Debates of April 27th, 2021

Labour

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the most vulnerable people in our society continue to be those who get sick and end up dying. Experts agree that improving the federal paid sick leave program would save lives, but the Prime Minister seems content just to sit on the sidelines and not do anything to improve it. The government's own forecasts show that it is sitting on over $4 billion of unspent money in its federal paid sick leave program.

Why will the Prime Minister not stop sitting on the sidelines, show leadership, improve the paid sick leave program and save lives?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we did move forward with federal emergency sick leave as of last year, for two weeks at $500 a week, and we added another two weeks.

The challenge is that the best paid sick leave is that which goes through employers, and we are working on that right now. The Minister of Finance is working with the Province of Ontario to help it bring in sick leave through employers.

At the same time, we brought in federally regulated employer sick leave in September 2019. Unfortunately, the NDP had voted against it in 2018.

COVID-19 Emergency Response

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many countries are beginning to reopen, but the exact opposite is happening in Canada. We are back in lockdown, there are curfews in effect and hospitals are overrun.

We are in this situation because the government is having a hard time procuring vaccines. Only 3% of Canadians have received their second dose. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is saying that he is not going to make any changes to his approach, despite the fact that he could have done a number of things differently to prevent the third wave.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, contrary to what he says, he failed to obtain vaccines on time?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' historical account omits some very key facts.

Vaccine production was ramping up in January and February. We exceeded our targets in the first quarter by 3.5 million doses. We are in the top three for administering vaccines in the G20.

It takes a multipronged approach to combat the virus: vaccination, procurement of personal protective equipment and public health measures.

Health

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, among other things, the Liberal Prime Minister could have done better when it comes to providing a stable, predictable supply of vaccines, enhancing border controls and procuring a sufficient number of rapid tests. Speaking of areas where he could have done better, there is also the budget. In the midst of a pandemic, he is refusing to give the provinces health care transfers with no strings attached. That was the provinces' main demand.

How can the Prime Minister explain the fact that he spends money hand over fist except when it comes time to help our provincial partners with their health care budgets?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, every step of the way we have indeed been there for Quebec, as for all provinces and territories. Whether it was the $19-billion safe restart fund and additional money for mental health and addictions support, or whether it was purchasing all of the PPE, all of the therapeutics, all of the testing and indeed all of the vaccines, we have been there for Quebec and for Quebeckers, and we will not hesitate to be there until we get through this together.

National Defence

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's statement to the media today regarding what he knew about the nature of the allegations against General Vance contradicts everything we have heard so far. Multiple witnesses have testified at the defence committee that the allegations were sexual misconduct. The Prime Minister's staff were copied on emails from the Privy Council Office that specifically stated sexual harassment.

Does the Prime Minister really expect Canadians to believe he knew nothing about the allegations against General Vance?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, our government has absolutely no tolerance for any type of misconduct. That is something on which we have focused.

I find it rich that the leader of the official opposition and the member opposite are bringing this issue up when the Leader of the Opposition knew of issues like this with General Vance, but the previous government made the decision to select General Vance as CDS anyway.

We will take bold action for a culture change. We have a lot more work to do and we will get it done.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. The Prime Minister may say that he stands for women, but his actions show that he is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

His chief of staff knew about the allegations of sexual misconduct against General Vance, his defence minister knew, the entire senior leadership of his department knew, but he did nothing for three years.

Why did the Prime Minister fail to act on allegations of sexual misconduct at the highest level in Canada’s military?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, in this matter, we followed the process that had been laid out by the previous government. I instructed my chief of staff to get in touch with the PMO and the Privy Council Office and they, in turn, to launch and look into this matter. A similar path was done in 2015, again, as I stated, by the leader of the opposition. In terms of taking action, we have outlined an additional $236 million to combat sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

We are taking real action. We know that more work needs to be done and we will get it done.

The Economy

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just as other countries are beating us when it comes to vaccinating their citizens, they are also beating us by giving their economies a shot in the arm.

The U.K. is investing in a massive infrastructure revolution, Italy is unveiling “the mother of” all regulatory reforms and France and Germany are cutting taxes. What did Canada's recent budget do? Run up generational debt, while neglecting strategic investments into long term growth.

Why is the government setting up our economy for post-pandemic failure?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to my friend, his argument is self-defeating. On the one hand, he says we should be spending more. On the other, he says we are spending too much.

The reality is that we have made targeted investments from the very beginning of this pandemic to make sure that businesses could keep their doors open and have workers remain on the payroll. Going forward, our recovery plan is making continued target investments to ensure that more women can take part in the economy, to make sure young people have an opportunity to take part in the economy and, yes, it will also invest in infrastructure to create jobs in communities from coast to coast to coast.

Canadians can rest assured that we have had their backs from the beginning and we will not take our foot off the gas until this recovery is complete.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for Canadians, this budget will not deliver economic growth. The growth we will see is not build back better; it is build back bigger, bigger debt, bigger spending, bigger government. With inflation around the corner, higher interest rates and higher taxes are a real worry for families that cannot afford housing or struggle with debt.

Why does the Liberal government not see the harm it is causing for ordinary Canadians?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We had a bit of a technical glitch. Normally we can hear the question, but I believe the question had a bit of a jitter there.

I will ask the hon. member for Abbotsford to ask the whole question again, please.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for Canadians, this budget will not deliver economic growth. The growth we will see is not build back better; it is build back bigger, bigger debt, bigger deficits, bigger spending, bigger government. With inflation around the corner, higher interest rates and higher taxes are a real worry for families that cannot afford housing or struggle with debt.

Why does the Liberal government not see the harm it is causing to Canadian families?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, if the hon. member is worried we will build back bigger, I can reassure him that we will build back with bigger growth. We will build back with bigger prosperity. We will build back with bigger job numbers. The chief economist at RBC has described the upcoming year as one of profound economic recovery.

The reality is that we have put measures in place that are going to support Canadians through this pandemic and set the stage for a recovery that is robust, sustainable and inclusive. If the hon. member cannot get on board with that plan, then I would suggest he revisit things.

Labour

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

Mr. Speaker, as early as August 17, Quebec's ministers of the economy and of labour wrote to Ottawa to demand that the federal government work on a negotiated solution to the labour dispute at the Port of Montreal. They asked that federal ministers exercise their leadership to help reach a resolution.

What has the federal government done over the last eight months to show leadership before resorting to special legislation?

How many times did the minister meet with the parties?

How many times did Ottawa publicly call for a resolution?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about jobs and economic stability. We are talking about the reputation of the Port of Montreal and the reputation of Montreal itself. We are talking about the economy of the entire province of Quebec. Therefore, we must act.

If the Bloc Québécois does not want to help, it should at least move aside and let us do the work. It is time to “un-Bloc” Quebec.

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

What we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, is leadership. Had there been some leadership, things would have been moving again in Quebec. When they should have been working on that, the Minister of Labour had already thrown in the towel. The media are reporting that the minister was already planning to resort to special legislation and had presented an emergency plan to cabinet more than a month ago.

What did the minister do this past month to resolve the conflict?

What incentives did the parties have to reach an agreement if the federal government had already revealed that it would introduce special legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been collaborating from the beginning. From the outset, we have encouraged discussion, dialogue and a joint solution, but now we are going to take action. For once, the Bloc can make a difference, instead of just talking, talking and then getting upset. It can make a difference by supporting the efforts of the federal and Quebec governments and the whole economy in order to move forward. There are many industries that are asking us to take action. The Quebec government wants to take action.

Will the Bloc listen to the consensus in Quebec and defend Quebeckers' interests or will the Bloc only defend its own interests and abandon Quebec?

Canadian Heritage

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there was quite a turn of events at the heritage committee on Friday during its study of Bill C-10, the broadcasting bill. Quite unexpectedly and without warning, the Liberals took out a major part of the bill, thereby enabling the CRTC to regulate social networks with no clear direction on how that power will be used.

We all know the Liberals do not like criticism, but why do they want to attack freedoms on social media?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an excerpt from the Debates of the House of Commons. On November 18, 2020, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska criticized Bill C-10 when he said, “That is not covered in this bill though. There is nothing in it that would regulate social media or platforms like YouTube.”

I do not understand. One day, the Conservatives tell us we need to regulate platforms like YouTube, and the next, they tell us not to regulate platforms like YouTube.

Would the Conservative Party of Canada make up its mind?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is being misleading by taking things out of context and omitting details. The Liberals keep telling us to listen to the experts. This is what Michael Geist, professor emeritus at the University of Ottawa, is saying. He says that this is the most anti-Internet government in the history of Canada.

What does Peter Menzies, former commissioner at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission have to say? This is a full-blown attack on freedom of expression and the foundation of democracy.

What does the minister have to say to these experts who are questioning his work and his attack against people who use social media and the Internet?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, you will notice like me and every member of this House that the member for Richmond—Arthabaska did not respond to his quote calling on us to intervene with social media. It makes no sense. We have always said that the people who use the platforms would be excluded, not the platforms. That is exactly what we are doing. The platforms that are acting like broadcasters will have to subject to regulation. We have said that from day one and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is misleading the House. Amendments are being proposed that change this legislation from what it was in the fall.

The current government has shown an ever-increasing disregard for the rights and freedoms of Canadians. Under Bill C-10, the Liberals are now wanting to amend the Broadcasting Act to allow for government censorship of video content on social media. According to the minister, it is all about restricting content that “undermines Canada's social cohesion”, but what does that even mean? Soon they will create the ministry of truth, which just sounds like a weird call, let us be honest.

Why is the Prime Minister trampling on the rights and freedoms of Canadians and why is the minister choosing to mislead Canadians?