Debates of Feb. 18th, 2020

Climate Change

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from voters on Vancouver Island who oppose the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline and do not want that pipeline to be expanded. The price tag for that pipeline has gone from $5.6 billion to $12.6 billion. The environmental destruction involved, and the way it will undermine our climate targets, is not acceptable to the petitioners and they would like to see plans for the pipeline expansion to be halted.

Pacific Herring Fishery

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to table a petition on behalf of Vancouver Islanders from Parksville, Qualicum Beach, Courtenay, Hornby Island and Denman Island. They cite the importance of herring in the Salish Sea for salmon, killer whales, humpback whales, cod, halibut, seabirds and other interdependent species.

They also cite that four out of five herring grounds are closed right now in coastal British Columbia because of DFO's failed management policies and that, in 2019, the fishery was fished at 25% of the biomass, which is 5% more than the department predicted. They note that the department is recommending the fishery be cut from 20% to 10% because it is a high-risk fishery. They want the government to take a precautionary approach until a whole-of-ecosystem-based management approach is put in place.

This is not against the fishers. They are calling on the minister and the department to take swift action to protect our ecosystem. They are hoping that the government will pay attention because this fishery is set to open in less than two weeks.

Questions on the Order Paper

[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]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Relations with Indigenous Peoples

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose an emergency debate on the urgent need for the federal government to address the concerns regarding issues of aboriginal title and constitutional rights brought forward by the hereditary chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en nation and protests in solidarity with the chiefs that have taken place across Canada. I believe this meets the bar of Standing Order 52(6)(a) that the matter proposed be “a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration”.

Inaction by the government has allowed tensions to rise. This has put significant pressure on the economy and threatened jobs across the country. This morning all news networks, without exception, were speaking openly of a crisis in this country, and reports of the RCMP's use of force against land defenders have deepened this crisis.

Given the urgency of these issues related to the Wet'suwet'en nation and the protests being held by its allies, I believe it is important to hold an emergency debate in Parliament today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Liberals support what the member is proposing, but I would highlight that there will be a ministerial statement at 11 o'clock on the issue.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I rise today to request that the House hold an emergency debate on the issues that have motivated some indigenous communities to impose rail blockades and on the economic impact of those blockades.

As parliamentarians, we cannot remain silent and allow this conflict to get any further out of hand, a conflict that, with each passing hour, affects more and more citizens and affects the relationship between the federal government and indigenous peoples across Quebec and Canada.

The social climate has become volatile, and this crisis warrants an urgent response.

I am therefore officially submitting this request for an emergency debate, which I hope you will authorize as soon as possible.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say very briefly that we agree with the requests submitted by the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

This is obviously a matter of an emergency situation. We also want to make it very clear that we will always stand in solidarity with the Wet'suwet'en.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby and the hon. member for La Prairie for their interventions. I am prepared to grant their request for an emergency debate regarding the relationship with indigenous peoples.

This debate will be held later today at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

Response by Justice Minister to Order Paper Question

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I have had the opportunity to do so, but I would like to congratulate you on your excellent position as my neighbour and as Speaker of the House.

As we are talking about the relationship between first nation people, I rise on a question of privilege pursuant to Standing Order 48, to state that I believe my parliamentary privilege was violated by the Minister of Justice and his staff.

It is my belief that the minister and his staff misled the House on a fundamental issue, which is the legal cost of fighting indigenous children at the Human Rights Tribunal and in federal court. I consequently believe that, because they have provided this misinformation, the minister should be held in contempt of Parliament.

We have had a lot of talk this week about the importance of the rule of law. I find this issue especially pertinent when we are talking about the actions of the justice department and the Attorney General, who apparently believe they are above Parliament when it comes to their obligation to respond to Order Paper questions on fundamental questions of fact, not opinions on facts. If you will indulge me, Mr. Speaker, I will present the facts of this case as succinctly as possible.

On December 9, 2019, I gave notice pursuant to Standing Order 39 of a written question seeking information regarding the legal fees for the hours and the associated costs the government has incurred due to legal proceedings related to Human Rights Tribunal cases against first nation children between 2007 and 2019. The Department of Justice provided a written response to this question in late January 2020 stating, “Based upon the hours recorded, the total amount of legal costs incurred amounts to approximately $5,261,009.14, as of December 9, 2019.”

As a stand-alone figure, the idea that the federal government would have spent $5.2 million fighting the rights of the most vulnerable children in this country is shocking. However, it has come to my attention that these numbers are extremely misleading. I have brought this forward because evidence contrary to the justice official's came out last week when I was representing Canada in Washington, so this is my first opportunity to address this.

Ms. Cindy Blackstock, who has been involved in this case from the beginning, has tabled documents she has received through multiple ATIPs from the justice department about the costs incurred between 2007 and 2017. The number Ms. Blackstock has provided, through the justice department's own documents, is $9.4 million spent fighting indigenous children in court.

APTN has analyzed the numbers and has come up with a slightly more conservative figure of $8.3 million as of 2017, but that is still substantially higher than what the Minister of Justice stated the department has spent up until now. This does not include any of the costs incurred after 2017.

I will remind the Speaker that when the government was found guilty of reckless discrimination against first nation children in 2016, the Prime Minister made a solemn vow that he would respect the rulings of the Human Rights Tribunal. He said he would address this and would not fight this.

However, there have been nine non-compliance orders, as well as a battle in federal court attempting to quash the ruling and deny the rights of children who are in the broken child welfare system. It is clear the numbers we have up to 2017 from the Minister of Justice's office are higher than $8.3 million and higher than the false $5.2 million he provided through the Order Paper.

How can the House make sense of these contradictory numbers? We are not talking about opinions. The issue goes to the heart of the Prime Minister's promise on reconciliation to create a new relationship based on trust. It must also be based on the trust of parliamentarians, when they use tools like the Order Paper question to get factual responses so they can do their jobs.

This ongoing legal battle against first nation children has had a corrosive effect on the Prime Minister's brand and it would appear to me that it cannot be explained away as a matter of opinion attempting to downplay the numbers.

Page 111 of Erskine May: A treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and the usage of Parliament explicitly states that misleading the House can be considered an issue of contempt. It states, “The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.”

Similarly, page 82 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice quotes the United Kingdom Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in listing various types of contempt, which includes “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence or petition)”.

We know being wrong is not a matter of privilege, but misleading the House is. That is why various Speakers, your predecessors, have used the test laid out in page 85 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. It states:

...the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a Member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House.

I believe these tests can be met in this case.

First, if we review the criteria that I have just read, the statement given to me was misleading because there exists in the public domain, in the documents of the Minister of Justice, conflicting information regarding these documents. The minister only provided me with the costs of the hours recorded, but not with the associated legal fees.

Second, the minister knew that his statement was misleading since the ministry with which he is charged provided different information to Ms. Cindy Blackstock, yet his signature on the document was tabled in the House.

Third, the minister intended to mislead the House since he intentionally avoided answering parts of the question that would provide clarity, a point made clear by the fact that the minister omitted to mention all additional legal fees and only provided the cost of hours.

This is not about being wrong; this is about the fundamental question of the obligation of the government to speak truthfully in this chamber.

I note that previous Speakers have ruled that in the event of contradictory information, the matter can be brought to the House to be dealt with.

For example, the Speaker, on March 3, 2014, stated:

...the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties.

Accordingly, in keeping with the precedent cited earlier in which Speaker Milliken indicated that the matter merited “...further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air”.

I believe that the same situation exists today and that the remedy should therefore be the same.

The fact that the Canadian government even spent a cent fighting the most vulnerable of its own citizens in court to deny them their indigenous rights and human rights is callous and shameful. However, the fact the government misled the House and provided incomplete or inaccurate information regarding the amount of money that it has wasted on such reprehensible actions is unacceptable. I asked the government to answer these fundamental questions. We need to know that the government will respond with true and accurate figures to an Order Paper question about how much money was spent at the Human Rights Tribunal.

That is in accordance with page 63 of Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, which states that “...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”

Also, I am demanding that the Minister of Justice explain to this House and the Canadian public why the information that was provided in response to the Order Paper question differs so much from the information that was provided to Ms. Cindy Blackstock through multiple ATIP requests in his own department. The Canadian people have a right to know.

I will wrap up here. In conclusion, this matters because what we are dealing with are the lives of children. It mattered to Kanina Sue Turtle, Tammy Keeash, Tina Fontaine, Amy Owen, Courtney Scott, Devon Freeman, Chantell Fox, Jolynn Winter, Jenera Roundsky, Azraya Ackabee-Kokopenace, and all the other children who have been broken in this system that failed them. Parliament needs to know that these children were loved. We had an obligation to do better.

The Parliament of Canada called on the government and the justice minister on December 11, 2019, just after we learned the horrific details of the death of Devon Freeman, to end his legal battle against the children. He has ignored the rule of Parliament. He has ignored the obligations under the Order Paper question. I ask you to address this.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I will take this question of privilege under advisement.

I will hear very briefly from the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, for 30 seconds or less. I do not want this to turn into a debate.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of time, the opposition would like to reserve its right to return to the House, if needed, to address this question of privilege.

Opposition Motion—Special Employment Insurance Sickness Benefits

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

moved:

That the House call on the government to increase the special Employment Insurance sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks in the upcoming budget in order to support people with serious illnesses, such as cancer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. NDP member for not taking up our entire opposition day.

We are hearing about some very serious issues in the news, issues that have been commanding our attention and that will now be debating in the House, and rightly so, as we just agreed. I thank the Speaker for that. However, I am asking members today to make room in their thoughts, hearts and minds for an issue that may, on the surface, appear to be less urgent but that, in its own way, has a serious impact on the lives of tens of thousands and perhaps even hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians.

I would like to tell a little story. A few months ago, I met a Quebecker who told me about the situation being faced by his daughter Émilie Sansfaçon. This woman, who worked and paid EI premiums throughout her entire career, suddenly found herself unable to work. That is the very principle behind what we call insurance. It is an amount that you pay yourself or with others in order to be able to cope with a difficult situation that is hopefully temporary.

However, Émilie was being granted only 15 weeks of benefits, when a regular worker employed by a given industry or the government could receive up to 50 weeks of benefits. That is a major problem for someone who has a serious illness, such as cancer, or who had a serious illness and then relapses, which is even worse.

When I met with Louis Sansfaçon, Émilie's father, I was shocked to learn that this discrimination exists. To me, that seemed extremely unfair to people in serious need in our supposedly generous and open society and completely devoid of compassion toward them.

We therefore raised the issue in Parliament and organized several meetings, one of which the Prime Minister did us the honour of attending, along with the minister. It emerged from that meeting that the Liberals would consider not only their own election promise of extending benefits from 15 weeks to 26, but also the possibility of extending them from 15 weeks to 50.

I left the meeting thinking that we had gone from a ceiling of 26 weeks to a floor of 26 weeks, so that what might have been the maximum had become the minimum. The number of weeks would be somewhere between 26 and 50.

Of course, there is no such thing as “semi-discrimination”. Either there is discrimination or there is not. If an ordinary worker is entitled to 50 weeks, someone who is unable to work for whatever reason should also get 50 weeks. It would be discriminatory to give that person 32 or 41 weeks.

At least we were seeing some openness and some progress. At the time, we agreed that although we were seeing some progress and discussions—and of course things would move more quickly in the lead-up to the budget—we would exercise discretion in a spirit of collaboration, as we always do.

Sadly, it did not happen. The reports we are hearing suggest that there is no measure, that the 26 weeks will not necessarily be guaranteed in this budget, and that the 50 weeks will not even be considered.

By its own analysis, either the government came to the conclusion that this is not a good measure, and I would be curious to know why, or we got taken for a ride. Apparently they wanted to stretch this out, buy some time and see what they will do with this issue later. Obviously, that is not satisfactory to us.

The government, and particularly the Prime Minister, is quick to see discrimination everywhere, however it defines it and however imagined. In some situations, there truly is discrimination, but not in every case. In Quebec, we certainly feel the repercussions of comments that we believe are not entirely true.

In this case, we have a technical and mathematical issue. People contribute to an independent employment insurance fund and then, one day, find themselves unable to do their job, either because it no longer exists or for a wide range of other reasons. Some of those workers will receive employment insurance benefits for 50 weeks, and others for fewer weeks, which is a clear example of discrimination.

I am appealing to the government's real or purported values to ask it to be fair. Fairness means not being discriminatory. Fairness means applying the same rules to everyone. In this case, there are no linguistic, territorial, religious or other variables. We are talking about the ability to work, a foundation of modern western economies.

Politicians tend to brag about Canada having a generous social safety net. The primary purpose of the social safety net is to protect the purchasing power of individuals, who in turn support economic activity while successfully maintaining a minimum standard of living and quality of life. In a way, parliamentarians have a solemn duty to protect this 20th century benefit.

In this case, we would tend to say that it is good for some and not so good for others.

Naturally we could make the argument about the cost. Still, Canada is not too poor to buy a pipeline, just to mention an arbitrary example. Canada is not too poor to chase a seat on the UN Security Council—which costs millions of dollars—even if it means casually shaking hands with Iran's foreign minister.

We have the money for lots of things. However, when it comes to the fair implementation of values shared by Canada and Quebec that we consider to be fundamental, we suddenly do not have the money. Clearly, we cannot accept that argument.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer studied the issue. He found that it would cost just over $1 billion annually if all workers with serious illnesses received EI benefits for the entire period of 50 weeks. We know that very few people with an illness preventing them from working will actually be away from their jobs for 15, 25 or 30 weeks.

Therefore, the real costs are unknown, but they surely represent less than half the estimated amount. We are talking about amounts that the government readily allocates to matters that could be deemed to be less important. Employment insurance is a fundamental responsibility of the state.

This is ultimately all about compassion. Some of us are naturally a little more sensitive than others, while others are a little more ostentatious about it. I would like us to be less ostentatious and to take real action.

I would like to see us be unanimous, or at least in agreement, about Canada's and Quebec's shared values. I would like to see members stop hiding behind ostensibly economic arguments that may or may not be valid to put off doing the right thing. The government and its leader have expressed values, and I want nothing more than to take them at their word. I encourage them to be clear on their position today and for the vote tomorrow, so that we can put an end to this discrimination that is just as unacceptable as any other form of discrimination. I encourage everyone to show compassion, understanding, justice and fairness to the tens of thousands of people who are suffering in the worst possible way. I believe this to be our fundamental duty, and I urge the House to vote accordingly.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly. I rose in the House last week, and I am very attuned to the matter we are debating.

The member spoke about compassion and discrimination, but what about the Canadians and Quebeckers who are not employees but self-employed workers?

He told us about discrimination based on the number of weeks, but I find that not including all Canadians who contribute to Canada's prosperity is discriminatory.

I would like my colleague to speak to that.

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

Madam Speaker, there are some subjects and circumstances that lend themselves to some minor adjustments and there are others that do not. The matter we are discussing falls into the second category. If our esteemed colleague would like to propose something, then, my goodness, that would be wonderful. We are listening.

Self-employed workers who register for the program can access employment insurance benefits. In addition to this change, which seemed necessary, everyone experiencing financial difficulties on top of an economic issue should definitely have support. That goes without saying.

In this case, we are targeting a specific and recurring issue that has already been raised, one that the government already said it would examine. We are asking if this can be resolved.

If the Conservatives want to fix more than this one issue, if they want to expand the social safety net, they surely know that it is in our DNA to do so and that we will be pleased to see their concerns come to the fore. We are open to that.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Bloc leader for bringing forward this important debate.

The NDP has been bringing forward private members' bills to address this problem at least as far back as the 39th Parliament. Not only are the Liberals at fault, but also the previous Conservative government. This is one of the easiest fixes. I have dealt with so many constituents who fall in the gap between 15 weeks and one year. They need a year at least in order to qualify for Canada pension plan disability benefits, and it is such an easy fix.

The Liberals and the Conservatives have failed so many Canadians. This is an important debate. I really hope that in this 43rd Parliament we get this done. I ask the leader of the Bloc to add his comments to that.

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

Madam Speaker, it sounds like many of us are on the same page. Now all we need to know is where the government stands.

I recognize that other MPs have raised this issue before. Our riding offices actually deal with a lot of cases related to these issues.

I would imagine that government MPs have also been asked to intervene on this issue and that there will be discussions on the subject eventually. Recently, another issue came up that I will not name because I do not want to upset certain members, but some Liberal MPs indicated to their party that they are not comfortable with its position. That happens, and that is part of democracy.

Those people may also have had constituents come into their office with EI problems, so maybe they can push government higher-ups for progress on this file.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know why the Bloc Québécois opted for exactly 50 weeks.

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

Madam Speaker, if a factory worker anywhere in Canada or Quebec were to lose his job, and if he had accumulated the number of hours required under the system to be eligible for benefits, he would get up to 50 weeks. It is merely the same number of weeks given to any other worker. That is why we decided on the same number, 50 weeks.

[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, the leader of the Bloc Québécois talked about values. When I think of the values, I think of the literally hundreds of millions of dollars, record high amounts, that have been spent by this government over the years on health care. Many of those millions went toward cancer. I also think of the hundreds of thousands of individuals lifted out of poverty.

On this specific issue, even in the days when we were in opposition, the leader of the Liberal Party often advocated for many Liberal members of Parliament to look at ways we could make further enhancements.

Why is the member fixated on the 50 weeks? Is there some sort of rationale that was used for the number 50?

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to say it again. Someone who works for a company and loses his job has access to a certain number of weeks of benefits. Someone who must stop working because of a serious illness is entitled to a certain number of weeks of benefits. We should put in an “equal” sign to equate both situations. It is as simple as that.

Besides that, would we invest hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in developing a new, amazing car but allow it to be missing a wheel? If it is missing a wheel, it is not a very good car.

In many respects, we have an excellent health care system; I do not disagree with that. It would be even better if the government were to mind its own business and transfer to the provinces the money it owes them by increasing health transfers to 5.2%, as all the provinces have requested.

In this case, however, this is an independent fund to which people contribute their own money. It is not even the government's money, in the traditional sense.

I think we can simply improve the system at a relatively low cost and turn this inequity into justice.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my leader on his excellent speech. I also want to thank him for choosing this topic for the first opposition day.

There is one aspect that has not been raised. The employment insurance fund currently has a $4-billion surplus. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates this measure will cost $1 billion, but in fact it will cost roughly half that at $500 million or $600 million. In other words, it would cost next to nothing to adopt this measure.

The Sorel-Tracy regional association of unemployed people testified at the Standing Committee on Finance. It said that if the EI fund were empty, it would simply take a contribution of 6¢ an hour. Let's not forget that employees and employers are the ones who pay for employment insurance, not the government.

Why not implement this system immediately?

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

Madam Speaker, it feels a bit odd responding to a colleague. Now I know how our friends across the way must feel most of the time.

The notion of little to no cost is absolutely extraordinary. I find it very interesting in this case because that brings us back to what we were saying earlier. It brings us back to the notion of values. It brings us back to what is supposed to characterize our work.

It brings me back to another thing I touched on. There are people among us right now who personally or whose loved ones have a serious health issue that is causing a great deal of concern. We should put ourselves in their shoes.

Imagine if one of our loved ones, one of the people or the person we love the most in the world, had a serious health problem. Would we not want to be free from worrying about other considerations—

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

I will let the hon. minister know that we will have to interrupt her speech at 11 o'clock.