Debates of April 26th, 2021

(Return tabled)

Question No.552

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

With regard to housing: (a) since 2010, broken down by year, how much insured lending did the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation approve for rental financing and refinancing to real estate income trusts and large capital equity funds; (b) of the insured lending in (a), how much is associated with the purchase of existing moderate-rent assets; (c) broken down by project receiving funding in (a), what is the (i) average rent of units prior to the acquisition, (ii) average rent of units for each year following the acquisition up until the most current average rent; (d) broken down by province, funding commitment status (e.g. finalized agreement, conditional commitment), whether funding has been advanced and type of funding (grant or loan), what is the total funding that has been provided through the (i) National Co-Investment Fund, (ii) Rental Construction Financing Initiative, (iii) application stream of the Rapid Housing Initiative?

(Return tabled)

Question No.553

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

With regard to the government’s contracting of visa application services: (a) on which dates did Public Works and Government Services Canada and Public Services and Procurement Canada each become aware that Beijing Shuangxiong is owned by the Beijing Public Security Bureau; (b) since learning of the ownership structure of Beijing Shuangxiong, what reviews have been conducted in response to this information, and when did they begin; (c) regarding the process that resulted in the awarding of the contract to VFS Global in 2018, (i) how many bids were submitted, (ii) did any other companies win the contract prior to it being awarded to VFS Global, (iii) what was assessed in the consideration of these contracts, (iv) was the Communications Security Establishment or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service involved in the vetting of the contracts; (d) is there an escape clause in this VFS Global’s contract that would allow the government to unilaterally exit the contract; and (e) the government having tasked VFS Global with the creation of digital services, what measures are being taken to ensure that the government is not providing VFS Global with a competitive advantage in future bids?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Labour Dispute at the Port of Montreal

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that I have received a notice of a request for an emergency debate. I invite the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville to rise and make a brief intervention.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the request for an emergency debate is related to the dispute at the Port of Montreal.

Longshoremen at the Port of Montreal have been on strike since this morning. Yesterday, the government gave notice that it would be introducing special legislation before the strike had even begun. Today, the parties are having one last mediation session.

I am requesting an emergency debate to make sure that our government did everything it could before introducing a special bill that would put an end to negotiations and legislate working conditions for the longshoremen. I think there are other potential solutions.

The union has even pointed out many times over the past several days that it would have put an end to all of its pressure tactics had the employer withdrawn two measures that imposed new working conditions. I think solutions can be found if we want to take action. Special legislation is not a solution.

There is a way to debate this issue in the House. We have a major responsibility to ensure that every effort will be made before special legislation is introduced. I am calling for this emergency debate because the government is supposed to introduce that legislation in the coming days, maybe even as early as tomorrow. It is therefore important to first debate in the House the steps that the government could take to guarantee the negotiation of a collective agreement and get everyone back to work. No one wants this dispute, but there are solutions. We cannot accept the introduction of special legislation as a solution because it is not a solution but a sign of failure.

This merits an emergency debate in the House to determine how to act with equanimity on this issue. I am rising now under the provisions of Standing Order 52 because I know there is a particular time to do so. I am asking that the emergency debate be held as soon as possible because special legislation could be introduced in the very near future.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville for her remarks, but I do not find that the request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders.

Taking of Screenshot of Parliamentary Proceedings—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to make a statement following the point of order raised by the government House leader on April 15 regarding the inappropriate sharing of a screenshot of our proceedings the previous day and the difficult situation the member for Pontiac faced as a consequence.

Measures were taken to inquire as to how the deplorable incident occurred. On Wednesday, April 21, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue stood in the House to admit that it was he who had taken the screenshot and to apologize for his action.

The point of order raised by the government House leader is a serious one. All members of this House should be able to rely on their colleagues and staff to respect each other in conducting themselves in the chamber, whether in person or virtually. It is in everyone's interest that this practice continues to be observed rigorously. As such, the events of that day are a clear breach of our rules and, more important, an affront to the authority and dignity of the House and its members.

You are undoubtedly aware, and my predecessors repeated it on numerous occasions, that it is strictly forbidden for anyone, except photographers authorized by the House, to take photos during our proceedings. There is no need to remind members that the virtual nature of the proceedings of the House and its committees has brought with it many changes and required many adjustments from everyone.

However, that in no way affects the validity of the rule. Respecting the rule has never been more crucial than it is at a time when members are participating in proceedings from their office on the Hill or in their electoral district, or even from their residence. I would add that the ease with which it is possible to share and disseminate information using the tools at our disposal only increases the risk of the rule's being broken. I reminded all members of this at the beginning of the session on September 28 and 29, 2020. The staff members of each party with access to the system that facilitates the virtual deliberations were also informed.

So, the Chair wants to remind all members and everyone with this privileged access that screenshots, photos of a screen and visual recordings of the proceedings of the House or any of its committees, whether open to the public or not, are absolutely prohibited.

I am therefore counting on everyone's collaboration to respect the rules in the new operating environment. As far as the House is concerned and the procedural aspect of this issue, I consider the matter closed.

I thank the hon. members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada needs a Prime Minister who sees where the solutions to our country's challenges truly lie. It is not in the government; it is in the people. It is Canadians who are the problem solvers, the solution makers and the wealth creators, not the government. We need a leader who sees the potential for the greatness of this nation in a free and self-sufficient people, again, not a big, bloated government.

I am grieved by the ongoing patronization of the Prime Minister and so many of his ministers when addressing Canadians as if they are weak and helpless and in need of ongoing supports and handouts from the government, as if they do not have the ability, in and of themselves, to be a creative and strong part of the solution as we move forward. If they would only see Canadian people for who they are and let them do what they are best at doing, generating solutions, solving problems, designing equipment and technology, pursuing innovation, building businesses, creating jobs and securing our future, then we would be headed down a much better path.

Canadians are fair, they are reasonable and they are generous. What they are looking for is a road map. They are looking, first and foremost, for an ethical and competent leader at the helm and then they are looking for a plan, one with decisive action that is outlined, that can be measured and will be followed through on. We need to unleash the power of our workforce and let the ingenuity of the people map a course forward. Canadians want a secure future. They do not want to be handcuffed by an overwhelmingly bloated government or debt load or high taxes. Canadians deserve better than what is currently on offer and they want to be a part of the solution, moving forward.

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

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things that my hon. colleague from Lethbridge said that I want to address before I get to my question. She talked about investments and Canadians' footing the bill. I was disappointed that she was not recognizing that those investments were, indeed, for the benefit of Canadians. She mentioned big, bloated government. I would ask the member to look at her carbon tax program from the Conservatives and how they will tell Canadians how to spend their own money.

The hon. member talked about re-engineering society. Does she see a national child care program as re-engineering society?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians not to worry, that the government would hold their hands, that it had them covered and that it would go into debt so they did not have to.

It is laughable to say that the government will go into debt so Canadians do not have to. Governments do not have their own money. It is not like the Prime Minister was being generous to Canadians, taking from his trust fund and spending on their behalf.

We are talking about a Prime Minister who was taking the credit card that belongs to Canadians, racking it up with hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, and now is going to have to increase taxes and cut back on social programs. That is atrocious. That is terrible leadership. That is not in the best interest of Canadians.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives like to brag about respecting provincial jurisdictions.

My colleague and I both know what is missing from the budget. What is missing is an increase in health transfers to 35% on an ongoing basis. Premier Legault and the premiers of the other provinces have all called for this increase.

The Conservatives say that they are listening to the premiers of Quebec and the provinces and their demands, so I would like to ask my colleague if she agrees that health transfers need to be increased to 35% on an ongoing basis, as called for by the Premier of Quebec and the provincial premiers.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, again, one of the interesting things about this budget is that the Prime Minister actually said that it was his COVID-response budget and that the budget would somehow bring COVID back into a manageable state.

Interestingly enough, not a dime in the budget is put toward a recovery plan that is measured, a recovery plan that is viable, a recovery plan that is substantial in any way.

In addition to not having a plan put forward to Canadians, the Prime Minister has also failed to increase any of the health care transfers that take place with the provinces.

One would think that if the Prime Minister were genuinely concerned about the well-being of Canadians during COVID-19 and wants to see their health and well-being cared for that he would, at a bare minimum, increase the health transfers that take place between the federal government and the provinces.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, in regard to my colleague's presentation, I want to ask her about leadership and patronization.

The member mentioned there was no leadership. It is like the Liberals do not know how. The Prime Minister has had several issues with things like the WE scandal, SNC-Lavalin, the cover-up on defence as well as other issues. It seems like there is an awful lot of drama involved.

I wonder if the member could expand on how that drama is not really leadership and how the Liberal caucus seems to follow along with it.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises a good point around the Prime Minister's leadership. A budget serves a couple of purposes. One, of course, is that it is a financial document that outlines a plan for the country. The other is that it really acts as somewhat of a review of the leader at the helm to determine whether his vision is agreed with.

When it comes to the Prime Minister of the country, Prime Minister Trudeau, what we see is a man who has been—

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

I would remind the hon. member that we do not use names of other members in the House.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, we see that the Prime Minister has been convicted of two ethics violations, and is now being investigated for a third time. That being said, I think Canadians are rightly outraged and upset with his conduct.

Now we find out that it is likely he has been hiding details with regard to sexual assault allegations that were brought forward concerning the Canadian Armed Forces. That is atrocious. It is especially atrocious when the Prime Minister claims to be a feminist, and he will not even stand up for those victims who are a part of the LGBTQ2+ community or are women who served within the Canadian Armed Forces, who have undergone tremendous—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up where the member was referencing leadership. It is hard not to laugh internally when I hear members say, “It's about leadership”. Let me give a good example of what leadership really is.

Just over five years ago when we formed the government, the Prime Minister said that the environment was an important issue for all Canadians. Back then, over five years ago, the Liberal Party of Canada said that we needed to put a price on pollution. For days, weeks, months and years we heard the Conservative party yell from their seats how terrible it was, and that it was a carbon tax. For years this went on. Now, we see that the Conservative Party has adopted the need to have a price on pollution.

Do not get me wrong. I am glad that the Conservatives recognized, on the road to Damascus, the need to change and better reflect what Canadians are thinking, but this is regarding leadership and that vacuum prior. Why did it take the Conservatives five years to recognize what Canadians and the government have been talking about for the last five years? That, to me, is a lack of leadership. It goes beyond the present Conservative leader to speak to the type of leadership that was there with Stephen Harper.

We have seen strong leadership coming from the Government of Canada working with many different stakeholders during a difficult time. It is because we have worked with Canadians, listened to what they had to say and brought in some bold initiatives over the last 12 months that Canada is well positioned to generate jobs into the future and ensure that we can provide the types of programs that Canadians have.

The Prime Minister and my colleagues often talk about building back better, and I can tell members that each and every Liberal member of Parliament is committed to building back better, because we understand—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think the member forgot to mention that he is sharing his time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.