Lisa Raitt

Mr. Speaker, Terri-Lynne McClintic was found guilty of first-degree murder and rape and torture of eight-year-old Tori Stafford. She was sentenced to life in prison. Eight years into her prison sentence, she is being moved to a healing facility. This is a bad decision by officials. On any calculus, this is a bad decision. When bad decisions were shown to us as a government, we intervened. We stopped rapist and murderer Paul Bernardo from receiving conjugal visits. We blocked child killer Clifford Olson from receiving pension benefits.When confronted with bad decisions, a good government acts. Why is this Prime Minister not acting?

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the difficulty with a government receiving a bad decision is that the decision has to be made then to act. We acted every single time we found out that a bad decision that infuriates Canadians was made. This is a terrible decision. It is despicable. Why are the government and the Prime Minister not acting?

Mr. Speaker, in the statements that the Prime Minister made, he actually missed the point of the question, which is that Ann is a single woman making minimum wage. She does not get the Canada child care benefit. She does not get the guaranteed income supplement. She does not get that middle-class tax cut either, yet the Prime Minister thinks she does not pay a single cent in taxes. She would beg to differ. She will pay about $5,000 in taxes every year after CPP and EI are included. Then there will be the GST, then there will be the HST and then there will be the Liberal carbon tax, which is coming next.Will the Prime Minister still stand by that ridiculous statement?

Mr. Speaker, sadly, the Prime Minister seems to want to run on the notion that the means, no matter how bad they are, justify the ends and I would caution that is an inappropriate way to continue with the Canadian public. However, I am going to give him one chance to do something really appropriate on his last day today.Admiral Mark Norman was put through hell for the last three years because of the concerted efforts of the government to ensure that he was put on the spot. We apologized to the House. Will the Prime Minister stand in his place today and apologize—

Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister to stand there and tell someone who grew up in Cape Breton and is a product of a coal-mining family that she hates labour is absolutely disgusting. I am not afraid to have dirt under my finger nails.I am going to quote one journalist who seeks to have independence, “Now the government that benefited from Unifor’s partisan largesse has asked it for help deciding who’s a proper journalist and what’s a proper news outlet.”You could have done better, Prime Minister. Why did you not?

Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister to stand there and tell someone who grew up in Cape Breton and is a product of a coal-mining family that she hates labour is absolutely disgusting. I am not afraid to have dirt under my finger nails.I am going to quote one journalist who seeks to have independence, “Now the government that benefited from Unifor’s partisan largesse has asked it for help deciding who’s a proper journalist and what’s a proper news outlet.”You could have done better, Prime Minister. Why did you not?

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating in the House our motion to ask the government to take some action with respect to Terri-Lynne McClintic being moved from a medium-security facility with bars to a healing lodge that has a living room, a kitchenette, and children within. I would like to know from the government if its members will be voting in favour of our motion today to take action in response to this despicable decision.

Mr. Speaker, when the government members applaud, the way they do, that incredibly despicable answer, what they are applauding is the victim not getting her justice. Today we speak here for Tori Stafford. Canadians understand—

Mr. Speaker, the priority on this side is people like senior citizens in Nova Scotia, who are going to be suffering because they are going to have to come up with $1,100 every year. Here is a Statistics Canada number, too, that is real: 94% of Nova Scotia seniors are low-income seniors. Where are they going to find $1,100 in tax money to give this failed Liberal government?When are Liberals going to give it up, do what's right, and get rid of the carbon tax?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to use some numbers, so that the government understands the hypocrisy of what it is talking about. As I said, a Liberal bagman stashed $60 million away in a tax-free account in the Cayman Islands. Let us pretend that this $60 million was put into a passive investment account by a small business person here in Canada. That would be a tax bill of $43 million. Why is the Prime Minister allowing his friends to get off on a tax bill of $43 million?

Mr. Speaker, they may trust the Ethics Commissioner, but how can Canadians trust these Liberals? As of late yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary for Urban Affairs was still falsely claiming that the finance minister's assets were in a blind trust. The Prime Minister himself indicated that it was the Ethics Commissioner's responsibility in these matters, yet she testified today that it was the minister's choice not to put the shares in a blind trust.The daily revelations of the finance minister show nothing but hypocrisy, and I want to know one simple thing. When did the finance minister sell his shares in Morneau Shepell?

Mr. Speaker, yes, let us be straight with Canadians, and enough of the hypocrisy from the other side of the chamber. Let me put it this way: Canadians expect informed consent when people are taking their financial data. I would like to know from the Minister of Innovation and Science, did he seek to consult with Canadians before he allowed Statistics Canada to send those letters to Canadian banks?

Mr. Speaker, what I am asking this minister is for her to tell us what her department officials told her is the cost to Canadian families for their carbon tax. She knows what the answer is.Breaking news, today we understand why Ontarians actually voted for Doug Ford in the election in Ontario. They said that voters feel that costs are out of control, and they view carbon taxes as nothing more than a cash grab. Why will these MPs not at least tell voters in Canada how much of their cash they intend on grabbing?

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Prime Minister does not realize that he is accountable for this dysfunctional regulatory process that Liberals put in place.Two days ago, all the Atlantic MPs except for one voted against having a longer process for consultation on tax hikes to fishers, farmers, and local businesses, all but one. With this morning's announcement, Atlantic Canadians are faced with another economic blow.This is what I want to know. These are important sectors, and they are vital to the east coast economy. When will the Liberals stop stifling opportunity and stop taking us for granted?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are rightly concerned. The impact of a fourth CPP expansion is going to be on their wallets.The Minister of Finance has stated that a CPP expansion would be putting too many eggs in one basket. He also said that increasing the CPP would practically take the private sector out of the pension business. My question is again for the Minister of Finance. Will he just abandon this ill-conceived scheme because it would unfairly target Canadian workers?

Mr. Speaker, there is one lesson I wish they had learned from us, the previous Conservative government, on deficits, and that is how to eliminate the deficit.Last week, StatsCan confirmed that we are not in a recession, and indeed, Canadians are left asking why the Minister of Finance is hell bent on acting as if we are in a recession.Maybe the Minister of Finance can confirm for us that we are not in a recession; or does he have the same lack of confidence in StatsCan officials that he does in finance officials?

Mr. Speaker, on February 21, 2017, the official opposition started asking questions about the Roxham Road illegal express entry that the government had opened up through Twitter. It has taken over two and a half years to actually admit to the fact and be told by the Auditor General that there is indeed a problem, and what do the Liberals do? In a complete lack of leadership, they blame something from somebody else's regime five years ago. They take no responsibility themselves, and it lies at their feet. What will they do to fix this system?

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the response from the member, the reality is that we are far beyond invitations to any attempted murderers. Where we are right now is the reality that the Prime Minister is avoiding his responsibility, and as a result we are being laughed at, as a country, across the world. The former high commissioner of India to Canada likened the allegations by the Prime Minister of a sabotage conspiracy to something out of Harry Potter, calling it pure fiction. A foreign affairs expert on CBC said that the saga is a whodunit, Harry Potter, Alice in Wonderland scheme.This is a complete embarrassment. What is the Prime Minister doing to fix the mess he created?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning a deliberate attempt by the government to deny me information I requested through Order Paper Question No. 1316. This question read as follows: With regard to the tweet by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change on November 7, 2017, which stated that “Canada salutes Nicaragua and Syria for joining on to the Paris Agreement”: what are the titles of all individuals who approved the tweet? The answer states: We have been clear: the murderous Assad regime must end the indiscriminate violence against its own people. The people of Syria deserve a life free from violence. Canada will continue to support the Syrian people in reaching this goal and in achieving a long-term political solution. Clearly the tweet was a mistake for which the Minister of Environment and Climate Change took full responsibility both through online communications and in the House of Commons. In addition to this being a non-answer, and the subject of my question of privilege, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you will find that the response actually breaches the Standing Orders as well, and that is a point I will get to later.I was contacted last week by Dean Beeby, of the CBC, about an access to information request he had received an answer to. It is in reference to the tweet I referenced in my question. He suggested that his ATIP had turned up the actual document that shows the names and titles of those who were involved in approving the tweet. Mr. Beeby went on to publish this article on Thursday, October 25, 2018, and the article confirms that Mr. Beeby had indeed obtained information from the government through an ATIP that I could not obtain through a legitimate proceeding of Parliament. The article says: CBC News has obtained documents under the Access to Information Act showing the minister's office gave a final thumbs-up to the tweet 51 minutes before it popped up on [the Minister of the Environment]'s official ministerial Twitter feed last Nov. 7.... The minister noted repeatedly that the social-media misstep occurred on the departmental Twitter account, rather than on her personal Twitter account, suggesting public servants were to blame. Mr. Speaker, I did suspect all along that this was true as well. Because the government held back these details from me, I could not present the evidence to the House in my role as an opposition member. The article went on to report: “The tweet in question was approved by the MO [minister's office] at 2:09 p.m. today and issued at 3:00 PM," says an assessment.... The package shows the names of at least 31 public servants involved in the ill-advised tweet. The released documents show the pre-publication vetting was carried out in advance by the department's “social media” and “home” teams, as well as by [the Minister of the Environment]'s office staff, whose names have been removed from the file. Finally, the article points out that the government also violated the timelines set out in the Access to Information Act. Now, that is not your problem, Mr. Speaker, but it does provide you with more evidence of the government's intent to avoid this issue by withholding information from me and delaying information to the media.I would make one final point. Nowhere in the Access to Information Act does it permit a minister to refuse the names of ministerial staff when providing a response to an access to information request.I do not begrudge Mr. Beeby the fact that he received an answer, but when a journalist and a member of Parliament ask the same question, one would expect the government to at least give the same respect to the member of Parliament as it gave to the journalist, or put another way, treat a proceeding in Parliament with the same respect as an ATIP. In this case, I was given debate and an argument for an answer, whereas the journalist was actually given the answer. Not only is this an affront to the House, in so committing this offence, the government also breached the standing order I mentioned earlier. It is Standing Order 39(1), which says, in part: in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated. On December 16, 1980, at page 5797 of Hansard, the Speaker ruled: While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstance could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member. Omitting the information I was seeking in the government's response to my question and providing exactly what I was seeking to Mr. Beeby demonstrates that the government deliberately withheld information from the House.On page 251 of the 24th edition of Erskin May, it described the contempt as follows: Generally speaking, any action or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedence of the offence. The government keeps repeating the same offence over and over again. After numerous questions of privilege and warnings from the Chair, it continues to deny members information while providing the same or more accurate information to the media. I think it is important at this time to present to the House a few select examples of when you, Mr. Speaker, took notice of this pattern and heeded a warning. On April 16, 2016, the Speaker found a prima facie question of privilege after the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that specific and detailed information contained in Bill C-14 was given to the media ahead of this House and members of Parliament. During that discussion, Speaker Milliken was referenced, from his ruling of March 19, 2001, when he said: To deny to Members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning Members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone. That is exactly the situation I was facing when Mr. Beeby approached me to comment on information he was given and I was not. While he was not impeded in the performance of his function as a journalist, clearly I was impeded in the performance of my function as a member in this place, which breaches my privileges and constitutes a contempt of this House, as outlined in our procedural authorities.

I want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is telling Canadians that it is okay for their government to understand all of their financial information held by banks, all of their financial information held by credit agencies, all of their financial information held by utilities and by their mobile phones. Every single thing we use in our lives is something that the current government wants to have its hands on. This is ridiculous. Will the government tell Statistics Canada to back down from—

Mr. Speaker, Vice-Admiral Norman was the second highest ranking officer in the Canadian military. So far we have heard that documents have been withheld from him and access to information requests have been deliberately sabotaged so as not to turn up any documents. We have learned today about private dinners, conversations and little meetings that happened with the Prime Minister and his inner circle, which had, surprisingly, no notes or documentation to go along with them. This is very concerning.The fact that the Prime Minister stands here and says that there is no political interference when he himself cast Mark Norman in guilt before the charges were even laid is ridiculous.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are confronted with anger from the Prime Minister that we have the audacity to ask questions about his spending habits. In the private sector, they say that the tone is set at the top. The tone of the Liberal government is a culture of spending in excess. That is all this is. Maybe the Prime Minister can tell me why, at his personal retreat at Harrington Lake, he thinks it is okay to spend $10,000 for a new patio, $12,000 for deck and dock upgrades, and $60,000 in total on these upgrades when Canadians are worried about paying for his carbon tax.

Let us try the House leader then, Mr. Speaker.Two of her MPs both break rules, one is a man, one is a woman. The man gets no punishment; the woman does get a punishment. Does she think it is equal treatment?

Mr. Speaker, the government has a troubling history that every time its members get pushed on questions that show the fact that they do not have a good answer, they resort to name calling. Yesterday at the finance committee I was questioning the minister with respect to his own record on promoting women in senior positions. In response the minister said I was one of those people he needed to drag with him and I was a neanderthal. It is unacceptable language. Could the minister please clarify what he was trying to say?

The Prime Minister, in the House, is now shrugging off responsibility. It is a personal matter; it is not his to look after. It absolutely is, and shame on the Prime Minister for not having the decency of ensuring that his finance minister is following the law.

Mr. Speaker, this was said today in the press: “I have an important story to tell that Canadians will want and need to hear.”We have had documents withheld, we have had witnesses silenced and we have seen a personal attack on the reputation of a revered public servant. I am not talking about SNC-Lavalin. What I am talking about is the trial of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and apologize?

I understand that we cannot mitigate the risk, Mr. Speaker. The question I am asking is this. What is the risk associated with our Canadian soldiers? They deserve to know this. This is the most dangerous mission in the world right now. This is something we are sending Canadian soldiers into without any information at all from the government. It is absolutely deplorable. Canadians deserve to have the answer. How many soldiers are projected to be lost in this mission?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's lead ministers simply do not understand that they are very much out of touch with the reality of what's happening and the gravity of the issue that we are speaking of. I remember the days, and a lot of us do, of being able to put just five bucks in the gas tank in order to get to my work at the Dairy Queen, and there are people like that today in my riding who experience that. This is a serious matter that is going to affect the affordability of life for many Canadians. His government knows how much it costs. Why will he not tell them?

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister originally announced these changes in the dead of summer. Here we are, six months later, and this is the first time we are hearing when the details are going to be coming out. He said very soon in the fall, and today he is saying tomorrow. I do not know whether we can put actual stock in what we are going to be hearing tomorrow. First he ruined summer, and now he is ruining Christmas for small business owners. When will the finance minister truly release the details of his tax plan and stop being such a Scrooge?

Mr. Speaker, I do apologize. I appreciate the interjection on that. The reality is that it is a full month later and we still have zero details on what the implications are going to be of these tax changes that the Liberals are ramming through our system. These changes have real consequences on people, on their payroll, and on how much rent they are going to pay on January 1. They deserve a plan.I know the minister is a little preoccupied with his ethical lapses, but perhaps he should step aside so we can get some real answers for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said, in legalizing marijuana, that he was doing it because he wanted to keep organized crime out of the market. We are learning today of significant investments being made in Quebec cannabis companies by offshore accounts that have anonymous members. Can the Prime Minister give us assurances that these are not companies set up by organized crime?

Mr. Speaker, my issue with the minister's responses is that every time he hears the fact that he broke the compliance standards, he assumes it is a personal attack, and it is not. We are just asking him to be accountable for his actions. The mandate tracker says: “you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny.” Is anyone able to trust the minister when we know that in his personal affairs, he has broken it?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are actually concerned by the attitude that the Minister of Finance has been demonstrating in the last number of days.This week alone, he is denying a surplus that he inherited from us. He is also mocking us openly, saying that we are stuck in this whole balanced budget thing. Then he introduced a bill that actually repeals legislation which would make balanced budgets a law.The minister said earlier this week that his kids and his grandchildren will be better off, but what part of sticking our kids and our grandchildren with debt and deficit is actually going to allow them to be better off?

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I was in Moncton talking to local businesses, and this past weekend I was in Perth–Andover talking to local potato farmers. These are not the wealthy Canadians that the government would have us think actually exist, the ones that the finance minister so glibly said he is going after.We have only 10 days to have their questions put to the government in the House, and although it sure sounds like it has made up its mind already, based upon its answers today, I am wondering, out of decency, would it consider extending the consultation period?

Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that we cannot do the job because of paperwork? That makes absolutely no sense. Our government, in 2013, recognized the problem, and we brought in legislation to ensure that we could actually get people out of the country when they threatened the security of Canadians. This is absolutely unacceptable, but I am very glad to see that the minister got off his high horse today and is actually answering the questions instead of ignoring the problem, like he did yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, we want the minister to actually listen to Canadians. He does not want to hear how his plan is going to cost Canadian families. He does not want to hear how his plan is going to force businesses to fire employees. He does not want to hear how, actually, families will go home with fewer paycheques. Even his own advisers have told him that 83% of Canadian households do not face a pension crisis.When is the minister going to stop taxing Canadians in order to pay for his social engineering?

Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence in your ability to make judgements from your seat. Indeed, if there is a problem with the questions that we are asking, I am sure that you would step in and tell us.In the meantime, I do have questions for the government. The parliamentary secretary indicates that a key of democracy is at stake here, and I would submit there is, the key to a fair and full defence. The Prime Minister is blocking documents that Mr. Norman needs for a full and fair defence.Who is the Prime Minister protecting?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to have confidence in a government. The Liberals inherited a surplus from us. That is what the PBO said. They manipulated private sector economists' projections for their own purpose. They padded deficit projections by the billions, and they have exaggerated how many jobs Canadians can expect out of the budget. That is what the parliamentary budget officer said. Does the minister realize, quite frankly, that his economic credibility is in tatters and that Canadians deserve to have somebody and some government that can actually manage their tax dollars responsibly?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister seeks to be judge, jury and executioner in this matter when, quite frankly, he is using a notice of libel as a tool of intimidation, much like he has done for this entire case.He states that it is a fact that the Leader of the Opposition is indeed spreading mistruths. Our fact is that is not the case. Guess who gets to decide that? A real court.When will the Prime Minister bring this to the right place to debate, a court of law in the province of Ontario? When will he start the claim?

Mr. Speaker, I think the Liberals are not getting the point that actual seniors will be in a lot of pain. A fixed income actually means a fixed income, and that is all they get. If taxes come into it, that means there is less for them to spend on what they put in their gas tanks and whether they put on sweaters in the winter instead of increasing that thermostat a bit.We have learned that lesson in Ontario. Kathleen Wynne has taken a massive backward step because she realizes that actually cranking the rates on hydro does not work well for politics. Therefore, is the minister cognizant of the fact that at some point people are going to squeal?

Mr. Speaker, Christopher Garnier was convicted of second-degree murder when he murdered a female police officer by the name of Catherine Campbell. Apparently, he now suffers from PTSD as a result of committing the murder. Veterans Affairs Canada is paying for services for Mr. Garnier. The murderer has been put to the front of the line, while the men and women who served our country are not receiving benefits because they are still waiting.Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs do the right thing and cancel the benefits Mr. Garnier is receiving?

Mr. Speaker, the government has announced that Canadian soldiers will be taking part in a mission to Mali. In his own words, the Prime Minister has acknowledged that this is putting soldiers in harm's way. Mali is the UN's most dangerous peacekeeping mission it has currently, and the UN is experiencing the worst spate of UN peacekeeping fatalities in the organization's history. The Prime Minister would have been advised by his people as to the nature of the risk to soldiers, as well as the likelihood of casualties in this mission. Could the Prime Minister inform the House as to what the risk is to soldiers of a fatality?

Mr. Speaker, continuing on the theme of broken promises, it has been six months of disappointment from the Liberals, fiscally, as well.Since they have come to office, they have broken three key election promises: number one, that the tax plan would be revenue-neutral; number two, that the deficits would be no more than $10 billion; and number three, they said that they were going to balance the budget by the end of the mandate.After six disappointing months, can the Minister of Finance, despite the Prime Minister's gloating in the House today that “we keep our promises”, tell Canadians which one of these broken promises he is most proud of?

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Prime Minister throughout this entire question period, and after hearing his answer for the seventh or eighth time, the ignorance of the Prime Minister to the Conflict of Interest Act, and how it works was actually embarrassing to me.Here is the point, Mr. Speaker. The Ethics Commissioner works with the public office holder to set up a conflict, but it is that minister's office members that administer the conflict of interest screen. Will he stop hiding behind the skirt of the Ethics Commissioner, and tell us what are in these numbered companies?

The potshot from the member opposite was uncalled for, and that is what I was referring to.Mr. Speaker, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper is a company that employs about 500 people in Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador. Unfortunately, they have been hit with serious tariffs, a 32% tariff by the United States for newsprint crossing the border. Even more importantly, the U.S. Department of Commerce has instructed that the duty be applied and taken over in cash deposit.I would like to know from the minister whether or not the government has a plan, and please do not tell me that the plan is to buy more buses.

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to bring to the Prime Minister's attention an actual issue, and I do not need his talking points given back to me.There is a company based in the Cayman Islands. It has secret investors. It has just invested $271 million in a Quebec cannabis company, and guess what. The founder of that company is the former chief financial officer of the Liberal Party of Canada. Canadians deserve to have the assurance that there is no organized crime element within these secret investors.

Mr. Speaker, what he does not get is that Canadians cannot actually save up for this down payment the Liberals are trying squelch down even more. The reality is that even if they get that down payment, under a Liberal government home ownership becomes very difficult and quite expensive because every new day there is a new tax coming our way. Maybe the Liberals should take a lesson from their friend here in Ontario, the premier, who has clued into the fact that raising hydro costs actually ticks people off. When will this Liberal minister realize this and stop committing to this new plan for a carbon tax?

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in Cape Breton, where we lost our industry, we lost our jobs, we lost our economy and at the end of the day, we lost our people. The fact of the matter is that there are certain things that are worth fighting for and there are certain times to fight. This is one of those times when we need a government to fight.The minister went to Davos three years ago and bragged about the fact that he was an activist government in deepening the relationship with GM and showing how competitive Canada was, and he failed. I would implore that now is definitely not the time to give up. Will the government fight with this party to ensure we keep these jobs?

Mr. Speaker, his talking points are all an attempt to make sure that they do not panic the flock before the fleecing. That is what it is all about. How can the finance minister stand here and honestly say that Canadians are doing better when 46% of Canadians feel that they are $200 away from insolvency?I know the Prime Minister and the finance minister have not felt this, but I can tell them that people lose sleep and that the anxiety is crushing. Canadians know that they are not in good shape, and they are afraid of these new taxes.When will the Prime Minister level with them and just tell them that more taxes are coming?

Mr. Speaker, the apparent inability of the Prime Minister to understand the topic in front of us is gravely concerning. He opened up the floodgates when he tweeted out, he has done nothing to stop the floodgates since it has happened, and now he wants to rely upon playing some kind of blame game for things that he brought on this country himself.Will they do something concrete to stop this flow of illegal migrants across the border this summer?

Mr. Speaker, we understand Canada's position that it is very difficult to sign a trade deal that sunsets after five years, but the crux of the question is this: Did the President of the United States remove this demand from the negotiating table, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the difficulty with a government receiving a bad decision is that the decision has to be made then to act. We acted every single time we found out that a bad decision that infuriates Canadians was made. This is a terrible decision. It is despicable. Why are the government and the Prime Minister not acting?

Mr. Speaker, in 2003, the Ontario Liberal Party came to power, assuring Canadians and Ontarians that they would reduce debt “as conditions allow”.Since then, we have $300 billion in debt, which has doubled; $22,000 per person is owed, which has doubled. It has increased faster than any other province.Yesterday, the parliamentary secretary said that he would take no lessons from our successes, so I am wondering this. Is it because the Minister of Finance would rather be taking lessons from the disastrous legacies of Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty in racking up debt?

Let us take some stock, Mr. Speaker. The Ethics Commissioner found that the Prime Minister broke the law when he accepted this illegal gift. The Prime Minister says “My bad. Won't do it again”, and refuses to reimburse Canadian taxpayers. When the Minister of Indigenous Services was found to make inappropriate expenses, she was told by the Prime Minister to pay it back.My question is for the Minister of Indigenous Services. Does she think this is equal treatment?

Mr. Speaker, I feel like the hon. House leader is being paid by the word today.I would say this. I have very few words on this matter. What I would like to know is this.I am sorry. I cannot—

Mr. Speaker, Terri-Lynne McClintic was found guilty of first-degree murder and rape and torture of eight-year-old Tori Stafford. She was sentenced to life in prison. Eight years into her prison sentence, she is being moved to a healing facility. This is a bad decision by officials. On any calculus, this is a bad decision. When bad decisions were shown to us as a government, we intervened. We stopped rapist and murderer Paul Bernardo from receiving conjugal visits. We blocked child killer Clifford Olson from receiving pension benefits.When confronted with bad decisions, a good government acts. Why is this Prime Minister not acting?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to use some numbers, so that the government understands the hypocrisy of what it is talking about. As I said, a Liberal bagman stashed $60 million away in a tax-free account in the Cayman Islands. Let us pretend that this $60 million was put into a passive investment account by a small business person here in Canada. That would be a tax bill of $43 million. Why is the Prime Minister allowing his friends to get off on a tax bill of $43 million?

Mr. Speaker, they may trust the Ethics Commissioner, but how can Canadians trust these Liberals? As of late yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary for Urban Affairs was still falsely claiming that the finance minister's assets were in a blind trust. The Prime Minister himself indicated that it was the Ethics Commissioner's responsibility in these matters, yet she testified today that it was the minister's choice not to put the shares in a blind trust.The daily revelations of the finance minister show nothing but hypocrisy, and I want to know one simple thing. When did the finance minister sell his shares in Morneau Shepell?

Mr. Speaker, we will hold the minister to his promise to Canadians of balancing the budget by 2019. One way of balancing that budget is by increasing taxes, and indeed the government has already said it will increase taxes. However, it will not pay for what is happening on the other end of the balance. There is no revenue neutrality here. Therefore, my question for the minister is this. As he supposedly will admit later on today that this will not work, will he now admit that increased payroll taxes, increased taxes on retirement savings, and the complex re-engineering of how children receive their support will not work either and is also flawed?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, this House of Commons agreed unanimously and stood and thanked Vice-Admiral Mark Norman for his years of service to this country, as well as apologized for his treatment over the past three and a half years. It was reported by some media this morning that unfortunately the Prime Minister was not present in the House for that apology, and I am wondering if he would like to take the opportunity now to apologize himself for the treatment of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on a question that the Leader of the Opposition had regarding illegal donations to the Liberal Party of Canada. The Prime Minister seems to want Canadians to think that this is something that happened 10 years ago. The most crucial part of the article is this. On August 5, 2016, it was the Liberal Party of Canada, it was the Prime Minister, who was given the list of names that made the illegal donations and was alerted to the illegal donations. After that, a compliance agreement was signed between SNC-Lavalin and Elections Canada on the basis that SNC-Lavalin promised not to do it again.I would like to know whether or not there was any communication between the PMO and Elections Canada on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, what I am looking for comment on is the reason why the Prime Minister is withholding documents for a straight-up defence of a person accused of a serious crime. If he will not tell us who he is protecting, maybe I can surmise that it was the President of the Treasury Board who did receive a letter from Irving, asking for his intervention.I also note that the current Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade did not post his conflict screen until three months after the secret cabinet meeting.Is that who the Prime Minister is protecting?

Mr. Speaker, not only have the Liberals reduced advertising, but they seem to have reduced the comments period as well on small business tax changes.Yesterday, I was in New Brunswick and talked to local businesses in Mactaquac, Florenceville, and Woodstock. They want this House to know that they usually plan their business strategy a year in advance, and now they are faced with 25 days before the introduction of incredibly difficult and complex tax changes. A lot of them are already struggling this year as it is, and now they have this to worry about over the Christmas holidays. Will the Liberals provide the details today so that small businesses have a chance to plan?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister was asked a simple question, whether Canadians can expect to pay higher fuel prices with the carbon tax. His response was a bit jarring. He said, yes, and that is what Canadians expect because that is leadership.What the Prime Minister views as leadership is literally terrifying to widows and single moms across this country. At the very least, they deserve to know one thing. How much will the carbon tax cost them?

Mr. Speaker, the national security adviser, in briefing the Canadian press on a trip to India, indicated that the Indian government sabotaged the Prime Minister's trip. When the Prime Minister defended this official in this House, he actually elevated that defence into an official statement of Canada. The Indian government has responded aggressively, saying that it is baseless and it is also unacceptable. This has been characterized as a serious rift in the relationship between Canada and India.What is the Prime Minister going to do to fix this diplomatic rift?

Mr. Speaker, I am prompted by the previous point of order. I wanted to rise in the House today, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that on Monday—

Mr. Speaker, we left the government with a surplus. Ask the finance department officials. They could be working with a balanced budget. They could be strengthening the Canadian economy.However, my question is about testimony at the finance committee today. I have to ask the Minister of Finance this. Was he really serious when he said that running a balanced budget is going to put us in a recession?

Mr. Speaker, what is absurd is the fact that these cabinet ministers are being sent out with such flimsy lines and actually do not address the matter. The matter, simply put, is that Vice-Admiral Mark Norman had to spend the last two and a half years scraping and fighting and defending himself while the government sat back and let it happen. It did not produce the documents it was supposed to. In fact, the Prime Minister, on two occasions, said that this matter would end up in court even before the RCMP laid the charge.What is the government afraid of?

Mr. Speaker, low-income families do not benefit from tax breaks because “they do not pay taxes”; so declared the Prime Minister yesterday. However, low-income Canadians actually beg to differ with that postulation. Ann is a single woman who works in Milton, Ontario. She makes minimum wage and she pays approximately $2,600 in federal income tax.Will the Prime Minister stand today and tell us he stands by his statement that low-income Canadians do not pay taxes?

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

Mr. Speaker, continuing on the theme of broken promises, it has been six months of disappointment from the Liberals, fiscally, as well.Since they have come to office, they have broken three key election promises: number one, that the tax plan would be revenue-neutral; number two, that the deficits would be no more than $10 billion; and number three, they said that they were going to balance the budget by the end of the mandate.After six disappointing months, can the Minister of Finance, despite the Prime Minister's gloating in the House today that “we keep our promises”, tell Canadians which one of these broken promises he is most proud of?

Mr. Speaker, we would like to get some answers as well, but they are not coming.Another promise that was made, of course, was that the Liberal tax plan would be revenue neutral. We now know it is not revenue neutral; there is a $1.2 billion shortfall. However, lo and behold, the Minister of Finance is going to fill that gap by taxing small businesses, the veterinarians, the chiropractors, the doctors, the dentists, and seniors, through the TFSA.My question is this. What other taxes will he continue to raise as he goes down this long road of long-term structural deficits?

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to bring to the Prime Minister's attention an actual issue, and I do not need his talking points given back to me.There is a company based in the Cayman Islands. It has secret investors. It has just invested $271 million in a Quebec cannabis company, and guess what. The founder of that company is the former chief financial officer of the Liberal Party of Canada. Canadians deserve to have the assurance that there is no organized crime element within these secret investors.

Mr. Speaker, ironically, I think this is the only time that the Prime Minister is not trying to make something about himself.For two years, the finance minister led Canadians to believe that his assets were in a blind trust, and that was untrue. For two years, the finance minister has led the House to believe that he complied with the rules of the Ethics Commissioner. That was also untrue. The minister has been fined. The minister broke the law. Is this the higher standard that the Prime Minister says he is holding his ministers to? When will the Prime Minister tell us when he knew that the minister had broken the law?

Mr. Speaker, in 2016, the Prime Minister's Office became aware of investigation results showing $110,000 in illegal donations to the Liberal Party of Canada. Soon thereafter, SNC-Lavalin was offered a compliance agreement to avoid prosecution. We have seen this before.We would like to know whether or not there were conversations between the Prime Minister's Office, SNC-Lavalin and Elections Canada in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, on November 1, the Minister of Finance told a Senate committee that the details would be forthcoming. Perhaps the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should review what his other minister said, since he does not want to show up these days to answer questions in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reviewed Hansard from the same date, Monday, May 28, and I also reviewed the original article that was being quoted. Unfortunately, I indicated that 600 migrants came across “this past weekend alone”. I would like to ask to change the record to indicate that it was not 600 this past weekend; it was 600 one weekend in April.

Mr. Speaker, farmers, resource workers, transportation workers, and small businesses are all reliant upon a stable and dependable transportation system. CN Rail has received notice of a strike. While the parties do remain at the table and continue to negotiate, people are concerned about the effect that a work stoppage is going to have on their jobs. I want to know from the Minister of Transport if he actually has a plan in order to protect the jobs of these workers in the event of a work stoppage.

Mr. Speaker, I would suspect that the House leader has not quite read the document that the Ethics Commissioner put forward. If she did, she would know that there are actually no recommendations from the Ethics Commissioner. There are findings of fact. There is a determination of guilt. That is all that is in there. She should stop hiding behind the Ethics Commissioner. To that point, what I would like to know is this. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, accept responsibility, and pay back that illegal gift?

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately those are just words and platitudes that the government is utilizing.Right now, as we speak, industry is responding to the uncertainty and instability that the government's lack of action is causing. Kinder Morgan has already indicated that it is going to be delaying and slowing its investments in the pipeline. The message to the world is that Canada is not open for business.The Prime Minister can make these concerns go away by showing a bit of leadership. It is simple. When will he guarantee the construction of the pipeline in Burnaby?

Mr. Speaker, this morning thousands of men and women who rely upon the energy sector for well-paying Canadian jobs got the news that they have been dreading.Today's decision to cancel the energy east pipeline is a direct result of two years of political interference by the Liberal Party. Failure is the only word that comes to mind.When will the Prime Minister recognize that his disastrous economic and energy policies are hurting Canadians and our economy?

Mr. Speaker, in the statements that the Prime Minister made, he actually missed the point of the question, which is that Ann is a single woman making minimum wage. She does not get the Canada child care benefit. She does not get the guaranteed income supplement. She does not get that middle-class tax cut either, yet the Prime Minister thinks she does not pay a single cent in taxes. She would beg to differ. She will pay about $5,000 in taxes every year after CPP and EI are included. Then there will be the GST, then there will be the HST and then there will be the Liberal carbon tax, which is coming next.Will the Prime Minister still stand by that ridiculous statement?

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering whether the Prime Minister is going to be changing the G7 agenda to include the importance of swagger in economics. The reality is that there is a problem in Canada with respect to investor confidence, and it has to do with the fact that taxes are too high. It is too difficult to do business in Canada because of high costs, and businesses get stuck in a regulatory approval process that takes years to come out of. When will the Liberals stop blaming CEOs in Canada, who work hard, and instead look to themselves as the problem?

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister does not understand, when we stand to talk about the stories we have heard, is that we are not talking about him. We are talking about what constituents are saying about him, and they are saying it. Last night, after the Liberals voted to close consultations on these tax changes, I went to Cornwall, Ontario. There were 130 people in that room who said they were not done with giving information to the Prime Minister and the cabinet. One woman said that she had been in the community for a long time. She had promised her daughter that they would not move, but now they have to move. Her complaint is this. Her family fortunes are changed, but his are not.

Mr. Speaker, sadly, the Prime Minister seems to want to run on the notion that the means, no matter how bad they are, justify the ends and I would caution that is an inappropriate way to continue with the Canadian public. However, I am going to give him one chance to do something really appropriate on his last day today.Admiral Mark Norman was put through hell for the last three years because of the concerted efforts of the government to ensure that he was put on the spot. We apologized to the House. Will the Prime Minister stand in his place today and apologize—

Mr. Speaker, it is not about whether or not businesses are invited along. It is about whether or not the public can have the trust in the integrity of the members of Parliament inviting these businesses alongWhere the member has gone woefully wrong, and I must assume he offered the invitation since the Prime Minister has not said anything different, is that he is a lawyer. He would have read his code of conduct and he would know that if there was a grey area as to whether he was furthering the private interests of his contracted employer, then he should seek an opinion of the Ethics Commissioner.Did he seek an opinion of the Ethics Commissioner before he invited his boss to rub elbows with the Prime Minister and the ministers?

Mr. Speaker, in 2015, after the member of Parliament for Brampton East was elected, he started to accept contracts from various people within his constituency. Ironically, the president and his boss was invited along on this disastrous trip to India which the Prime Minister and his entourage undertook. For me, that poses some significant questions with respect to conflicts of interest.Will the Prime Minister tell us who invited Mr. Yenilmez and who approved that invitation?

Mr. Speaker, on February 21, 2017, the official opposition started asking questions about the Roxham Road illegal express entry that the government had opened up through Twitter. It has taken over two and a half years to actually admit to the fact and be told by the Auditor General that there is indeed a problem, and what do the Liberals do? In a complete lack of leadership, they blame something from somebody else's regime five years ago. They take no responsibility themselves, and it lies at their feet. What will they do to fix this system?

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Prime Minister throughout this entire question period, and after hearing his answer for the seventh or eighth time, the ignorance of the Prime Minister to the Conflict of Interest Act, and how it works was actually embarrassing to me.Here is the point, Mr. Speaker. The Ethics Commissioner works with the public office holder to set up a conflict, but it is that minister's office members that administer the conflict of interest screen. Will he stop hiding behind the skirt of the Ethics Commissioner, and tell us what are in these numbered companies?

Mr. Speaker, the government has announced that Canadian soldiers will be taking part in a mission to Mali. In his own words, the Prime Minister has acknowledged that this is putting soldiers in harm's way. Mali is the UN's most dangerous peacekeeping mission it has currently, and the UN is experiencing the worst spate of UN peacekeeping fatalities in the organization's history. The Prime Minister would have been advised by his people as to the nature of the risk to soldiers, as well as the likelihood of casualties in this mission. Could the Prime Minister inform the House as to what the risk is to soldiers of a fatality?

Mr. Speaker, the company Goreway Heaven had 10 directors on it. Five of those directors are known major contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada. As well, one of those directors was invited to be part of the Prime Minister's delegation to India, not more than one month after the company collected a 33% hike in the property that it had purchased, which, miraculously, resembled the price that was disclosed to the minister. All we want to know from the Prime Minister is which member of Parliament invited that gentleman on the trip.

Mr. Speaker, the minister speaks of one province, but this is not a crisis that is caused by one province or another; it is a crisis that is caused simply by the lack of leadership and the inability of the government to actually get the job done. We have seen this before, and as long as the government fails to step up, we are going to see it again. Eighty billion dollars in investment has left the energy sector, as well as 100,000 well-paying Canadian jobs. These results are simply unacceptable. When will the Prime Minister stop failing the Canadian families who are relying on these projects?

Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Public Safety and it has to do with the removal of dangerous individuals under security deportation orders. My question is very clear. In 2017, the immigration review board issued 25 deportation orders for security, the highest in the last five years. In 2017, the Canada Border Services Agency said that it removed only four people, the lowest in five years. My question is simple. This is a clear case of government failure. What is the minister going to do?

Mr. Speaker, that pre-written apology the Prime Minister just gave in response will be cold comfort to any Canadian whose private financial data could be hacked in the future. The government cannot protect the privacy of data. When the Prime Minister indicates that the long-form census is the reason Canadians are in favour of the removal of their data from their banks, the reality is that there is a big difference. In the long-form census they voluntarily gave their information, whereas Stats Can is ripping it out of their bank accounts. Will the Prime Minister stop this action?

Mr. Speaker, we learned some troubling news this morning regarding public safety.There are about 1,200 individuals who, because of breaches in public safety and security, have been ordered deported from our country, yet they still remain on our streets. This is a serious issue, because there are a lot of individuals who are known risks to security in this country.I am wondering if the minister could update us on his efforts to remove these people from the country. Will he pledge to do so as expeditiously as possible?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance announced yet another outside consultant today to be appointed to head up a committee, this time to report in 2017 on the economy.So far, there has been a consultant to set an economic agenda, a consultant to help let them understand how to deliver on an agenda, and a consultant to figure out how to pick infrastructure projects. Is that not what the department of finance does?My question to the Minister of Finance is this. How long do Canadians have to wait for an actual plan, while these very expensive and high-priced men sit down to try to figure out the fate of the Canadian economy?

Mr. Speaker, I was also in Cape Breton and Digby, talking to fishermen on the wharf there. Fishers work hard, 14-hour days, and at the end of the season all they want to do after they pay out their insurance, the repairs to their vessel, and maybe pay their crew their full amount, is to hope that they have a little put aside for their retirement. We all know there is no pension in fishing. I spent my summer listening, and I understand the impact of these reforms on Canadians. Will the Minister of Finance come down to earth with the rest of us mortals and listen to what is going on in—

Mr. Speaker, the minister last night talked about his $6-billion contingency fund that he had padded in there just in case. When asked whether he was going to return it to Canadians, he said that he was going to spend it. That is simply irresponsible. I know it was late so I want to give him a chance to clarify today.Will the Minister of Finance return the $6-billion contingency fund back to Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the Prime Minister to focus clearly on what the question is, because we are not getting the answer.When the finance minister was first elected, he clearly said that he was going to put his vast fortune into a blind trust. We learned two years later that in 2015 he had a choice between selling the shares and putting them in a blind trust and, lo and behold, he did neither.I want to know one specific thing. When did the Prime Minister learn that the Minister of Finance did not dispose of his shares in accordance with the Ethics Commissioner?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but it is nice to see them defending her once in a while.

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not speak for me or for what I am concerned about. What I am concerned about is this. There are details severely lacking in the implementation of these tax changes. I have great friends, Jim and Tina Tsouros. They run the best donair place in Milton, Ontario. They will wake up on January 1 of next year and they will have no idea what these changes are and how they will impact their lives. Will the Minister of Finance show business owners like Jim and Tina the respect they deserve and provide them the plan.

Mr. Speaker, despite the protests of the Prime Minister, the issue here is one of bias. The question is whether or not an entity that has sworn that it likes to elect Liberals, and in fact make sure the Conservatives do not form government, an entity that gave $400,000, and boasted about it, to ensure the Conservative defeat in 2015 and as well says it is doing it again, and in fact has started again, is an appropriate appointment to a panel that is making decisions on who gets journalistic money.Will the Prime Minister remove Unifor from this panel?

Mr. Speaker, on June 6, 1944, the operation to liberate France began, and today, we commemorate the 75th anniversary of D-Day. We acknowledge and will never forget the sacrifice that was made by these brave men and women who answered the call to duty without hesitancy to make sure that we had freedom and democracy today. In that spirit, Her Majesty's loyal opposition would like to offer the government an opportunity to inform this House and Canadians how we are commemorating this incredibly important day in Canada's history.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Prime Minister one thing. Where I come from in Milton, Ontario, it is not petty to want to make sure that our Minister of Finance is absolutely—

Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister does not get it either, and I will tell him why. The Prime Minister just indicated that raising the price is going to make people make better choices. Imagine my surprise when I read today that the Prime Minister has his food prepared at 24 Sussex and then driven across the street, 700 metres away, to his residence. Leadership starts at the top. Is it acceptable that while he tells families they have to make better choices, he chooses to have his food driven across the street? Is this just “do as I say not as I do”?

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague says, that is not a plan. Here is the deal. in five days, mines will close. In five days, grain will backup in elevators. In five days, auto plants will run out of auto parts. In five days, retailers like Canadian Tire and Walmart will choose to leave Prince Rupert and Halifax. Does the Minister of Transport have a plan to make sure our transportation continues?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister at the beginning of his term said that he would strive to have a better relationship with the provinces. Today we have heard from five premiers of provinces and one premier from a territory that they in fact have grave concerns about two bills that we are considering here. They have expressed their concerns with respect to investment in their provincial territories.I would like to know whether the Prime Minister will heed the concerns of the premiers and accept the amendments from the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, Finance Canada confirmed what we always said would happen, that the government took a Conservative surplus and turned it into a Liberal deficit. We know how this works. They had the best March madness ever. It was fantastic. Therefore, what we want to know is whether cabinet ministers were actually urged to splurge in order to make sure that the finance minister got the deficit he predicted.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.In the finance committee this morning, finance officials appeared before the committee and they were able to answer questions with respect to the “Fiscal Monitor”, not only of November, but December 2015.I am seeking permission from the House in order to table these “Fiscal Monitors” showing the great work done by the Department of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, when the government members applaud, the way they do, that incredibly despicable answer, what they are applauding is the victim not getting her justice. Today we speak here for Tori Stafford. Canadians understand—

Mr. Speaker, there were incredibly troubling admissions made at this morning's justice committee, so many that I do not have enough time to go through them all. However, we are going to fight to do better and make sure we get this on the record.This morning, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed that he and the Prime Minister sought to influence the decision of the attorney general in the matter of bribery and fraud charges against SNC-Lavalin. Could the Prime Minister confirm that this indeed is the case?

Mr. Speaker, I greatly respect that we have wonderful students watching today, but I bet they want to know another thing too, which is how much it is going to cost them. That is what they want to know.This is more than just a matter of choice. As the Prime Minister almost said in his remarks, it is a behaviour the government wants to correct. The Prime Minister cannot dictate how Canadians behave, but he is going to try to make sure he suffocates them with taxes before they comply.Will the Prime Minister support our motion and commit in the House today to no new taxes for these young people?

Mr. Speaker, the government has a troubling history that every time its members get pushed on questions that show the fact that they do not have a good answer, they resort to name calling. Yesterday at the finance committee I was questioning the minister with respect to his own record on promoting women in senior positions. In response the minister said I was one of those people he needed to drag with him and I was a neanderthal. It is unacceptable language. Could the minister please clarify what he was trying to say?

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe Canadians actually agree with the government that it reduced tax liability. What Canadians are seeing is the loss of their ability to deal with their education and tuition costs through a tax credit. They have lost their transit tax credit. They have also lost their children's arts and fitness tax credit. These things are meaningful to Canadian families. As a result, Canadians are asking how many more taxes are coming. Would the government please give comfort to Canadian families, and assure them that it will not continually look to them for more taxes?

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister professes that Ottawa knows best, the reality is that the premiers are indicating very clearly that there is a significant problem with this legislation. There is a problem because it is going to scare away business investment. There is a greater problem, of which he was warned by former premier Notley back in February, which is that this is not a way to build a country. Will he do the right thing and make sure that every one of these amendments passes and give certainty to the provinces in this great country?

Mr. Speaker, one thing is for sure. The current government is very good at giving out money, but is it good at growing the economy? Today oil is at $38 a barrel. We understand that 185,000 job losses in the oil and gas sector in 2016 are possible. This affects everyone who works in that sector, including those in Alberta. Albertans are hurting, yet this sector was not mentioned even once in the Speech from the Throne. Why is Canada's economic engine not a priority for the government?

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister also said yesterday that he was convinced that the Liberal Party was doing the right thing because it is making his children and his grandchildren better off. Now, I am happy for them, but I also worry about the other kids in this country as well, who may not be able to afford the high cost of the minister's borrowing. The minister may have just said that he is comfortable with the choices that he is making, but in reality he is going to be spending on the backs of our children.What part of saddling our kids with billions and billions of dollars of debt is making them better off?

Mr. Speaker, a minute ago the House leader indicated that the opposition members were playing politics with this matter. That is interesting because that is exactly the theme of my question today. On September 17, this is what was said in Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony—

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said, in legalizing marijuana, that he was doing it because he wanted to keep organized crime out of the market. We are learning today of significant investments being made in Quebec cannabis companies by offshore accounts that have anonymous members. Can the Prime Minister give us assurances that these are not companies set up by organized crime?

Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence in your ability to make judgements from your seat. Indeed, if there is a problem with the questions that we are asking, I am sure that you would step in and tell us.In the meantime, I do have questions for the government. The parliamentary secretary indicates that a key of democracy is at stake here, and I would submit there is, the key to a fair and full defence. The Prime Minister is blocking documents that Mr. Norman needs for a full and fair defence.Who is the Prime Minister protecting?

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of heat and light in the Prime Minister's kind words but the reality is that he is not getting anything done. Let us take a bit of a review.Five months ago, the Liberals botched the energy east pipeline and that was 14,000 jobs on a $15 billion project. Now we have another crisis and another 37,000 jobs. Clearly, the Prime Minister does not actually feel moved by the industry's concerns. Maybe he is going to be moved by the fact that it is 50,000 jobs.Seriously, how many more well-paying Canadian jobs do we need to put in jeopardy to get him moving?

Mr. Speaker, there are reports that President Trump withdrew the five-year sunset clause negotiating tool within NAFTA negotiations. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether this is true?

Mr. Speaker, I fear the Liberals' approach is fundamentally different, and that is to spend until there really is a recession unfortunately.The Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada hosted the Minister of Finance for a photo op on Friday. While I laud the location choice, and it is a great organization, I am very concerned about the message that he may have left for these young kids.The Prime Minister's best friend Kathleen Wynne has already saddled these kids with $22,000 each of provincial debt. Could the minister tell us whether he explained to these kids as well that his out-of-control borrowing would actually top up what Kathleen Wynne's government already saddled these children with for long-term debt repayment?

Mr. Speaker, on May 3 of this year, I rose in the House to ask a question that was supposed to be asked by our colleague Gord Brown. I wanted to know whether there was going to be compensation for the forgotten thalidomide survivors coming from the promised spring budget. The Prime Minister said on that day, “We will have more good news to share shortly on this issue.”They are still suffering, so I am following up on the question today. When will the Prime Minister do the right thing and honour the word he gave us on May 3?

Mr. Speaker, trust goes both ways, does it not? I think that is something the Prime Minister needs to remember.Women are quite often whistle-blowers, and I will explain why. For many years we were not part of boardrooms. We sat on the sidelines of what happens in the corporate boardroom and in legislatures. As a result, we are uniquely placed to see when ethical lapses are happening. We also do have the courage to step up and speak when we need to.The Prime Minister may believe that he has dealt with this by throwing two people out of the Liberal Party, but many more courageous women are here, and they are here today, and they are watching. What does the Prime Minister have to say to them?

Mr. Speaker, his talking points are all an attempt to make sure that they do not panic the flock before the fleecing. That is what it is all about. How can the finance minister stand here and honestly say that Canadians are doing better when 46% of Canadians feel that they are $200 away from insolvency?I know the Prime Minister and the finance minister have not felt this, but I can tell them that people lose sleep and that the anxiety is crushing. Canadians know that they are not in good shape, and they are afraid of these new taxes.When will the Prime Minister level with them and just tell them that more taxes are coming?

Mr. Speaker, in the course of question period today, the Prime Minister answered a question that I posed to him, and in it he indicated that I was an ambulance chaser. An ambulance chaser is a term for an unethical lawyer. I am a lawyer in my profession. I take great offence to being called an ambulance chaser. I would like to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to do the right thing and apologize, since only last evening, he said himself that he was not going to play this kind of politics.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's close friend, Stephen Bronfman, evaded paying taxes when he stashed away more than $60 million in sheltered offshore accounts. When these revelations came to light a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister rushed to defend his top fundraiser, saying he was satisfied with the assurances that he received from Mr. Bronfman. We now know for certain that Bronfman was in fact directly linked to the trusts. What assurances did Mr. Bronfman give to the Prime Minister, and is he still satisfied?

Mr. Speaker, the minister did confirm that a full investigation will be undertaken with regard to the people named. She has confirmed it right now. However, today the Prime Minister publicly interfered with this investigation, stating he would accept Mr. Bronfman's explanation, and considered the matter to be dealt with. Is this how it works now? A wealthy friend of the Prime Minister, who is hiding millions of dollars offshore, picks up the phone, gives him a call, and the issue goes away. Could the minister confirm that Stephen Bronfman is not under investigation by the Canada Revenue Agency?

Mr. Speaker, specificity does matter in this case. The minister promised an independent investigation. However, this morning the Prime Minister defended his good friend and top fundraiser, stating he was satisfied with the assurances he received from Mr. Bronfman. The Prime Minister's political interference on behalf of his close friend is a clear signal to investigators that there is one rule for Liberals and another one for everyone else. Could the minister confirm that the Prime Minister has pardoned Mr. Bronfman of any wrongdoing?

Mr. Speaker, the minister speaks of costs, and costs are really on our minds as well, specifically because the Prime Minister has indicated that high fuel costs are going to make Canadians make better choices. This is what I want to know. I do not have a choice when I am taking my kids to basketball and football. I do not have a choice to walk when I am taking my husband to his specialist appointment 70 kilometres away. Choices cannot be made that easily.Do the Liberals understand the impact these costs have on Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, most recently in New Brunswick, the minister of finance and government there had to change their income tax rates as a result of changes that were made by the Liberal government to its income tax rates, regarding taxing higher tax brackets. I would like the parliamentary secretary to guarantee for me in the House that, when the Liberals introduce their new child benefit, which will be tax free, they will not be detrimentally affecting the finances of our provinces.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the parliamentary budget officer released his report on budget 2016. First, he confirmed that the government did indeed inherit a surplus from us. He also confirmed that the Liberals' plan will cost significantly more than the $10 billion that they promised Canadians. However, most importantly, he confirmed that their plan actually lacked incredibly important details.When will the minister face the facts that they talk a good game but they are really not delivering on an open and honest government?

Mr. Speaker, instead of worrying about what our great government would have done on this side of the House, perhaps he should worry a little more about what the government is not doing on his side of the House.He did believe in fiscal prudence at one point in time. This is a quote from CBC in November: ...because we want to go into deficit in order to make significant investments that we think are really important...[it] doesn't give us licence to be in any way flexible about how we deal with our finances more generally. What has changed in the last three months that causes the Minister of Finance to feel like he has a licence to spend?

Mr. Speaker, words do not lie, and doublespeak is very clear in the following case. The Minister of Defence, on his own website, pledges that the “Canadian Armed Forces is fully committed to providing a workplace free from harassment and discrimination”, yet the lawyers for the government said that it is not their job to “care to individual members within the CAF to provide a safe and harassment-free work environment”. Which is it? Do they stand with women in the forces, or do they not?

Mr. Speaker, it is true, we are stuck on the fact that Canadians were told that the budget would be balanced in 2019, and we are here to ask questions of the government.If we are stubborn, then the arrogance being displayed by the Prime Minister with respect to breaking promises to Canadians is absolutely shameful. The reality is what he said several times, including to Mr. Mulcair in a debate, was that he was: ....looking straight at Canadians and being honest the way I always have. We said we are committed to balanced budgets, and we are. We will balance that budget in 2019.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in an interview, the Prime Minister indicated that the reason the government intervened and decided to nationalize a pipeline was because the Liberals recognized that there was too much uncertainty for Kinder Morgan and it was in the national interest. There is another pipeline that was in the national interest, and that was the energy east pipeline. It would have provided jobs, competitiveness for New Brunswick, and more certainty, for sure, with respect to supply.What I would like to know is, will the Prime Minister promise to enter into negotiations to provide the same level of certainty for energy east?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated earlier that we are just throwing noise at him. Well, I speak on behalf of the parents of those 25,630 children and they want to know exactly what is going on with the finance minister breaking the law. The finance minister's mandate letter from the Prime Minister said, “I expect you to embody these values in your work and observe the highest ethical standards in everything you do.” It is kind of like what we as parents teach our children, but here is the difference. When did the Prime Minister know that the minister broke the law and was not abiding by the—

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's good friend and head of revenue for the Liberal Party, Stephen Bronfman, was named in the paradise papers. Earlier this week, the revenue minister promised a full investigation into those who were exposed in these documents. Could the minister confirm to this House that Liberal Party insider Stephen Bronfman is included in this, and is currently under investigation?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he wants to increase the carbon tax. He wants to put it on goods because he believes that Canadians need to be told to make better choices. Basically, he is running on the “no pain, no gain” platform. The reality is that we do not know how much the pain will be, or is this just a real issue of the fact that it is all pain and no gain?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has stood here in the House and indicated that the government handed over all the documents it was asked for. That is patently untrue, and I have proof.The counsel for Vice-Admiral Norman said, “It took six months to get documents, and as we sit here today, and as we walked out of that courtroom, we still did not have all of them.” She said there were thousands of documents they had not received. She went on to say, “I want to make it very clear that we, the defence, had to bring this motion, at great expense to Vice-Admiral Norman, to get at those records.” She said only the government had access, and that it was obviously the government that was “standing in the way of that full disclosure”.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's decision to appoint Unifor to his panel to determine eligibility for a half-billion-dollar media package has destroyed the government's credibility. Unifor is a highly partisan group and it has very aggressive and partisan goals. It has made clear that its objective is to elect Liberals and defeat Conservatives, and yet the Prime Minister has chosen to appoint it to this very important panel.Why does the Prime Minister not openly admit he is stacking the deck for himself?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's decision to appoint Unifor to his panel to determine eligibility for a half-billion-dollar media package has destroyed the government's credibility. Unifor is a highly partisan group and it has very aggressive and partisan goals. It has made clear that its objective is to elect Liberals and defeat Conservatives, and yet the Prime Minister has chosen to appoint it to this very important panel.Why does the Prime Minister not openly admit he is stacking the deck for himself?

Mr. Speaker, as we know it, here are the facts.Daniel Jean, on his own, called together the members of the press gallery travelling with the Prime Minister in India to tell them that it was factions within the Indian government that were sabotaging the Prime Minister's trip. The Prime Minister has told us that he believes Daniel Jean.We heard today that the India high commissioner has communicated publicly that the Indian government refutes this, and also says that these accusations are baseless and not appropriate.The question is this. It seems that the ball is in Canada's court. What is Canada's diplomatic response to this?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister asked most recently why the Conservative Party is continuing to ask these questions as it is not the right place for it. I want to let him know exactly why it is.When a cabinet exercises its power to withhold documents from the court, the court has no power. The only place left to hold a Prime Minister accountable is in this place. Therefore, we are going to keep asking the questions. I will start right now.Why is the Prime Minister withholding the documents and why will he not allow Mark Norman to have a fair trial?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government does not have a clue, quite frankly.The reality is that it is incredibly important to have a budget that is balanced in order to withstand any future issues. The Prime Minister recognized that this was a selling feature for Canadians. He, himself, said, in his own Liberal platform: After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline....will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019. I will give the Prime Minister another chance. Will he tell us when they will balance the budget?

I cannot blame her, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to answer my questions either. I have one question, which is very simple. I would like to know if between September 4 and October 10 the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, any cabinet minister, any lobbyist or anyone associated with the Prime Minister's Office indicated to SNC-Lavalin or gave assurances that it would be able to get a deferred public—

Mr. Speaker, the most tawdry part of all this is that the litigation committee of cabinet, which is charged with overseeing how lawyers are instructed, has five women sitting on it. Do any of those five female Liberal ministers want to stand up and let us know exactly why they think it is okay that they have protection in the workplace and yet women in the forces do not? Will they pull this brief?

Mr. Speaker, this question was written by Gord Brown, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, who had anticipated asking it in the House this week: “Mr. Speaker, after leaving thalidomide survivors to suffer for 18 more months, the government stated in this year's budget that it would finally find help for them. That was two months ago. They are still in agony, waiting for relief. What steps has the Prime Minister taken since the budget was presented, and when will the money flow to those long-suffering Canadians?”