:52 [p.28675]
moved that Bill C-101, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
2019-06-05 16:40 [p.28594]
moved that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
2019-06-05 16:49 [p.28596]
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-101, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
2019-06-05 17:10 [p.28599]
moved that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures be read the third time and passed.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2019-06-04 12:52 [p.28483]
Mr. Speaker, again, not to sound narcissistic, but if we are going to talk, there should be people here to listen.
We are here today to debate the government's bill, which would implement the main measures of the budget. Budgets are highly technical and theoretical, but this gives us a chance to really dig deep.
My first observation is about the budget, as introduced by the minister, election promises and the format of the bill, which is 370 pages long and covers many topics that have nothing to do with the budget. This is called an omnibus bill.
I will remind members that four years ago, back in 2015, the Liberals made a promise. During the election campaign, they made several promises to Canadians in order to get elected. These promises were scrapped, however. The fourth paragraph on page 30 of their election platform states the following:
We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.
[The former prime minister] has used prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances. We will not.
[The former prime minister] has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals.
This is exactly what we are debating today. Today we are debating an omnibus bill into which the government inserted measures that have nothing to do with the budget. Four years ago, the Liberals promised not to do this, but they did it anyway.
Must I remind the House that, at around the same time last year, we were all here studying the previous budget implementation bill? The government had slipped in a dozen or so pages of legal provisions to allow companies facing prosecution for corruption, among other charges, to sign separate agreements. These provisions were not properly debated by parliamentarians. The Senate asked the minister to testify, but he refused.
That is what gave rise to the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Last year's bill included a process to allow for separate trials or agreements. That led to the director of public prosecutions' decision to proceed to trial on September 4. Ten days later, the former attorney general agreed to this proposal, and that is when partisan politics seeped into the legal process. That is what later led the former attorney general and the former president of the Treasury Board to be booted out of the Liberal caucus for having stood up and told Canadians the truth.
I am talking about this sad episode in Canadian democracy precisely because what we have before us today is a government that was elected under false promises, a government that promised the moon and sought to be pure as the driven snow but, in the end, did not keep its promises. That is essentially it. We have an omnibus bill.
Now let us talk about what is really going on with this bill, the government's budget implementation bill. What is the deal with this budget? Once again, we must not forget that the Liberals got themselves elected on the basis of budget promises they most certainly did not keep. The last paragraph on page 76 of the Liberal Party platform mentions the planning framework, the budgeting framework. It says right there in black and white:
With the Liberal plan, the federal government will have a modest short-term deficit of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years....
The platform also stated that the deficit would decline in the third year and that Canada would return to a balanced budget in 2019-20.
That was the promise that got the Liberals elected. Their bold but not-so-brilliant idea was to make a solemn pledge to run small deficits and eliminate the deficit entirely in 2019-20. That deadline has arrived, and what happened? Those modest deficits ballooned into three big deficits in excess of $70 billion. This is 2019-20, the year they were supposed to get rid of the deficit, but instead, this year's deficit is $19.8 billion.
Twice now I have asked the Minister of Tourism and the Liberal member for Surrey-Centre, if I remember correctly, to tell me the amount of this year’s deficit. They can never come up with the simple and yet very serious figure of $19.8 billion. How can we trust these people who get elected by promising, hand on heart, that they will generate only small deficits and zero deficit in 2019, when they generated three large deficits plus a huge one on the year they were meant to deliver a zero deficit?
What the Liberals fail to understand is that a deficit is a bill that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. A deficit today is a tax tomorrow. It will have to be paid sooner or later. Why did this happen? Because we are living beyond our means.
I would like to remind the House that, historically speaking, deficits are permitted under special conditions. You will remember that we ran deficits during the war. We had to defeat the Nazi menace. We will soon be celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Normandy landings on June 6. It was not until Prime Minister Louis Saint-Laurent that fiscal balance was restored, and I am not just saying that because I happen to represent the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent.
It was in the early 1970s, under the Liberal government led by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the current Prime Minister’s father, that we began running deficits in times of prosperity.
It was unfortunate for the Canadian economy. Indeed, fast forward 50 years and the son of the prime minister who ran deficits in times of growth is doing exactly the same thing, running four huge deficits in a period of rapid global economic expansion.
I truly have a great deal of respect and esteem for the Minister of Finance, as I do for all those who run for election and offer their services to Canadians and who, proud of their personal experience, wish to put it to good use. The Minister of Finance had a stellar career on Bay Street. We might even call him a Bay Street baron for having administered his family’s fortune so well. When he was head of the family company, Morneau Shepell, he never ran deficits.
When he was in the private sector, the Minister of Finance never ran a deficit, but since he moved to the public sector, since he has been using taxpayer money, since he has been using money that belongs to Canadian workers, he has been running back-to-back deficits.
How many have there been? There have been one, two, three, four budgets, and there have been one, two, three, four deficits. Four out of four, that is the grand slam of mismanaged public funds, while, in the private sector, he was a model money manager, an example to be followed.
To say the least, he is now neither a model or an example to be followed. Generating deficits during periods of economic growth is the ultimate heresy. No serious economist will tell you that this is a good time to generate a deficit. Quite the contrary, when the economic cycle picks up, it is time to put money aside.
They were very lucky. When they were elected, they took over the G7 country with the best economic track record. When we were in power, we were so intent on serious and rigorous management that we were the first G7 country to recover from the great crisis of 2008-12. That was thanks to the informed and rigorous management of the late Hon. Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, and Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. These people inherited the best economic situation among the G7 nations, as well as a $2.5 billion budget surplus, which will not be the case in five months if Canadians choose us to form the next government.
Worse still, in the past four years, they have taken advantage of the sensational global economic growth and, of course, the economic strength of the United States, which has been experiencing growth for several years. What did they do with it? They made a huge mess of things, and the monstrous deficits they have been running these past four years will be handed down to our children and grandchildren to pay in the future.
That is why we are strongly opposed to this bill, which flies in the face of two election promises: to do away with omnibus bills, and to only run small deficits before balancing the budget in 2019.
View Harjit S. Sajjan Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Harjit S. Sajjan Profile
2019-04-10 16:00 [p.26944]
moved that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
View Ginette Petitpas Taylor Profile
Lib. (NB)
moved that Bill C-82, An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting, be concurred in.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's staff said, “it's just a bit ironic that she wants an alternative justice process to be available in one sense, but not one for SNC.” It seems like the entire Liberal government has been seized with getting bribery charges dropped against SNC. As a little reminder, that included $30,000 for Gadhafi's son for prostitutes in Canada.
The finance minister believes that this company should get a special deal. I have a simple question: Will the Liberals let him come to the justice committee and explain to Canadians why?
View Bardish Chagger Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bardish Chagger Profile
2019-04-01 14:51 [p.26519]
Mr. Speaker, we know that the justice committee studied this matter over five weeks, which is longer than most pieces of legislation are even studied at committee. We know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is currently investigating this matter. We know that there is an ongoing court case. We know that when it comes to deferred prosecution agreements, this is a new tool that went through the House of Commons, was voted on and it is a legal measure that can be considered.
What is interesting is that we hear this sanctimony from the other side, but where was that member from the Conservative Party when it voted against measures for women and gender programs, when it voted against programs for seniors and when it voted against—
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Jim Carr Profile
2019-03-20 15:18 [p.26184]
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-94, An Act respecting certain payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2019-02-28 19:48 [p.25968]
Madam Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise in the House and represent the people of Timmins—James Bay and the New Democratic Party on the ethics file. However, I am not proud that we have come to this point, because we are talking about a fundamental crisis that has occurred in our country, because the veil has been pulled back, thanks to the courage of the former attorney general, to show us how corrupt the culture of insiders is in Ottawa.
I want to preface this by saying there are two betrayals we are dealing with. One is the attempt to undermine the rule of law. I refer to a former Liberal attorney general, Michael Bryant, who said, we are dealing with “a constitutional crisis far worse than what I envisioned” and “a bald attempt by the Prime Minister to exercise his cabinet-making power over [the] quasi-judicial authority” of the Attorney General. He went on to say that he has never seen it used in such a “brazen, reckless fashion.”
That is the subject of why we are here tonight. However, for people who are watching there is an equally great betrayal. The Prime Minister gave people hope. He made people believe that politics could be different in Ottawa. We ran against him and we ran against his party, but I have to admit that I came in 2015 thinking that maybe he was serious about open government, maybe he was serious about reconciliation, and just maybe he was serious about the middle class he always spoke about. Many people and I know many of my friends in the Liberal Party share those values, and they are hurting tonight.
However, there is another Liberal Party, the old Liberal Party of corruption, insiders and cronies, and the Prime Minister had not even set up shop when the lobbyists began moving into town. What we have seen here is the power of the rich to call into the Prime Minister's Office and get things moved.
For example, KPMG established an illegal offshore tax fraud system for billionaires. When it was found out, suddenly, miraculously, there were no criminal penalties. We all wondered how that could happen, but the fog on the Liberal side was that they did not know. An agreement was made. Then the Prime Minister appointed a KPMG executive as the treasurer for the Liberal Party, because that way of doing business is something he is comfortable with.
We never got to see the raw exercise of power until yesterday, when the former attorney general spoke truth to power. She said that she experienced “a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the Attorney General”. What she experienced were the powerful men and women around the Prime Minister's Office trying to intimidate her and to threaten her.
That was an amazing moment when she talked about the Clerk of the Privy Council, who has completely betrayed his obligation to the Canadian people to be the non-partisan voice of principle. He was the one used to be the thug. I asked her, “Did he threaten you?” She said he not only threatened her once but three times in that meeting. During that meeting she was concerned that the “other shoe” was going to drop. We will get to that other shoe in a moment.
I want to talk about the very first meeting, when she met with the Prime Minister about this, when the director of public prosecutions had made the determination that SNC-Lavalin was not eligible for this deferred prosecution agreement, a deferred prosecution law that was written specifically for SNC. SNC-Lavalin was so bad it could not even meet the criteria of a law that had been handwritten for it and stuffed into an omnibus bill.
What did the Prime Minister say? He was with the clerk and the clerk said there was going to be a board meeting on Thursday. How were they making those connections? They were talking about the shareholders they were meeting and they had to have that decision. The Prime Minister jumped in and said he was an MP from Quebec, the member for Papineau. The Prime Minister established that his main priority was saving his own political rear end. That is why this began.
Then we see the interference by the finance minister and his staff. She told him that it was unacceptable, and they continued.
I want to get to Gerry Butts and Katie Telford, who then met with her. Gerry Butts said he did not like the law. He called it a Harper law.
I do not like very many things Stephen Harper ever did. In fact, I do not know if I can count one or two. However, the rule of law is the rule of law. Liberals do not get to say, “Oh, that was a Conservative law so we are going to ignore it.” She told him, “It is the law of the land.” It was a good law to hold political corruption accountable internationally. That is what Gerry Butts did not like.
Then he said that there was going to be no solution that did not involve interference. For any member on that side to stand up and claim that this was just the normal activities, it may be the normal activities of the corrupt old Liberal Party, but this is not the normal activities of how the judicial system works, that it cannot be done without interference.
Then Katie Telford said that she was not interested in legalities. This woman still has her job. If there is a person in the Prime Minister's Office who does not give a tinker's darn about the rule of law, they have no business being there. What did Katie say? Katie said, “Hey, if you have any problems with it, we'll just get some prominent, important Liberal people to write some op-eds to cover it off.” That is the corrupt old Liberal way of doing business.
However, they were standing up against an attorney general who said no, and who said that she was “waiting for that other shoe to drop”, which I spoke of before. She knew it was coming, and it did come. They told her she was being replaced.
The most damning testimony of all was that the Clerk of the Privy Council told her staff that the first order of business of the new Attorney General would be to put that SNC-Lavalin deal through. That is unconscionable.
I want to say personally that I have never made a secret of some of the major battles I have had with the former attorney general. The role of the justice department lawyers in suppressing evidence in the case of the St. Anne's Indian Residential School has shaken me in my political life. I have never felt confidence in the judicial system for indigenous people because of the role of the justice department in suppressing that evidence.
I went to the Minister of Indigenous Affairs who landed the campaign against the St. Anne's survivors, and I begged him to stop. I begged him to stop this attack on people who had suffered so much. I approached the Attorney General, but she was the solicitor of the client, Indian Affairs. I make no apologies for my anger about her failings then.
However, I learn now, thanks to the former attorney general, that what was going on behind the scenes was that she had come to Ottawa to deal with reconciliation, but what was she getting stuck with? She was getting stuck with looking after the rich friends of the Liberal Party.
We were very frustrated that the former attorney general was not moving on the indigenous framework. Then we find out, through this testimony, that she was not given the indigenous framework. The Liberal government was not interested in her doing the indigenous framework. It wanted her to cut a deal for their rich insider friends.
Last night, when I sat at that committee, I watched integrity. I watched someone who put her political career on the line, and maybe has finished her political career, but she was not going to be intimidated and she was not going to be silenced.
I urge my friends in the Liberal Party who are as sickened in their core as I am, and I know many of them are, do not go into the smear campaign, do not continue this attack on her, do not say it was her father pulling her strings, do not say that she could not take the stress, and do not, and I am calling on my colleagues over there, do not do the next step that the Liberal government is going to do, which is starting the attack on her credibility.
It is one woman who stood up to this Prime Minister, one woman who said what he was doing was unconscionable. This Prime Minister needs to be accountable. He needs to come to committee. He needs to stop hiding. He needs to show Canadians that he can explain why the people around him were involved in such a corrupt interference and obstruction of the work of the Attorney General on a matter of corruption. Until he does that, he has lost his fundamental moral compass and the Liberal Party is adrift.
View Bill Blair Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bill Blair Profile
2019-02-21 10:11 [p.25594]
moved that Bill S-6, An Act to implement the Convention between Canada and the Republic of Madagascar for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Results: 1 - 15 of 1655 | Page: 1 of 111

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data