House of Commons Hansard #103 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debt.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 40(1) of the Access to Information Act, a report from the Information Commissioner entitled “Access at Issue: Challenging the Status Quo”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-China Legislative Association and the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting their participation at the 28th annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum in Australia from January 13 to 16, 2020, as well as the report of the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting its participation at the co-chairs' annual visit to Japan, in Hiroshima and Tokyo, Japan from February 11 to 15, 2020.
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, entitled “Economic Recovery in Canada's Forestry Sector: Green and Inclusive”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today of presenting to this House the dissenting report from the Conservative Party, the official opposition, on the forestry study that was undertaken by the natural resources committee.
I am proud to point out the importance of making sure we have a forestry strategy going forward that does take advantage of Canada's position in the world to actually mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and put forward an actual plan for planting two billion trees, which has been long on talk and short on action or planning at this point in time.
We also want to make sure that this report takes notice of all the communities and other parties that benefit from the forestry sector and puts an emphasis on their needs, including the need for the government to negotiate a softwood lumber agreement with our largest trading partner, the United States, which has not happened at this point in time. We need to put more focus on that in order for this industry to prosper.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the 17th report, entitled “Canada Emergency Response Benefit”, and the 18th report, entitled “Pandemic Preparedness, Surveillance, and Border Control Measures”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.
Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, regarding the main estimates 2021-22.
The committee has considered the estimates referred by the House and reports the same back without amendment.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, during the debates on Wednesday, May 26 and Monday, May 31, 2021, on the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and, within each 15-minute period, each party may allocate time to one or more of its members for speeches or for questions and answers, provided that, in the case of questions and answers, the minister's answer approximately reflect the time taken by the question, and provided that, in the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allocated may speak one after the other.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
Hearing none, it is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed will please say nay.
Hearing no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
Presenting petitions, the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Mr. Speaker, illicit drug production, distribution and use is occurring within the village of Cache Creek. The COVID-19 pandemic has been overshadowed by the opioid crisis in British Columbia, with more than 1,500 overdose deaths reported in 2020. Residents' calls, messages and pleas to municipal authorities and local law enforcement are regularly met with indifference or incapacity due to jurisdictional issues.
Residents are fearful of retaliation from criminal organizations. They are fearful that they or their children could be exposed to drugs or other noxious substances. They are fearful for the future cohesion of their communities. Residents want to feel safe and secure in their own homes.
Therefore, the citizens of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon who signed this petition call upon the Government of Canada to collaborate constructively, measurably and tangibly with municipalities, local law enforcement agencies and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to root out and shut down illegal drug production in Cache Creek.
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present today, in both official languages, a petition to sanction corrupt Chinese officials from using Canada as a safe haven.
This petition I present to the House today has been signed by constituents of Calgary Midnapore who are calling for the government to implement the Magnitsky Law against individuals in China's Communist Party who have orchestrated the torture and killing of Falun Gong practitioners.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting three petitions to the House today.
The first petition is with respect to Bill C-6. The petitioners note that conversion therapy has historically referred to the degrading action of changing a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. They say these practices are wrong and should be banned.
The petitioners note further that Bill C-6 defines “conversion therapy” as:
...a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change a person’s gender identity or gender expression to cisgender or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender expression.
The petitioners note that this definition is very broad and would apply the label “conversion therapy” to a broad range of practices, including counselling or advice from parents, teachers and counsellors that seeks to encourage an individual to reduce sexual behaviour in a particular context.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to amend Bill C-6 to address concerns about the definition and ensure that the bill bans conversion therapy and does not ban conversations that have nothing to do with conversion therapy.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting is similar to the one just presented by my colleague from Calgary Midnapore.
The petition highlights the human rights abuses taking place in China, particularly targeting Falun Gong practitioners. It calls on the Government of Canada to respond more forcefully to these and other human rights abuses taking place in China, including using the Magnitsky act and holding individual human rights abusers accountable with Magnitsky sanctions that freeze assets and would bar entry into Canada.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, the third and final petition I am presenting this morning is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that has been unanimously adopted by the Senate and is now before this House. The bill would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without consent. It would also create a mechanism by which people could be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they are involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking.
Bill S-204 is the same bill, in an identical form, as Bill S-240, which passed in this House unanimously in the last Parliament. Bill S-204 has unanimously passed in the Senate twice. It has unanimously passed in the House. It has passed in both chambers in identical form.
The only remaining step is for this House, in this Parliament, to again pass the bill in the same form it was passed in the last Parliament so we can finally take this vitally necessary step for Canada to fight back against the horrific practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Expression used during Oral Questions—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I would like to make a statement concerning an expression used recently during Oral Questions, which has become the subject of multiple points of order.
As members know, points of order cannot be raised during Oral Questions, but are instead brought up at the end of question period. While it can be challenging for the Chair to make on-the-spot decisions regarding language during the quick exchanges, the Speaker can intervene when appropriate, particularly in cases of disorder or when unparliamentary language is used.
After the point of order raised on May 12 by the opposition House leader, I undertook to review the transcripts and return to the House.
The opposition House leader argued that it was unparliamentary for the Prime Minister to use the phrase “deliberately misleading Canadians” in describing the position of the official opposition caucus. He noted that the use of words such as these has been found unparliamentary in the past. Indeed, similar language has given rise to objections before.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 624, and I quote:
In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking, the person to whom the words at issue were directed, the degree of provocation, and most important, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.... Although an expression may be found to be acceptable, the Speaker has cautioned that any language which leads to disorder in the House should not be used.
Of particular importance in this case, it also states, on the same page, and I quote:
Expressions which are considered unparliamentary when applied to an individual Member have not always been considered so when applied “in a generic sense” or to a party.
That being said, the comments made on May 12 were not directed at a particular individual. However, it is not helpful for members to make accusations using inflammatory language. It only invites a response in kind, leading to an overall lowering of the tone of our proceedings. The Chair has often reminded members of the need to be respectful in their exchanges and to maintain a certain degree of civility. It is possible to disagree, even forcefully, on matters of public policy without resorting to accusations of dishonesty or insults.
As we get closer to the summer adjournment, I would strongly encourage all members to find more judicious ways of expressing their disagreements and not resort to rhetoric.
I thank the hon. members for their co-operation in this regard.
Expression used during Oral Questions—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do appreciate your ruling. I do note, however, that in cases where things like this are raised, often members will choose to stand and apologize for what they have done to avoid the Speaker having to make a ruling like this.
The Prime Minister obviously chose not to do that. Are you going to require or request that the Prime Minister make such an apology to the House prior to being able to participate again in the proceedings of this House?
Expression used during Oral Questions—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
Expression used during Oral Questions—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, you seem to have already ruled on that.
Expression used during Oral Questions—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Again, I want to remind hon. members that in debate, emotions do run wild sometimes and words come out. This is a very fine line, naming a group or a person. Even then, and I think I have brought this up before, in the chamber, when members throw something out, they can expect something back. It is not always easy in the chamber to hold back, and sometimes things slip out. I implore all members to please be careful with what they are saying.
Expression used during Oral Questions—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to thank you for keeping everything calm. This has been a very tense session. I think you have done an excellent job so far. I am sure you will give me some leeway in the future if I stray off the beaten track that I try to stay on every day.
Expression used during Oral Questions—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
The Chair occupants do use their judicious judgment on checking out what is going on. I have full confidence in their abilities and I hope the hon. members have faith in mine.
The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, which implements certain provisions of budget 2021.
As everyone knows, it is a mammoth and extremely dense bill that contains a wide range of measures. We unreservedly support some of these measures, which we would like to see implemented even if we vote against the budget.
This part of the bill seeks to extend COVID-19 assistance programs, which although not perfect are nevertheless essential, until September. These include the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy. Many businesses that have suffered badly over the past year rely on those programs. Considering how important predictability is in business, of course we are pleased that entrepreneurs will have a clear idea of the programs available to them over the coming months. However, the amounts allocated will decrease gradually throughout the extension period.
However, there is one little thing worth noting. The bill gives the Minister of Finance the power to extend the programs until November 30, 2021, through regulation, without having to go through the legislative process. I believe I am right in thinking and safe in saying that this measure is an insurance policy in case the House is dissolved for a fall election, which would prevent it from enacting a law that would extend the wage subsidy beyond September 27, 2021. I will let my colleagues read between the lines to determine when the government expects the House to resume.
We are particularly pleased that, instead of paying taxes in the year that they received a government assistance cheque and getting a credit in the year that they reimburse the amount, as is currently the case, under Bill C-30, taxpayers will not have to pay taxes on any government assistance that they reimbursed. Those who have just completed their 2020 income tax return could end up paying taxes on the amounts they received through the Canada emergency response benefit. However, even if the government asked them to pay back those amounts, under Bill C-30, any reimbursements made this year make the cheques received last year tax-free.
Another piece of good news is the creation of a hiring subsidy program, which will be in effect from June 6 to November 20, 2021. That program is offered to businesses restarting their activities and hiring or rehiring employees. I am also pleased that taxes will finally be imposed on Internet products and services and Airbnb rentals, which will put an end to the unfair competition that we have strongly criticized.
I would also note the new Canada-wide child care program, even though it is part of a general trend of interference and federal centralization. Fortunately, there is mention of a possible asymmetrical agreement with Quebec and the federal budget statement repeatedly touts the child care system. However, there needs to be assurances that this agreement will translate into full compensation with no strings attached for Quebec for its share of the total cost of the program. Since this federal government likes to interfere in matters that are not under its jurisdiction, I would like to note that family policy and related programs are exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Bill C-30 provides for a one-time payment of just over $130 million to the Government of Quebec to harmonize the Quebec parental insurance plan with the Employment Insurance Act. Since the eligibility criteria and benefit period for EI have been temporarily modified and increased, Quebec has the right to opt out with financial compensation with respect to the maternity and parental benefits program.
However, Bill C-30 also lays the foundation for a Canadian securities regulation regime, which the Bloc Québécois and Quebec strongly oppose. This bill provides for a significant increase to the budget of the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office, so it is not a stretch to conclude that Ottawa wants to strip Quebec of its financial sector. I remind members that the office was created in 2009, and its purpose is to create a single pan-Canadian securities regulator in Toronto. Bill C-30 authorizes the government to make payments to the transition office in an aggregate amount not exceeding $119.5 million, or any greater amount that may be specified in an appropriation act.
Although the Supreme Court ruled on a number of occasions that securities were not under federal jurisdiction, Ottawa finally got the green light in 2018 to interfere in this jurisdiction provided that it co-operate with the provinces and not act unilaterally. History has taught us to be cautious in such situations.
This plan to create a national securities regulator in Toronto is bound to result in regulatory activities transitioning out of Quebec. I will note that the unanimity we have seen in opposition to this bill in Quebec is rather remarkable. All political parties in the Quebec National Assembly, business communities, the financial sector and labour-sponsored funds are against this bill. The list of those who have vehemently expressed their opposition to this initiative includes the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, Finance Montréal, the International Financial Center, the Desjardins Group and Fonds de solidarité FTQ, as well as most Quebec businesses such as Air Transat, Transcontinental, Québecor, Metro, La Capitale and Molson.
This plan is just bad and must never see the light of day. Contrary to what members opposite are saying, this is more than just a dispute over jurisdictions or a new conflict between the federal government and the provinces. This is quite simply a battle between Bay Street and Quebec. It is an attack on our efforts to keep head offices in the province and preserve our businesses.
Keeping the sector's regulator in Quebec ensures that decision-makers are nearby, which in turn enables access to capital markets for businesses. A strong Quebec securities regulator is essential for the development and vitality of the financial sector. In Quebec, the financial sector accounts for 150,000 jobs and contributes $20 billion to the GDP. That is equivalent to 6.3%. Montreal is the 13th largest financial centre in the world.
A strong financial hub is vital to the functioning of our head offices and the preservation of our businesses. It is a well-known fact that businesses concentrate their strategic activities, in particular research and development, where their head offices are located. This new attack on Quebec's jurisdictions risks having us go the route of the branch plant economy, to the detriment of Ontario.
This potential exodus of head offices could have serious consequences on every level of our economy, since Quebec companies tend to favour Quebec suppliers, while foreign companies in Quebec rely more on globalized supply chains. Just imagine the impact that can have on our network of SMEs, particularly in the regions. As we have seen during the pandemic, globalized supply chains are fragile and make us very dependent on other countries. We will not stop fighting against this plan to centralize the financial sector in Toronto.
We will also keep calling out the government for ignoring the demands of the Quebec National Assembly and the provinces and refusing to increase health transfers from 22% to 35%. As we know, the government is ignoring the will of the House of Commons, since a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to substantially and permanently increase federal transfers to the provinces was adopted in December 2020.
The government could well have taken advantage of the fact that the deficit announced in budget 2021 was lower than expected, by $28 billion, which is exactly how much Quebec and the provinces are asking for. With massive spending on the horizon, it is clear that by refusing to increase transfers, the government is making a political choice, not a budgetary choice, to the detriment of everyone's health.
It was a long time coming, but Bill C-30 finally includes the increase to old age security that this government promised during the 2019 election campaign. However, the increase will amount to only $766 per year, or $63.80 per month, and will apply only to seniors aged 75 and over. The increase will not begin until 2022 and is insufficient for seniors and for the Bloc Québécois.
In closing, we will vote in favour of the bill, because we do not want to deprive seniors aged 75 and over of this cheque. We do not want to deprive businesses and workers of the assistance programs they are counting on, but we will continue to fight to ensure that all sectors of Quebec society receive their fair share in a fairer budget in the future.