Debates of Oct. 1st, 2020

Oral Questions

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We have pointed out that the minister used language. We will go to the minister and then come back.

Does the hon. minister want to reply to that?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for the use of the word “irrelevant”. However, I reiterate the point that the contract between the Government of Canada—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Now we are getting back into debate. We had something pointed out, and now I will cut it off.

I want to remind hon. members that when bringing something up, it is to point out what was done, and we will worry about proving it later. It is to show the relevance to see if it is prima facie or not.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, I noted that several MPs and certain ministers were not wearing the headsets provided by the House. I would like to remind them, through you, that they are not being asked to wear them solely on our behalf, but that it is also for their own health, as the headsets protect against the many acoustic bursts, which, despite all efforts, continue to occur.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Indeed, that is very important. I would like to remind members joining us virtually to use the headsets provided by the House.

The headsets that have been provided by the chamber, by Parliament, will make it so much easier for everyone to understand what they are saying, because they do have a very important message for each and every one. Also, the interpreters get a clearer message when they are trying to interpret. It makes it easier for them. Therefore, out of consideration for the interpreters, please use the headsets that are provided by the chamber.

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find it strange that the Leader of the Opposition was able to say his point, but I am not able to respond it, and you actually—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I will interrupt the hon. minister.

I apologize to members for not having cut the Leader of the Opposition off sooner, but I thought there might be more there. That was my judgment, and my apologies for that.

Business of the House

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, today is Thursday and, as per tradition, Thursday is the day we ask a formal question that is essential to our democratic process.

Could my friend opposite, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, give parliamentarians some idea of the upcoming business?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his weekly question.

In passing, I want to point out that things are working well in this hybrid Parliament. We are able to debate and vote, whether in person or via the Internet. I therefore commend all members.

With regard to the legislative calendar, here is the agenda for next week. This afternoon, we will continue with the fourth day of debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

On Friday, tomorrow, we will start debate on Bill C-3, the judges training legislation.

On Monday and Tuesday of next week, we will have days five and six of the Speech from the Throne debate, respectively.

We will then continue with the judges training bill on Wednesday and Thursday, if necessary.

Provision of Documents to the Standing Committee on Finance—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 24, 2020, by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes concerning the redacted documents provided by the government in response to an order adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance during the previous session.

The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes alleges that the government is in contempt of Parliament because it did not respect the order from the Standing Committee on Finance. He said that on July 7, 2020, during the previous session, the committee adopted an order requiring the government to produce documents and that any redaction in these documents be done by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel based on the guidelines set out in the order. The member claims that the documents were apparently redacted by departments before being sent to the committee. As evidence, the member cited correspondence addressed to the committee from the law clerk.

The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes also argued that the government tarnished the reputation and dignity of the law clerk by publicly stating that it was he who had redacted the documents, as specified in the committee’s order.

The member said that exceptional circumstances justified the Chair’s ruling on this matter despite the absence of a report from the Standing Committee on Finance, given that the committee had not yet been constituted at the beginning of this parliamentary session.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons responded that the government respected the motion from the Standing Committee on Finance and provided exactly the information requested, on time. He explained that the only things excluded were matters of cabinet confidence and national security, as required by the motion and by statute. The parliamentary secretary added that the committee can meet to transact business as of next week and that, in the absence of a report from the committee, it would be difficult for the Speaker to make a determination as to whether the committee's order was respected.

After the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes brought this matter to my attention, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby and the member for La Prairie, as well as the parliamentary secretary, made subsequent interventions.

In explaining this ruling, it is important to understand the sequence of events that led to the question before the Speaker.

On July 7, the Standing Committee on Finance adopted a motion ordering the government to produce certain papers related to We Charity and Me to We, by no later than August 8.

Once the documents were received by the committee clerk, they were sent to the law clerk and parliamentary counsel for redaction in compliance with the committee’s order.

In a letter dated August 18 to the committee clerk, the law clerk explained that his office had redacted from the documents information related to the public servants involved in the matter. The same letter also mentioned that additional redactions had been made by government departments to protect cabinet confidence and other information covered by the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. The letter noted that certain redactions had been made by the departments on grounds not contemplated by the committee's order and that it was for the committee to determine if it was satisfied with the redactions.

The redacted documents were released to committee members on August 18, the same day that Parliament was prorogued. As a consequence, the committee could not sit and could not review the documents or report to the House.

As of today, it is not possible to know whether the committee is satisfied with these documents as provided to it. The new session is now under way. The committee, which has control over the interpretation of its order, has an opportunity to examine the documents and decide what to do with them. On September 23, the House adopted an order setting out a specific procedure to re-establish committees, including the Standing Committee on Finance.

Given these facts and circumstances, it is my view that this is a matter for the committee to consider. If it believes that its privileges have been breached or has any other concern with respect to the situation, it can report to the House.

For these reasons, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.

I thank the members for their attention.

Response by Parliamentary Secretary to Order Paper Question—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 24, 2020, by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes concerning the government's response to written question no. 443, tabled during the first session of this Parliament.

During his intervention, the member argued that the details of the government's response with respect to written question no. 443 are not consistent with information published in an article by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. The member also explained that he had received clarifications from the National Capital Commission regarding the differences between the responses to the written question and those provided to the federation. He felt that these clarifications show “wilful muddying of language” on the government's part. In his opinion, “the government, by the very act of attempting to portray these two requests as different, has shown an attempt to deliberately mislead the House with its written response and is therefore in contempt of the House.”

In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that the information obtained by the member and by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation covers different periods. The parliamentary secretary also suggested that the figures obtained were misread and miscalculated. The parliamentary secretary feels that this is a dispute over facts.

In his intervention, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes rightfully mentioned the three criteria used to determine that the House has been deliberately misled, the first being to determine whether a statement made in the House is, in fact, misleading.

With regard to written questions, the simple fact that the Speaker must rule on whether the response is misleading de facto comes back to a decision on the content of the response. And yet, the Speaker is not able to rule on the accuracy of the government’s response to questions, oral or written.

We have numerous precedents on this matter. The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 529, could not be clearer, when it states: “There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.”

In this case, the Chair cannot conclude that there is a prima facie question of privilege.

I thank the members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, and of the amendment.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I thought of you when I was preparing the notes for my speech, because I am sure that when you ran for politics for the first time, it was to serve.

I think everyone in the House is here to serve, according to their values and their convictions, and with an openness to doubt, which is always a very healthy intellectual experience.

One of my convictions, perhaps the most important one in politics, is a people's right to self-determination. A nation is better at serving itself. A nation is better at serving its seniors. A nation is better at serving its business owners, farmers, artists, fishers, students, environment and researchers. It also holds all the power. It has the characteristics of sovereignty.

I think that a people starts out sovereign. It then chooses what it will do with that sovereignty: only more power for some, but all the power for others. That is true if the nation is not deprived of its rights. Since today is October 1, my thoughts go out to our Catalan friends, who were denied their independence three years ago today.

Canada is not the worst country in the world. Quebec is not yet a country, and it would not be the best of countries, but it would be ours. I am confident that the day after a positive vote by Quebecers, if not the same evening or even within a few minutes, Ottawa would call Quebec City and ask to stay friends. Of course, Quebec City would say yes, because we would stay close. In the meantime, since Quebec is not a country today, we are doing the best we can in the system we are stuck with.

I assume that that is what the Prime Minister is doing. Clearly we do not serve the same masters. What divides us is also quite clear: interference in the health care sector at the expense of Quebec and the provinces; marked differences in support to seniors, with the government suddenly deciding to start discriminating based on age; the claim of a green stimulus package, which, when we look closely, actually contains support for the oil industry in the west; and broken promises to farmers. There are many other examples.

The Bloc Québécois went through its own process. It developed a truly green recovery plan. It toured Quebec, first virtually, then in person. What we put forward, and anyone can check this for themselves, is much clearer and more precise than the government's throne speech. What is in our plan is what Quebeckers chose. This was not a partisan exercise. Our goal is not to suggest that the people who participated in the process support the Bloc Québécois. Now the Bloc is taking action.

In a way, this is the Bloc Québécois's own inaugural speech, a speech for our own republic, which would not displease us. We recognize that we are an opposition party. We make proposals. If Quebec listens to them and supports them, they will be very hard to ignore. It will be hard to start ignoring Quebec again, to ignore our only national parliament, the National Assembly of Quebec.

Our proposal and the throne speech differ in many respects. There are intrinsic differences, of course. There is the fact that the Bloc Québécois does not believe in the monarchy—more on that later. There is the fact that we condemn the government's decision to prorogue as well as its throne speech and solemn message to the nation, neither of which contained anything of substance. We deplore the Prime Minister's heritage, which is one of centralization. We deplore Canada's love for John A. Macdonald at a time when we condemn racism on a daily basis.

We condemn the colonial legacy. After all, the conquest remains unfinished.

The provinces asked for an increase to health transfers to bring the total federal share of health care funding to 35%. No one, not in Quebec or in the provinces, asked for the federal government to interfere. The government arrogantly responded that it was better than the provinces, that Quebec is just Quebec and the provinces are just the provinces. Canada claims to be better than us.

Can anyone name one thing that a Canadian can do that a Quebecker cannot? The federal government just has more money because of its Constitution, which, after all, is a legacy. Canada can cut the transfers. Canada is richer because of our own money.

The government has mentioned sending in the army. October 2020 marks the 50th anniversary of the October crisis. Canada in 1970, the Canada of the then Prime Minister, sent in the army, claiming an insurrection to overturn, they said, the Government of Quebec. It was a mighty insurrection of fewer than 40 militants.

I am against all forms of violence. We are against all forms of violence. The imprisonment of 500 Quebeckers was violent. The questioning of thousands of others was violent. I am waiting for the condemnation of that violence too. Where are the apologies to the 500 Quebec families?

No one is asking for an apology to the FLQ cells, not even the son of Paul Rose, Félix, who is a very talented filmmaker and does Quebec proud.

The FLQ cells were merely a pretext. We are demanding an apology for the Prime Minister of Canada's decision to temporarily turn Quebec into a military state. You cannot imagine how proud the 32 sovereignist members are to rise in the Parliament of Canada 50 years after the October Crisis, during which a large element meant to suppress us.

Where are the apologies to the Acadians who were deported? Where are the apologies to Louis Riel and the Métis, while John A. Macdonald continues to be celebrated? Among whited sepulchres, apologies are reserved for non-francophones. After all, the Prime Minister runs Her Majesty's government, and the conquest is not yet complete.

This modern style of colonialism can take many forms. Quebec wants to increase the use of French at work. The Liberals claim to do better, but their version of better is to set the French language back. Quebec wants to make federally regulated businesses subject to Bill 101. I challenge the government to refrain from opposing it.

Quebec is demanding that the federal government respect its jurisdictions. The NDP is not Quebec. The Conservatives are not Quebec. The Bloc Québécois is not Quebec. Only Quebec can speak for Quebec. Bloc members have no other allegiance.

The Bloc Québécois moved an amendment calling for the government to respect Quebec's jurisdiction over health care, to increase health transfers and to improve the lives of our seniors. After publicly saying they would support it—or at least they did in French—the NDP and the Conservatives voted against the Bloc Québécois's amendment. All those who voted against the amendment should do some soul searching.

I urge the government to tread very carefully before continuing to challenge Quebec. I cannot keep from mentioning the inevitable, the unavoidable and the shameful. I want to believe that Parliament is ashamed of what Canada's indigenous peoples are going through. We have to tell ourselves that, when it comes to the first nations, which are nations, we are one Parliament. The Prime Minister of Canada speaks for all those who are represented by this Parliament. For the time being, we should be ashamed to even face the first nations, especially this week and today.

I warn the government not to give in to the temptation to take away our privileges again with the help of the NDP, a party in trouble, and once again shut down Parliament. The NDP has chosen uncertain friends and allies in order to stay alive. The Bloc Québécois will vote against the Speech from the Throne. If this Parliament has any courage, the days of the current government are numbered. If some of us had courage, the hours of this government would be numbered.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I love the province of Quebec and the people of Quebec as I love my home province of Manitoba. My heritage goes back, on both my mother's and father's sides, to the province of Quebec.

We live in a great Confederation that truly values the importance of social programs, such as health care. It is so important, whether one is the leader of the Bloc or the MP for Winnipeg North, that we understand the importance of health care to all people in our great nation. Not only do provinces have a role in administration, they also want to ensure there is some consistency in health care services across our country. Something may be done a little better in one region than in another. There is a role for a national government. The leader of the Bloc talked about values. The core of my values is how wonderful our nation is, and Quebec is part of that.

Would the leader of the Bloc not recognize that, whether one lives in Quebec or Manitoba, the values we have jointly far outweigh the benefits of any province going on its own?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, if Canada, Quebec and Manitoba have the same values, I would like that question to be put to Franco-Manitobans.

We are not one nation and that is quite revealing. We are a group of nations living in the same territory, and each indigenous nation is as much a nation as are Quebec and Canada.

As a result of the exodus at the beginning of the last century, I probably have relatives in the northeastern U.S. However, that does not make me an American. It makes me someone who wants to be a friend of the Americans—which is particularly hard at times—just as I would want to remain a friend to Canadians after gaining independence, which I hope will happen soon.

The values we have in common will make us work together of our own accord. Canada collaborates with Denmark, a country with a population of a few million, but that does not mean that Denmark is part of Canada, or vice-versa. Good friends are more valuable than difficult bedfellows.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was interesting, to say the least. One of the issues he touched upon, and one of the things the government is very proud of, is the idea of self-determination. When it comes to first nations across the country, the Liberals are very good at talking about self-determination. When it comes to individual provinces, such as my province or the province of the speaker before me, it seems that the government has a problem with self-determination.

Could the member further outline his ideas around self-determination for provinces?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I have the impression that for the government self-determination is like a self-driving car. That is not what it is about. It is the right of a people, of a nation, to define itself. It is up to a nation to state that it is a nation.

There are about 300 Naskapi individuals in northern Quebec. They are a nation, just as the 8.4 million Quebeckers are a nation. A nation defines itself. All nations have the right to self-determination. However, in truth, very few of them want that in its entirety. Among all existing nations that are part of a subgroup in a great many countries, I do not know which ones want to be completely independent before establishing alliances by treaty with their counterparts. The European Union is a perfect example, and an encouraging one in some regards. Some only want more powers. The Bretons want to protect their language as do the Corsicans. Self-determination is not the obligation to have independence, it is the right to independence.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, most of Quebec has been in the red zone since midnight last night. That means that all restaurants and cultural venues are now closed for at least 28 days. In the throne speech, the government said that it would help businesses in this type of situation. This afternoon, the Quebec government announced what it was going to do to help businesses.

According to leader of the Bloc Québécois and hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly, what should the government do to help businesses that will be forced to close for at least 28 days?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, the difference between a BQ-planted question and a Liberal-planted question is that I do not know it is coming and no one wrote down an answer for me.

However, I feel for my colleague from Joliette, because it is in his riding that an indigenous woman died under more than tragic circumstances. Once again, I would like to express my condolences to the Atikamekw community and nation.

What can the federal government do? In many cases, my first reaction would be to say that it should mind its own business. In this case, we worked together, and we figured that a quick and effective course of action, familiar to businesses and their accountants, would be a tax credit on fixed costs with a limit on spending. All types of fixed costs would be eligible. The tax credit would be broad and could be adjusted to the type of activity and the temporary loss of economic activity specific to each business. It would be part of the federal tax system, and therefore entirely legitimate. I think that is the direction we must go in.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a really quick question for my colleague.

Where I represent there is over 300 years of francophone traditions. Most of the population works to expand that relationship. With over 300 years, they want inclusion. What does the member have to say to those people? Across from Detroit is Pontiac. Windsor West is the oldest European settlement west of Montreal, and we are very proud of that.

What is the member's message? They want to be part of a Confederation, and they also want the francophone culture and community to continue to rise within that jurisdiction.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, they have my unfailing friendship.

There are several types of francophone solidarity. In fact, there are four. There is international solidarity, represented by the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, a leading institution. At the other extreme, there is Quebec, which has a will of its own.

I think that the best thing that could happen to other North American francophones would be a sovereign Quebec. Quebec would be strong and a hub for the francophonie. This takes nothing away from others’ choices. That is how we can become best friends with francophones outside Quebec, with whom we have often expressed our solidarity.

At the continental level, to which the hon. member is referring, we are already working to create sustainable, friendly ties with all North American francophones, without institutional constraints. However, the pandemic has slowed us down considerably.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, obviously, the member and I would share a different ideology as it relates to federalism in this country. I am very proud to be a Nova Scotian. I understand he is very proud to be from Quebec. My question to him is twofold.

The member mentioned agriculture in his speech. Will the member not recognize that agriculture was predominant throughout the Speech from the Throne, in terms of our support for supply-managed sectors and the support for regional capacity, which I know is important to members in his own caucus?

I also really want to ask about the oil and gas industry. The member and I would agree on the fact that this industry may play a lesser role in the Canadian economy in the days ahead, but the revenues from the industry have benefited Canadians and Québécois across the country. Why is the member so disparaging of an industry that has been supportive and has provided much benefit to the Quebec people?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, we could talk at length about this particular topic. Let us do ourselves a favour and keep me from getting into the oil issue.

That said, dependence on the export of natural resources, whatever they may be, has a perverse economic effect. That is particularly true for industrial activities, which are in many ways the hallmark of Quebec's economy.

With respect to agriculture, what was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne was extremely vague and general, much like the rest of the topics. These were plans that should have already been implemented, including the payment of compensation to supply-managed farmers.

I will quickly revisit my previous answer. When I spoke of the francophones of North America, I forgot the other great people of America for whom I have deep affection. I am obviously talking about the people of Haiti.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

I stand here today to talk about the Speech from the Throne and COVID-19, but with a focus on my riding, which is very much connected to the United States and exemplifies some of the challenges our families face with respect to reunification across the globe. Obviously, in Windsor West, before COVID we had an extensive relationship with the United States. That still goes on today, but it is now a little awkward, different and more difficult than ever before. Prior to COVID-19, the area I represent, which is three-fifths of the city of Windsor, had over 40,000 vehicles per day that crossed into the United States, 10,000 trucks and about 30,000 vehicles with family members and friends.

There are all kinds of different relationships, from the professional level to the relationship level that families experience on a regular basis. In fact, we are proud of that. In Windsor, Ontario, when we have our Remembrance Day ceremony, we include the Star-Spangled Banner as part of what we sing because we are not only very proud Canadians but also not afraid to express our relationship with our cousins in the United States, and other places in the world, as part of our culture. In fact, we are the fourth most-diverse community in all of Canada. We have over 100 ethnocultural-related organizations that are registered and have been working in Windsor for a number of decades.

With COVID-19, we have seen families torn apart. We have seen people unable to be united. We have had a lot of challenges. I want to thank the Minister of Public Safety for talking with me about this as we entered into COVID before the House shut down. I raised the difficulties we face because there are up to 2,000 people who commute across our border as front-line workers, supporting the efforts to fight COVID in the United States. There are doctors, nurses, PSWs—I am a PSW myself—who go over to the United States daily and we have to keep them safe and secure.

The problem we are faced with is this. As COVID has continued to hamper our economy, it has also created challenges for individuals who have loved ones across this globe. Whether it be as simple as in Detroit, Michigan, across from Windsor, or in England or some other commonwealth nation, or even farther than that. The government's response has been nothing short of irresponsible on this. There has been nothing but delay, and it continues to push the issue down the road without any type of support for individuals. That hurts not only the families but I would argue our economy. More importantly it hurts our entire community, our neighbours, all the people in our communities, because we have people who are in limbo.

I guess I take this a little personally in the sense that my aunt married an American. I have representatives of entire populations across Windsor and Essex County who are connected to people from everywhere, from Lebanon to Pakistan to India to China and other places, and there has been no recourse or any supports provided to individuals to work through the COVID issue and provide safety and security in family reunification.

What we are talking about is this. The government's narrow definition of what constitutes a family has prevented that and is flying in the face of the Prime Minister. It has identified direct relatives using an amazingly old and outdated system that does not even take into account the real relationships taking place right now. This affects people from a mental health aspect. It also affects people with respect to connecting, family planning and so forth.

My appeal to the government is for the issue be taken responsibly and moved forward. We have presented several plans to the government. I come from a community that is on the front lines. I started this speech by talking about how many vehicles and people traverse back and forth on a regular basis. We are just as concerned as anyone out there with respect to the spreading of COVID and having the system in the United States impact our community, but it does not take away from our determination to reunite families that need to have a process in place and the necessary supports from the government.

Nobody wants to bring somebody into this country who will get their family members sick, but that does not mean grandparents, parents, cousins, family members, brothers and sisters should be isolated and thrown basically into an abyss month by month, not even knowing when they can reconnect. We can do better than that. We can do better through a full process. We have presented proposals to the government and it has not even responded.

There is a movement out there, Love is Not Tourism, and there are others who are pushing this issue but they are doing so not just for themselves but also for this country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I ask members to please lower their discussions in the House so that we can pay attention to what the member is saying.

Please, proceed.