House of Commons Hansard #96 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.
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, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
Emmanuel Dubourg Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages entitled “Conference Interpreters: The Cornerstone of Bilingualism in Parliament”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages and all the staff and analysts who did an excellent job on this study of the challenges facing the parliamentary interpretation service in the context of the COVID‑19 pandemic.
To allow greater flexibility in summoning members, we want to table a supplementary report with two amendments. In recommendation 2, we would like to change the wording to “at least 48 hours” for witness participation.
In recommendation 3, paragraph b), we would add this at the end:
...or any equivalent ISO-compliant system approved by the House, failing which it will be up to the committee to decide whether or not to hear the witness without the appropriate equipment.
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑293, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders).
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I introduce, in both official languages, this bill to amend the Criminal Code and make consequential amendments to another act, in relation to interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting four petitions today.
The first petition is a new one and, if members will bear with me, there are a number of different elements to it. It highlights the situation in Burma and calls for engagement by the Government of Canada.
In particular, the petition highlights a number of needs and issues. It calls on the government to suspend high-level political contact with Burma and not recognize the junta State Administrative Council as legitimate government. It calls for the imposition of sanctions, as well as action in terms of the recommendations of the fact-finding mission to Burma. It calls for engagement with international partners to seek a global arms embargo on Burma. It calls for the suspension of all financial assistance and loans to central government channels, including funding to the peace process through the Joint Peace Fund, and redirecting this aid directly to civil society. It calls for support of all efforts to empower a democratic federal government in Burma that recognizes the legitimate voices and concerns of all the various territories and nationalities.
It also calls for action around cross-border humanitarian assistance to support ethnic civil society and internally displaced persons, as well as those in Thai-based refugee camps. There are significant concerns that have been raised by the Karen Peace Support Network around more than 3,000 Karen IDPs who have fled into Thailand and the challenges they have received in terms of accessing support from Thai authorities and being given access to humanitarian support. The community wants to see greater engagement from Canada with Thai authorities around supporting Karen and other refugee communities that are in Thailand.
Finally, the petition calls for Canada to renew its multi-year financial commitment to support the Rohingya, which at the time of the preparation of this petition was set to expire on March 20, 2021.
This petition, in general, reflects the concerns of ethnic minority communities in Burma who are seeking to work constructively with the majority community to advance democracy and at the same time have some specific concerns about the future of the country and ensuring that all communities are heard and respected.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting is with respect to Bill C-6, the government's bill on conversion therapy.
The petitioners are supportive of efforts to ban conversion therapy but are calling on the government to fix the definition to address the reality that poor drafting in the definition would lead to many unintended consequences, consequences that the government has verbally denied will actually be consequences. However, a close reading of the details of the legislation leaves petitioners very concerned, and they are looking for greater clarity from the government on the language of the bill.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, the third petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill currently before the Senate, but which I am hopeful will be before the House of Commons very soon.
This bill would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without the consent of the person it was taken from. It would also create a mechanism by which someone could be deemed inadmissible to Canada due to involvement in forced organ harvesting and trafficking.
The petitioners want to see this Parliament pass Bill S-204 as soon as possible, noting that it has been over 10 years that various members of Parliament from various parties have been working on getting a legislative initiative like this moving forward.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, the fourth and final petition highlights the human rights situation in Ethiopia.
The petitioners are concerned about the situation in Tigray, as well as other regions. The petitioners call on Canada to be more engaged with the situation, working to end all violence and address the underlying causes of violence, to address humanitarian issues, to support independent monitoring, to call for international investigations into credible reports of war crimes and gross violations of human rights, and to engage directly with the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments around the conflict in Tigray and other human rights challenges in the region.
Finally, the petitioners want to see the Government of Canada support short-, medium- and long-term election monitoring in Ethiopia.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I want to remind the hon. members presenting petitions that the key words we want to concentrate on are “concise” and “precise”. Just keep it to a minimum, so that you get your point across and it does not go on much longer.
The hon. member for Beaches—East York.
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today.
The first is e-petition 2997. The petitioners note that animals in puppy mills are kept in cramped, filthy conditions with no opportunity for exercise, socialization or veterinary care. They describe really cruel conditions. They call upon the Government of Canada to ban the operation of puppy mills in the entire country.
The second petition is e-3063, on mink farming. The petitioners note that the plight of millions of mink in Europe has been highlighted in the news around the world due to mink being culled after the spread of COVID on mink farms between mink and between mink and humans. They again note the cruelty on farms, but really draw the connection to one health approach and the interconnectedness between humans, animals and our environment. They call upon the Government of Canada to ban the farming of mink in the entire country.
The third petition, e-3096, is also related to fur-farming. Again, it notes that fur-bearing animals are intensely farmed and killed for their fur every year in Canada, that agencies provide public funding to the fur farms sector despite industry decline, that UNEP has listed “unsustainable agricultural intensification” and “increased use and exploitation of wildlife” as two of the seven factors driving the emergence of zoonotic diseases. The petitioners call for the Government of Canada to introduce a nationwide ban on fur-farming for all species of animals.
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Speaker, finally, e-petition 3022 is on food policy. The petitioners note that Canada's current food system, including how our food is produced, processed, procured, distributed, consumed and disposed of, is not aligned with the Canada food guide and the food policy for Canada and is jeopardizing the health of millions of Canadians. They note that during the pandemic, when food security is top of Canadians' minds, it is imperative that Canadians have access to an abundance of affordable and healthy plant-based food.
The petitioners, supporters of Nation Rising, call upon the Government of Canada to direct a minimum of $390 million over three years, which is 10% of the funding allocated to supply-managed animal agriculture industries in 2019, to operationalize the Canada food guide and the food policy for Canada, including relevant funding to implement a national school food program and overhaul Canada's food system to a plant-based one.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually this morning to present a petition on behalf of many of my constituents. It relates to what, at the time the petition was written, was the prospective purchase by the Government of Canada of what was then known as the Kinder Morgan pipeline, now Trans Mountain. Many of the points I have reviewed in the petition are still relevant, such as that it is still the case that there is no proven way to clean up a spill involving bitumen diluted with diluents, a substance called dilbit.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to cease any financial expenditures to promote the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline and especially its construction across unceded indigenous lands.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege today to table a petition on behalf of petitioners from Port Alberni. They are concerned about a Health Canada file that is open right now for a medical marijuana facility at 7827 Beaver Creek Road in Port Alberni. It is a Walmart-size cannabis facility that would be located right across the street from Kackaamin, a first nations family trauma and addictions healing centre, which is doing great work of healing from our shared history of colonialism and residential schools.
Kackaamin has never been consulted in the initial planning of this facility and has requested that this facility be located elsewhere. The petitioners cite that the purpose of the Cannabis Act is “to protect public health and public safety”. They also cite that the Government of Canada has commitments to reconciliation, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.
The petitioners call on the Minister of Health to acknowledge the implicit racism in the policy choices of Health Canada's cannabis licensing process and handling of this file and adhere to the purpose of the Cannabis Act and the principle of reconciliation. They would like the minister to expedite review of this file and cancel all cannabis licences and applications at this site, at 7821 Beaver Creek Road, apologize to Kackaamin and reaffirm the government's commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.
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 would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
The House resumed from May 5 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.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
When the House last took up debate on this motion, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby had 15 minutes remaining in his time for his remarks, and then of course the usual 10 minutes for questions and comments. We will go to him now.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I say again in appreciation this morning that I am speaking from the traditional territory of the QayQayt First Nation and the Coast Salish Peoples.
Yesterday, I mentioned that this pandemic had been a tale of two countries: one is a country where billionaires have seen their wealth increase by $78 billion and where banks received $750 billion in liquidity supports, and the other is a country where people are struggling.
That is the fundamental issue we have to think about as we implement the budget through the passage of Bill C‑30.
I spoke yesterday about the impacts of this pandemic. I spoke of businesses closing their doors forever. These are small community businesses, family-run businesses and community businesses that struggled to maintain themselves during the pandemic. I spoke about the front-line workers, health care workers and first responders, all of whom have shown incredible tenacity and courage while going about their jobs of making sure as many lives are preserved as possible through this pandemic. We mourn the 24,000 Canadians who have died so far in this pandemic.
I also spoke yesterday, and want to engage today, on what has happened to the vast majority of Canadians through this pandemic. The government, through Bill C-30, is basically doing a victory lap. It is saying, even as this third wave crashes upon our shores, that we need to scale back on supports that are given to Canadians.
This contrasts vividly with the remarkable speed with which the government stepped in, within four days of the pandemic hitting, and provided the banking sector with $750 billion in liquidity supports. The government's first priority, coming through the pandemic, was to make sure that bank profits were maintained. That is a source of shame that should last for the entire government mandate.
However, to the credit of Canadian democracy, in a minority Parliament the NDP caucus was able to shift the government's priority from banks and billionaires to putting in place programs that would make a difference for people. These included the emergency response benefit, support for students, support for seniors and support for people with disabilities, which I will come back to because it is full of holes and simply inadequate to meet their needs, as are many of the programs that we forced the government to put into place. We also forced the government to ensure sick leave and put in place a wage subsidy to maintain jobs and maintain businesses. We also fought and pushed for rent relief for small businesses.
All of those things came as a result of NDP pressure. In a minority Parliament, thankfully because of the strength of Canadian democracy, we were able to bring that about. The reality is that there are two countries: one of banks and billionaires, and another of everyone else, where we know that the majority of Canadians are within $200 of insolvency in any given month and we continue to see Canadians struggling to make ends meet, to put food on the table and keep roofs over their heads. The growing number of homeless people across our country is a testament to the impact of the pandemic and the inadequacy of the government response.
What does Bill C-30 do? As I mentioned earlier, it basically does a victory lap on all of those supports that the NDP forced the government to put in place. Regarding the response benefit, we see a dramatic cut in July. That is within a few weeks. As this third wave crashes on our shores, we see the government moving to dramatically slash emergency supports. We see that the wage subsidy and rent relief are all going to be phased out over the course of the summer, starting within a few weeks' time, at the very worst time in the pandemic.
We spoke last night about the crisis in Alberta, which is now the worst-hit jurisdiction in all of North America. At this critical time, the government says its job is done, its mission is accomplished and it is going to start withdrawing those supports.
We add to this the impact of government policies, for example CRA going after Canadians who were victims of fraud. We have seen over the past few years numerous cases, including with Desjardins, in which private information was leaked out, and fraudsters used it to apply for CERB in people's names. CRA is demanding repayment from people who never received payments in the first place.
Members will recall that last June the government wanted to go even further. It wanted to put people in jail if somebody else used their private information and defrauded the public. Fraud is a serious issue. The government should have put in place systems to prevent that, but the government overreach of asking people who were victims to pay back moneys they never received is unbelievable. That is how the government is reacting to ordinary people.
What has it done at this unprecedented time? This is the first crisis in Canadian history where the ultra-rich have not been asked to pay their fair share. Through World War II, Canada put in place an excess profits tax and wealth taxes to ensure that, because we were all in this together, everybody had to pay their fair share. Coming out of World War II, after vanquishing Nazism and fascism, we had the wherewithal to make unprecedented investments that led to the most prosperous period in Canadian history. These were investments in housing, education, health care and transportation.
What has happened this time? What has the current government done through this pandemic? It has basically given a free ride to the ultra-rich. Canadian billionaires, who have received over $78 billion in increased wealth, are not being asked to chip in or pay their taxes. There is no wealth tax, even though the PBO estimates that would bring in $10 billion a year. There is no pandemic profits tax, even though the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates it would create $8 billion. That would be enough to eliminate homelessness in our country and ensure the right to housing, a roof over every single Canadian's head, yet the government refuses to do any of that.
The government did put a symbolic luxury tax in place, which is less than 1¢ for every dollar the PBO believes would be raised for the public good if a wealth tax were put into place. Curiously, that is one little symbolic gesture that the Liberals love to wave. They put a tax on yachts, so that means they are taking care of massive inequality, but it is not even in Bill C-30. What we actually see is a shell game. It is smoke and mirrors, with a tiny symbolic luxury tax of less than 1¢ for every dollar that a wealth tax would bring in, and that is not even on the government's radar screen.
It made the commitment and the promise, but as we have seen with so many other promises by the Liberal government, it is simply not worth the paper it is printed on. To reference previous broken promises, we just need to point to public universal pharmacare. Canadians have been waiting on its repeated promises for over 25 years. Regarding child care, we are told this time that the Liberals really mean it, but there are nearly 30 years of broken promises. Regarding boil-water advisories, there is over a decade of broken promises. The government says it really wants to tackle inequality. That is very rich, given that it has not done that either in the budget or in the budget implementation act.
The proposed act includes some curious and somewhat bizarre measures. For example, the budget implementation act acknowledges the increasing poverty of seniors, but says that seniors are only in this crucial poverty over the age of 75. Seniors from 65 to 74 would not get an OAS top-up, but seniors over 75 would. Poverty impacts all seniors, and for the government to discriminate is unacceptable. Also, the government acknowledges that students are having a tough time throughout this pandemic and would waive loan interest payments, but it is still forcing students to pay the principle. Students have to pay their loans back despite having to struggle through the pandemic.
I mentioned earlier the issues for people with disabilities who have struggled unbelievably throughout this pandemic. The NDP fought, not once or twice, but half a dozen times to finally get a one-time payment of $600 for a third of people with disabilities. Of all the fights that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, it is the one for people with disabilities that the government resisted the most. Contrast this with the $750 billion given to the Bay Street banks in the blink of an eye. In four days, the government weighed in to maintain bank profits. However, of people with disabilities, who are struggling through this pandemic, who are half of the people who line up at food banks every week and who are many of the homeless in this country, one-third were given a one-time $600 payment. What does Bill C-30 reserve for them? The government has decided that it will do a three-year consultation to figure out whether people with disabilities really have any needs to be met. These people are being asked to wait three years, but it took four days for the government to weigh in with a $750 billion liquidity support bailout package. It is unbelievable, unacceptable and irresponsible.
Members might ask if there are any elements in the budget implementation act that I support. This government, which is so tired and so prone to spinning and acting rather than actually doing what comes with being the government, was struggling for inspiration. I gather somebody in the Prime Minister's Office discovered that they could be inspired by the 2015 NDP election platform. Tom Mulcair went to the public with a commitment for universal child care and a commitment to raise the federal minimum wage. Members will recall that the Prime Minister and Liberals at the time mocked the NDP for bringing these things forward. Well, that is the only thing that has inspired this government now. After six years of failure, the Liberals discovered that maybe the NDP election platform for 2015 was good and copied some of its elements. Now, in good faith, we say to the government let us get going on a minimum wage and let us get going on child care. We are here to make sure these things happen. We do not want this to be yet another empty Liberal platitude and another empty Liberal broken promise. We want to work with this government to make those things realities and not just other commitments or promises that it breaks for a quarter of a century, which has been the history of Liberal governments.
My final point is this. We do not see any real response to the crisis in housing affordability. It was Liberals who ended the national housing program, and they have yet to respond in any meaningful way. We also see the tragic, broken commitment to indigenous peoples and dozens of indigenous communities who do not have safe drinking water, and this government is now putting off any commitment to end the dangerous situation of boil-water advisories for another half decade. What message does that send to indigenous people, and what message does that send to indigenous children?
Bill C-30 has elements showing that the Liberals were able to copy the NDP platform from 2015. They should be inspired more from what the NDP is putting forward today, resolve these issues on behalf of Canadians and end the appalling levels of inequality that we are seeing in this country.
Larry Bagnell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)
Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the hon. member. Often, budgets do not have a lot for NGOs and charitable organizations. As I have done a lot of work in that area, I am very pleased that there are a number of items for them in this budget, which I hope the member supports. They include the community services recovery fund of $400 million; the Canada community revitalization fund of $400 million; the $220-million social finance fund, which is a very creative way of funding socially progressive businesses; and a second tranche for the investment readiness program because the first $50 million ran out. We are also looking at the inventive idea of government social impact bonds and making NGOs and charities eligible for the SBF.
I was very pleased that those were in the budget, and I hope the member was as well.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I like my colleague very much and I know that he is well meaning. However, we have been speaking about the tens of billions of dollars that the government refuses to collect. Every year, $25 billion goes to overseas tax havens. That means that over the course of the last five years, the government has refused to collect $125 billion from overseas tax havens. A pandemic profits tax would mean $8 billion. Issuing a wealth tax would mean $10 billion a year, each and every year.
The member talks about a few million here or a few million there for the charitable sector, but we should contrast that with what Canadians are living through: People with disabilities are struggling to make ends meet; there is growing a number of homeless people in this country; and 55% of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency. Despite this, we have no public universal pharmacare, no right to housing and a vague commitment on child care that the government has not followed through with yet. All of these things are needed, and there are billions of dollars that the government is refusing to collect from the ultrarich in this country.
Am I happy that a few million dollars have been given to the charitable sector? I am not unhappy about that, but it does not meet the needs of Canadians. It does not mean that an indigenous child has—
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the member's comments regarding day care. Day care is largely under provincial jurisdiction, and the Liberals have promised it in every federal election up until 2006. Unfortunately, the federal government is running most of its expenses now with structural deficits that are mostly on the credit card.
Given these facts, would the member not agree that it would be easier to go to his provincial government, which is NDP in British Columbia, to work toward a day care system that is modelled after the system in Quebec or in any other province? They could use that as a basis for getting started, rather than using a one-size-fits-all “Ottawa knows best” day care solution that will see little to no flexibility for shift workers or students, and will not have the ability to reach people to a large extent in rural communities.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, first off, the member is citing an area where the Conservatives are very contradictory. The Conservatives say they support our public health care system, which is also in provincial jurisdiction, and universal health care, resulting from the work of Tommy Douglas and the NDP, is something that all Canadians accept. There is massive support across the country; it is our proudest institution. Putting into place universal access to child care and early childhood education has the same fundamental benefits. Yes, it has to be negotiated with the provinces. There needs to be standards and the funding needs to come from the federal government.
That brings me to his second point about structural deficits. The Conservatives, over their decade, left $250 billion in overseas tax havens. The Liberals have done, in their half-decade or more, about half of that. We therefore see in both parties a refusal to make the ultrarich and profitable corporations pay their fair share. If we have deficits in this country, it is because we have had poor financial managers, whether they were Conservative or Liberal.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.
I was pleased to hear him talk about our two counties because that is what the Bloc Québécois has been saying for a long time now, since our party was created.
That being said, I was surprised to hear him describe the post-World War I and post-World War II experience in a positive light. Ottawa took that opportunity to create taxes and resume taxation, which was supposed to be left to the provinces. That seems similar to what we are experiencing right now and it shows Ottawa's tendency to take over more and more powers every time there is a crisis. The federal government is launching a gluttonous operation to centralize power, just as we saw following the Patriotes' rebellion and the 1980 and 1995 referendums.
In the budget, the federal government infringes on the provinces' jurisdictions and is making funding cuts so that it does not have to increase health transfers. That means that the provincial governments' jurisdictions are getting smaller and smaller, and there provinces are now being reduced to mere administrators. That problem could have been remedied had the House adopted the Bloc Québécois's amendment to the amendment, which sought to increase health transfers.
The member voted in favour of our amendment to the amendment, and I thank him for that. Why did most of his colleagues, including his leader, vote against our amendment to the amendment?