House of Commons Hansard #2 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pandemic.
Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, Canadian manufacturers across the country did an amazing job of quickly responding to COVID-19 by retooling their operations to assist in the production of much-needed personal protective equipment. For example, Yoga Jeans is now producing hospital gowns for health care workers.
Can the minister tell Canadians of the historic efforts to mobilize industry supported by our government's Made in Canada initiative?
Navdeep Bains LiberalMinister of Innovation
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saint-Laurent for her question and hard work.
Through our Made in Canada project, we are supporting Canadian businesses, including those mentioned by my colleague, so that our front-line workers have the equipment they need to take care of Canadians. Together, we will continue to make good progress in better protecting the health and safety of Canadians.
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, last week, as students went back to school in Victoria, teachers were told to open the windows to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. However, they had to close the windows because of the smoke from the climate fires. The federal government has missed every single climate target that it set, and it is even on track to miss Stephen Harper's weak targets. Parents and young people are understandably worried. They want real climate action.
When will the government deliver more than empty words and broken promises to address the climate crisis?
Jonathan Wilkinson LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, I think the wildfires in the United States and the attendant smoke that exists in British Columbia are a sign of things to come if we do not aggressively address the climate issue.
The government developed the pan-Canadian framework, which identified over 225 megatonnes of reductions during its first term in office. It is the first real climate plan this country has ever had. In the throne speech yesterday, we reiterated our commitment to bringing forward an enhanced climate plan that will provide transparency about how the government will not only meet but exceed our 2030 targets. We intend to do that in the very near term.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise an urgent question. A number of years ago, the Cohen Commission set September 30, 2020, which seemed a long time in the future, for the Minister of Fisheries to act to protect wild B.C. salmon from the terrible impacts of what are sometimes called fish farms but which are more accurately described as toxic fish factories.
September 30, the deadline, looms at the same time as Pacific salmon is in a desperate state of crisis throughout all its ecosystems. Will the Minister of Fisheries commit to act to shut down the open pen toxic fish factories by September 30?
Bernadette Jordan LiberalMinister of Fisheries
Mr. Speaker, my department is absolutely committed to the conservation and protection of the wild Pacific salmon. That is why my department's policy and decision-making looks at the potential risk and heavily relies on sound peer-reviewed science in order to make our decisions. To date, the department has eight of the nine risk assessments completed. We know that there is still one more to be finished.
I will have more to say on this in the coming days.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
That is all the time we have today for question period. Before we go to the Point of Order, while I have everybody's attention, I want to remind our members who are joining us but who are away from the chamber that technically it is up to them to find a good source of Internet. If members are joining us from home, they should make sure they are wired directly into their router and that the signal is strong. Members should work with our IT department and their ambassadors to make sure that it works. That goes for anyone joining us from outside.
The House leader of the official opposition on a point of order.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, first of all, we all understand that this is a brand-new hybrid Parliament. It is only natural that some things will work and some will not, technically speaking. That comes from the fact that this technology is new to our country.
Earlier, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles asked a question. It is our understanding that the minister could not answer for technological reasons. I therefore seek the consent of the House to allow the member to ask this question again, since he did not have the opportunity to do so earlier.
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, in May, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement set up the COVID-19 Supply Council.
Canadians were outraged, but not surprised to see the Liberals helping friends of the Trudeau family with the WE Charity and hiding the business connections of certain council members. Now Canadians want guarantees. They want their money to be invested in their best interests, not the best interest of friends of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Can the government confirm, yes or no, whether there are conflicts of interest on the COVID-19 Supply Council?
Anita Anand LiberalMinister of Public Services and Procurement
Mr. Speaker, as this is the beginning of the new session, I would like to thank the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for her contributions in the last session of Parliament.
I want to say that, from the beginning, we have been working with partners from all levels of government and with the industry to obtain the necessary medical supplies as part of the government-wide response to the COVID-19 outbreak.
The council has built on our collaborative approach to help us address existing and future supply challenges.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, as you know, today is Thursday.
I will ask the traditional Thursday question once the points of order have been dealt with.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is a very straightforward point of order regarding the statement I made earlier, which was not quite done. I had three or four words left to say.
The microphones were muted, and my team told me that the minute was not up, so I would like to start over if I may. It was an important tribute to an important person who recently passed away.
I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, on July 3, we lost a great patriot: Roger Guertin.
I want to pay tribute to this extraordinary man, who deserves much of the credit for the seat I hold today. I wand to extend my deepest condolences to Roger's family, Denise, Sébastien and Julien, his many friends and his political family.
Roger was kind, humble and generous. He was a man of integrity who will be remembered for his many years of service on the St. Lawrence Seaway and for his commitment to Quebec's separatist movement. In our minds, he will forever be the man who held down the fort during difficult times. It never occurred to him to give up. He believed in the country of Quebec.
He was a great friend, my inspiration and my captain. I have lost a mentor and a devoted ally of the cause. I will miss his happy, hopeful face.
I want to close with a quote by Félix Leclerc that aptly describes the memory of Roger Guertin: I know of a country
Far away from here
Where the ocean, life
And love unite.
My friend, I love you.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is Thursday, and tradition dictates that the government House leader and the opposition House leader have an exchange regarding what to expect in the week ahead.
I would first like to take a moment to sincerely thank my colleagues, the other House leaders, for the extraordinary collaboration everyone has demonstrated over the past two weeks to make this hybrid Parliament happen and restart the committees. I therefore thank the government House leader; the Bloc Québécois House leader, the member for La Prairie; and the NDP House leader, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
Everyone has been working hard and making every effort for the sake of Canada and the House of Commons. My sincere thanks to everyone who has contributed to these efforts.
Since Parliament is sitting, could the government House leader advise the House of the business planned for the next few days?
Pablo Rodriguez LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating my colleague on his appointment to this important position, which reflects both his leader's confidence in him and his fitness for this extremely important role.
I look forward to collaborating and working with him.
On that note, I also want to thank all the parties for their collaboration yesterday on adopting the motion that allows MPs from all regions across the country to participate in the debates. This is extremely important.
To answer my colleague and friend's question directly, I will say that tomorrow, Friday, will be the second day of debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
On Monday and Tuesday, we will begin debate on Bill C-2, an act relating to economic recovery in response to COVID-19, which was introduced this morning by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.
Finally, the third and fourth days set aside in the House for debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne will be Wednesday and Thursday respectively.
Response by Parliamentary Secretary to Order Paper QuestionPrivilegeOral Questions
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a lasting tribute to my predecessor, the late Gord Brown, that our riding reflects all of the beautiful attributes of my constituency.
I am rising today on a question of privilege regarding a deliberately misleading statement presented to the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement. This was by way of the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 443, tabled during the previous session of Parliament.
On May 11, 2020, I asked the government, through that written question, about the construction and renovations at Harrington Lake, projects which came to light this spring. Specifically, I asked for the estimated costs of, first, each new building or other structure constructed or in the process of being constructed, and second, all renovations.
In the parliamentary secretary's response, tabled on July 20, 2020, the House was informed that estimated costs of construction work at the Prime Minister's summer home would cost taxpayers some $8.63 million.
Subsequently, on August 4, 2020, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation published an online article entitled “Prime minister’s cottage renos cost more than disclosed to Parliament”, which informs readers that an access to information request revealed that annual expenditures totalled more than $10 million.
For its part, the National Capital Commission claims the difference between the two amounts comes down to operational or maintenance budgets, but some of the invoices cited by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation include the removal of the caretaker's house foundation and installation of security infrastructure. Those do not sound like operational or maintenance items. Those are capital items.
The Chair is often inclined to view such disputes as contests over facts. That is not the case here. Instead, what we have is wilful muddying of language. While we have no procedural definition of “renovation”, the Merriam-Webster dictionary offers, “to restore to a former better state (as by cleaning, repairing, or rebuilding)”, and defines “maintenance” as “the upkeep of property or equipment”. There is no way to construe one word in the context of the repairs to a residence that would not include everything deemed relevant to the other.
It is my view that 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.
Speakers have, when faced with allegations of the House's being deliberately misled, applied a three-part test, which is articulated at footnote 129 on page 85 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:
...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 three elements can be made out in the present case.
First, the statement in the response to Question No. 443 is simply misleading. The numbers in the response and those disclosed under the Access to Information Act do not reconcile. Erskine May is worth noting here at paragraph 22.23 under “Answers and Corrections”, where it states:
When factual mistakes are discovered in an answer to a question, Ministers may submit written ministerial corrections for publication in the [House papers and online]. Such corrections are required to be free-standing and should not be used to provide new information, however closely related to the original proceeding. Nor should they be used to rehearse the arguments which may have given rise to the original erroneous answer.
This point from Erskine May is crucial because it establishes that when it comes to questions, ministerial responsibility is firm. Ministers are responsible, solely, for the information provided by their department. Contradictory information provided to the House by the minister's department in response to questions is treated the same as though the information was provided personally by the minister.
Second, the parliamentary secretary, or the person preparing the response on his behalf, had to have known the response to be misleading. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation access to information response is based on real, tangible documents. These documents, the actual bills, were certainly available at the time of preparing the response to my written question. In fact, many departments have their access to information and privacy officials prepare Order Paper question responses because they overlap in the skills and procedures involved.
Third, it is my view that the lower numbers provided in the response to the written question are for the purpose of misleading the House. We are not talking here about blowing a construction estimate several years down the road, a pattern pretty common in government. These are two sets of figures most likely being prepared simultaneously and quite likely by the same official.
In fact, I am informed that the documents provided to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation are date stamped April 22 of this year, a full three months before the answer to my question was tabled in the House. This means that the government cannot even plausibly argue that the costs changed between the time that the answer was provided to me and when the same response was provided to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. The government would have known that the costs provided to me omitted items that were part of the completed costing document, which was later provided to the federation.
What is more, Mr. Speaker, you may recall how the whole matter of the Harrington Lake renovations came to be on the public radar. My colleague, the hon. member for Carleton, first raised questions about whether there had been construction going on at the Prime Minister's luxury cottage. He was mocked. He was ridiculed as if he was peddling some delusional conspiracy theory. The parliamentary secretary for housing even tweeted a reply featuring a Star Wars spaceship photo shopped onto the grounds of Harrington Lake.
It is clear that the government has taken a communication strategy to avoid well-deserved scrutiny for these extraordinary expenditures at a time when so many Canadians are struggling. As my colleague eloquently said when the truth came out proving that he had been right all along, “It sounds like they have effectively built the Prime Minister a new waterfront mansion while his old mansion is renovated. And they are trying to cover it up with complicated stories about how they have just moved the caretaker's derelict cottage up the road. What they should have just said is the Prime Minister needs a lakeside mansion while his existing one is renovated.” It is no surprise that yet again, efforts to minimize and deflect scrutiny are on display again. The problem with that is it is not just spin; it is misleading.
A number of Speaker's rulings have established prima facie cases of privilege when it has been established that misleading information had been provided by the government.
For example, on December 6, 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome found a prima facie case of privilege where evidence at a royal commission had demonstrated that an MP had been purposely misled by a solicitor general some five years earlier.
Again, on February 1, 2002, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case when conflicting information was provided by a minister despite the fact that the minister stated he had no intention of misleading the House. Nonetheless, contradictory statements were made leaving the House with two different version of events.
Now, just as then, we have before the House two contradictory statements made on behalf of the same minister on the same matter of the government's administrative responsibilities.
Later, on March 9, 2011, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case involving a minister's statement in committee and the House. He said that the minister's statements had, at the very least, caused confusion.
More recently, on March 3, 2014, another of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, found that a member had offered contradictory statements which merited further consideration by an appropriate committee. It is normally a cliché that the Chair cannot judge the quality of the government's response, whether oral or written, but those responses are not beyond the Chair's jurisdiction on contempt.
As Madam Speaker Sauvé said on December 16, 1980, at page 5797 of the Debates, “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 circumstances 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.”
Before wrapping up, I should offer a comment about the timing of my intervention. The procedural authorities state that a question of privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity. I had planned to raise this matter at the sitting scheduled for August 26, but the Prime Minister's decision to shut down Parliament with prorogation robbed me of that opportunity.
Despite prorogation, the Chair is perfectly capable of entertaining a question of privilege arising during the previous session. As Bosc and Gagnon point out at page 81, “Instances of contempt in one Parliament may even be punished during another Parliament.” Of course, in the present situation, we are talking about different sessions of the same Parliament.
Should you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that there is a prima facie case of privilege here, I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Response by Parliamentary Secretary to Order Paper QuestionPrivilegeOral Questions
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I want to thank the member. I will take it under advisement and return to the House with a ruling.
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, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.
Élisabeth Brière LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to one of the most important steps for Canadian democracy. The Speech from the Throne lays the foundation for the direction and the objectives of the next parliamentary session, a session that will be particularly important because it marks the national economic recovery, as the country begins to emerge from the first wave of COVID-19.
I am also pleased to rise today because the throne speech sets the stage for a just, green recovery, leading to a more resilient, more inclusive Canada. This speech sets out four foundations or phases that will benefit the environment, employment and safety in my riding of Sherbrooke and across Canada.
As I mentioned, this is an unprecedented crisis. First and foremost, I want to offer my sincerest condolences to those who have lost a loved one to COVID-19. They are all in our thoughts.
As you heard in the throne speech, protecting Canadians from the virus is our priority and has been from the start.
I also want to take a moment to thank all those who have worked and are still working hard, day and night, to get us through this crisis. While many people had to stay home to prevent the virus from spreading, some had to continue working, sometimes under very difficult conditions. We called them “essential workers”, “guardian angels” and “heroes”. One thing is certain: These are good, compassionate people. Workers in health care, social services, education, food service, transportation and many other sectors have shown bravery and generosity, and we thank them for that.
I also want to acknowledge the work done by the government and public servants, who took the time and effort to listen to people on the ground. This localized approach allowed us to implement targeted programs to help people in need and adjust these programs as the crisis evolved. I am proud to be part of a government that did not hesitate to give Canadians urgent assistance when they needed it most. Members know that the most vulnerable people are often the ones most affected by a crisis. Time was of the essence.
When Canadians lost their jobs, lost the income they needed to support themselves and their families, I think it was our duty to respond quickly, and we answered the call.
The localized approach that the government adopted for developing its assistance programs is one that I personally promoted throughout the crisis in my riding of Sherbrooke. It brought a human touch to our crisis management approach. That was a priority for me and my team.
I can tell you that we were busy. We were there for our constituents day after day. We helped Sherbrooke residents who were stuck abroad because their flights were cancelled. We helped local businesses find the resources they needed to stay afloat and keep their workforce on the payroll. We also helped constituents who were losing their jobs keep paying the bills and buying groceries.
That is the spirit of the second foundation of the Speech from the Throne: helping Canadians through the pandemic. We have already started.
As the parliamentary secretary for economic development, I had the opportunity to be in regular contact with representatives from economic sectors, to take their sectors' pulse during this crisis and keep the government informed.
Over the past few months, I have spoken to several dozen community futures development corporations, or CFDCs. I was able to get a real-time look at the challenges faced by the businesses they support. These conversations helped us learn about the reality on the ground and adjust the programs we were putting in place, so we could expand them where the needs were greatest.
Take, for example, the Community Futures regional relief fund, which injected $962 million into our SMEs when they needed it most. Of that amount, $70 million was distributed through the CFDC network, and any funds remaining at the end of the program will stay within the network. This funding will double the number of businesses that can be helped by the CFDCs.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention the extraordinary work of the CFDC network's team, including special advisor Hélène Deslauriers, who reminded us of the huge impact that small businesses have on many communities.
She also pointed out that the RRRF helped save a number of businesses that were in danger of going under. This program is just one of many we created, such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which saved many businesses from bankruptcy. This subsidy also enabled millions of workers to stay on the payroll so that they could return to work more quickly as the economy recovered. When the business community asked us to extend the subsidy, we listened, and we reinvested in Canadian businesses. The subsidy will be extended until next summer.
Faced with the uncertainty caused by such a crisis, our response needs to be bold, inclusive and pragmatic. According to forecasts from the Business Development Bank of Canada, our measures will help restore most of the jobs that were lost. The best measure for keeping businesses afloat is to have customers come knocking. Seeing our little neighbourhood shops and beloved small businesses reopening safely is good for the economy and especially vital for our cities and regions. We need to help our businesses adapt and innovate in order to get back up and running as soon as possible. I mention innovation as a solution, because I had a chance to see what an impact it can have.
One thing that kept coming up as I visited businesses in Quebec was the importance of innovation and the power of science as an economic driver. Innovation is a pillar of local economic growth. It creates good jobs and keeps our businesses competitive and vibrant. I am thinking in particular of the Quantum Institute at the University of Sherbrooke. It will not officially open until the fall of 2021, but it has already contributed to the creation of four start-ups. This type of initiative, bridging the gap between academia and business, will train the highly qualified work force that will drive the economy of tomorrow. By being there for organizations like the Quantum Institute, we can stay competitive in a society that is constantly evolving.
As we mentioned in the throne speech, for innovation to be possible, businesses must have the tools they need to go digital. For many Sherbrooke stores, like Piosa, and restaurants, like O'Chevreuil, that are relying more than ever on online sales, going digital was a turning point. That is the key to making sure all of our industries remain prosperous and competitive.
When our government talks about innovation, we are obviously also talking about green innovation. At the recovery forum that I held here in Sherbrooke, we brought together about a hundred economic stakeholders in order to gather feedback directly from the business community. I was very pleased to see that everyone understood the importance of a green recovery.
During the crisis, I had the opportunity to visit a number of businesses that have introduced innovative technologies. I firmly believe that innovation and the search for new solutions will foster both large and small projects that will help create a greener future for Quebec and Canada, which brings me to the third phase of the throne speech, which is to build back better and seize this opportunity to create a more resilient, more inclusive, greener and fairer Canada.
The fourth pillar is a very simple one: We must stay true to ourselves, true to the Canadian values that guide us. Canada is and always has been a welcoming country. It must remain so. Our country was founded on two official languages, French and English. As a Quebecker, I am proud of the government's commitment to protecting both official languages. Creating the Université de l'Ontario français and overhauling the Official Languages Act are two of the ways we are ensuring the longevity of our two languages.
Lastly, I want to say that yesterday's throne speech heralds a boots-on-the-ground, people-centred approach to protecting Canadians from COVID-19 and helping them during the pandemic. Our approach will make Canada stronger, more inclusive and more resilient.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member spoke a lot about economic development. The only bright spot in the Alberta economy, given the Liberal government has economically developed the energy sector out of existence over the last five years, was the hospitality and tourism industry. This year, my province has taken a complete beating because of the lack of tourism, including at the Calgary Stampede, which had to shut down, with a loss of $500 million to the local economy.
We need to get the hospitality and tourism industry going again. Given that the parliamentary secretary has such an interest in economic development, will she be pressing the Minister of Health to do a feasibility study for pre- and post-arrival COVID testing at airports? Will she be pressing the Minister of Health to find ways to expeditiously and fulsomely review rapid and at-home testing?
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important question.
Indeed, tourism was one of the hardest-hit sectors and it was one of the first to feel the impact. It will take a long time for it to recover from the economic repercussions of this crisis.
From the beginning, our government has been there for the tourism sector, just as it has for all sectors affected by COVID-19, quickly bringing in support measures.
Throughout the crisis, I have maintained direct contact with those on the ground to really understand what was going on with them, and I was very present to assure them that the government would always be there to support them.