House of Commons Hansard #119 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was bank.

Topics

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from British Columbia. Again, I am very pleased to commend him on his exceptional French. It is truly impressive and it inspires us all to learn the other official language so that we can speak both official languages.

My colleague raises a very good question. Personally, no, I have never seen a situation where national security was the key issue in a decision we had to make here as parliamentarians. I did not see that in the Quebec National Assembly.

My colleague from British Columbia remembers very well what I said a few moments ago in the House, that there is indeed a precedent. It was in 2010, when Speaker Milliken said that, indeed, documents could be made public. We Conservatives were in government at the time, and we had more than a few reservations.

Need I repeat that these were two completely different situations? One involved a war situation in Afghanistan about ten years ago, and now we are talking about unfortunate administrative decisions involving a Canadian government agency and laboratory.

These are two completely different situations that require us to get to the bottom of things. That is what we want to do.

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the interesting debate this evening.

For all the tea in China, no one will convince me that there is no pattern to the Liberal government's behaviour. It has a tendency to hide certain things and has shown a lack of transparency, and even a lack of ethics, in several matters. The recent WE Charity decision comes to mind, but there have been other instances where the government lacked transparency.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on this.

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford. I appreciate the effort she puts into her work here in the House and in her parliamentary duties.

She used the phrase, “for all the tea in China”. I, for one, am not going to make offensive parallels, as the government did in referring to xenophobia, for example.

Being transparent is important, especially for a government that got elected in 2015 by saying that Canada was being obfuscated by the government of the day, that it was going to bring in transparency, that it was going to do everything to be accountable to the public, and so on.

The government just forgot one thing: It no longer remembers what it said in 2015, just as it no longer remembers promising that this was the last time we would have this type of election in our parliamentary system. It also told us that we would run three modest deficits and then achieve a zero deficit. Four years later, the exact opposite is true.

There is one thing, however, that the government did promise—

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Madam Speaker, I was very pleased today to hear the Speaker rule that Parliament does reign supreme. Six years ago, the government said that it would be transparent by default. In fact, as the hon. member was speaking, I was reading the mandate letters of many of the ministers, and every single one of those mandate letters speaks to that. However, what we have seen from the government is a pattern and a history of trying to hide things.

Could the hon. member speak about this pattern, this history and the impact that has not just on our democracy, but on the transparency and accountability of Parliament.

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to pay all my respects to my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil. I deeply appreciate his work as a member of Parliament for his constituents and for what he believes in and fights for. I can assure him that he is a very important key player in each and every decision we have to make in caucus.

This is why we want to address the issue of transparency. Yes, it is important to know what happened in the country, especially when we are talking about laboratories. When the Prime Minister and his party were elected in 2015, we remember them saying they would start a new era in Canada, that Canada was back, that they would be more transparent, be more close with people and they would tell the truth at each and every step of the way.

However, without a shadow of a doubt, six years later we can see so many broken promises, especially the one about transparency, except for one. The Prime Minister said during his campaign in 2015 that he would create a committee for national security. He just missed one thing in his promise. He did not say that at the end of this committee, the veto would be held by the Prime Minister. This is the key element of that decision.

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I certainly learned a lot from the House leader of the opposition's references to the times when Stephen Harper was found in contempt. However, what I find troubling is that he said that it was different back then because lives were on the line and we were in war.

How does he know lives are not on the line now? In fact, he does not know. When he said that, he followed it up by saying he did not know if lives were on the line. Quite simply, why would he be willing to put lives on the line if the possibility exists?

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, the answer is in the hands of the clerk. The clerk is the one who will review documents and will realize if there are some lives in danger. However, let me remind members that in 2010, we were talking about a war zone. I do not think Winnipeg is in a war zone, and I hope the army of a foreign country is not there. If it is, for sure we want to go deep into this situation, but I really hope it is not the case.

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I would typically start a speech by saying how happy I am to be speaking to a particular bill or motion, but I am not going to start my speech this way because, quite frankly, I am not happy to be speaking to this motion and would like to tell the House why.

Canada is in the middle of a global pandemic. The Public Health Agency of Canada is at the forefront of this fight against COVID-19 and doing everything in its power to help Canadians stay safe.

Now, I am getting heckled from members of the other side because they clearly perhaps do not think the Public Health Agency is at the forefront. They are entitled to their opinion, through those heckles, but I would like to take the opportunity to explain to them what the Public Health Agency is doing on the front lines.

When it comes to vaccine distribution, to date this includes sending over 33.8 million vaccines to provinces and territories, with millions more arriving in the weeks and months to come. It includes $284 million in strengthening provincial vaccine distributions.

The Public Health Agency is also assisting with respect to hot spots throughout the country. This includes working closely with provinces and territories to support them in the responsibilities to deliver health care. Through the safe restart agreement, $7.5 billion has been invested to help provinces and territories access the PPE they need. We are also investing in contact tracing and testing to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and increased hospitalizations.

Testing assistance is another thing the Public Health Agency is doing. Canadians have been tested for COVID-19 35,830,746 times, and we continue to have a high rate of testing. We are constantly working with provinces and territories to increase laboratory capacity and the number of tests done per day, and the safe restart agreement has supported provinces to increase their testing capacity.

The Public Health Agency is also supporting direct lab assistance. We have six federal labs that are up and running to support provincial lab capacity by processing an additional 6,000 tests every single day in this country.

On border protection, the Public Health Agency, since March 2020, has deployed its employees to keep our borders secure. More than 180 public health officers are currently present at points of entry across the country. Travellers' quarantine plans are verified upon entry into Canada. We have made up to 4,600 calls every day to verify travellers' compliance with these mandatory requirements, and when needed, cases are referred to law enforcement.

Isolation is another thing the Public Health Agency is assisting with. The safe voluntary isolation sites program is helping more than 15 cities, municipalities and health regions provide safe, accessible places for people who receive a positive COVID-19 diagnosis to self-isolate to keep them and their households safe and prevent community transmission.

While the Public Health Agency is at the forefront of the fight to protect Canadians from COVID-19, the Conservatives want to hold the agency in contempt of Parliament. Why do they want to do this? It is because the Public Health Agency of Canada was not prepared to provide documents that could threaten the national security of Canada without appropriate safeguards.

The Public Health Agency should be spending all of its time and effort right now fighting COVID-19, but instead it has to spend its time fighting self-serving Conservative partisanship. The hypocrisy that comes from the Conservatives is astounding. They claim to be the party of law and order, but they are willing to put the national security of Canada at risk at the first opportunity because they believe it helps their partisan self-interest.

Conservatives want to distract the Public Health Agency of Canada from fighting the pandemic because it is good for the Conservative Party. This is pathetic. This shows the true colours of the Conservative Party under the leadership of this Leader of the Opposition.

We do not deny that the House has the power to order documents. However, just because we can do something, that does not mean we should. It might come across as a cliché, but with that great power that we have here does indeed come great responsibility. Conservatives have chosen power without responsibility, for nothing more than a fishing expedition in search of political gain, all at the expense of those who have been supporting us these past 15 months.

As I indicated in my intervention in response to the question of privilege from the House leader of the official opposition, the opposition day motion from the Conservatives lacked any meaningful mechanism to ensure the confidential information contained in the papers ordered to be provided to the public.

The member is now proposing that the Minister of Health table unredacted documents in the House, which means they would become public. Let that sink in for a moment. Conservatives want documents that could threaten the national security of Canada to immediately be made public. How reckless and irresponsible. This is the modern Conservative Party of Canada.

Now let us talk for a minute about what we as a government propose, so that we could ensure that MPs have access to these sensitive documents, while also ensuring that the national security of Canada is protected.

Before I do that, I would like to point out that one of the highest priorities of any government should be to protect information that could harm the national security interests of Canada. This should be the priority, quite frankly, of any party that purports to position itself to be the government in waiting.

While Conservatives like to give themselves fancy titles like “shadow minister” and pretend as if they are ready to govern, they have failed the most basic test of any party that seeks to form government. They are willing to sacrifice the national security of Canada, simply because they can and because they cannot control their innate instincts to overreact and act recklessly when they think it helps their partisan self-interest. I think this tells Canadians all they need to know about the Conservative Party of Canada under the leadership of this leader. They are simply not ready.

The government took a responsible approach to the documents by referring the matter and providing unredacted documents to the national security committee of parliamentarians, given the expertise of the members of the committee in matters of national security.

I would note that there are two Conservatives who sit on that committee. Why the Conservative Party does not trust them is beyond me, but perhaps it should look at replacing them with people it does trust. This approach is similar to what the Conservative government did in 2010 with the Afghan detainee documents.

Providing the unredacted documents to NSICOP respects the balance of interests between the rights of parliamentarians to have access to information and the obligations of the government to protect information related to national security.

As I have stated in the House previously, NSICOP has a broad mandate to review Canada's “legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative and financial framework for national security and intelligence”. It may also review “any activity carried out by a department that relates to national security or intelligence”.

Committee members come from both Houses of Parliament. It is a body that was created by an act of Parliament, by parliamentarians from both the House and the other place. All members hold top-secret security clearance and are permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act. The mandate also states, “Members swear an oath or solemn affirmation indicating that they will obey and uphold the laws of Canada, and not communicate or inappropriately use information obtained in confidence as part of their responsibilities on that committee.”

NSICOP was created for exactly these types of situations and is the appropriate place for the review of these documents. By proceeding in this way, the government has ensured that information that may be injurious to Canada's national interest, that could compromise national security or the privacy rights of Canadians, or that may be related to an ongoing criminal investigation can be protected.

This leads me to my next point: Why? Given that the government chose a responsible approach, similar to the process that the Conservatives used in 2010 for the documents that they released, so that they have access to information while protecting national security, why have Conservatives decided to proceed with this question of privilege? The simple answer is obstruction. They do not want the budget implementation act to move forward, despite the fact that it includes key measures for Canadians.

First is the extension of the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency rent subsidy and the lockdown support, all these, until September 25, 2021. These are due to expire this month unless Parliament approves the extension. Second is the extension of important income for Canadians, such as the Canada recovery benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit. Third is establishing a new Canada recovery hiring program, which would help businesses with the costs of hiring new workers during the recovery. Fourth is an increase in old age security for those over 75, to provide seniors with better financial security when their savings may run out.

Enhancing the Canada workers benefit would mean more money for low-income Canadians. It would support about one million Canadians and lift nearly 100,000 people out of poverty. The budget would also enhance employment insurance sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks. It would establish a $15-an-hour federal minimum wage. It would extend the waiver of interest on federal student loans and apprentice loans to March 2023. It would provide for emergency top-up of $5 billion for provinces and territories, specifically $4 billion through the Canada health transfers to help—

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While I appreciate the hon. member's intervention, we are dealing with the motion related to the question of privilege, so perhaps the member would like to spend time talking about why his government redacted the document and is not being transparent.

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

I have to give the member the leeway to explain why he is making his points.

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I can understand why the Conservatives do not want to hear this. I am telling members why it is that they are choosing this path right now, why they do not want to talk about these things and why the member for Carleton stood up here for 45 minutes on a question of privilege that had nothing to do with privilege. It is because they do not want to debate and discuss these meaningful implementations for Canadians.

This is despite the fact that members of Parliament from all parties in this House have debated this legislation for a combined 22 hours, hearing from more than 160 speakers. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance has studied the bill exhaustively for more than 40 hours, hearing from 132 witnesses, and the minister appeared before the committee to address the members' questions.

The Conservatives are also obstructing because they do not want Bill C-12, the net-zero legislation, to pass. Why do they not want this to pass? It should not be a surprise to anybody that they do not even believe in climate change. Do not take my word for it, Madam Speaker. The member—

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Although I am enjoying this, I find that you have given the member lots of leeway. Could we get him back to, perhaps, where he is going on this? It seems like it is just an attack and not actually talking about the relevance of this motion.

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

On that point of order—

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

No, no, you are speaking. I do not think you have to make a point of order.

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I just want to add briefly to the point of order from the previous member.

The member for Kingston and the Islands frequently rises on points of order with respect to the relevance of other members' comments. I wonder if there is some basis for insisting that he be held to the same standard that he seeks to apply to other members.

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

We are entering the domain of debate here.

I would like to encourage the member to please stick to the subject of discussion.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, before I continue, I just want to make sure that the clock was stopped during that time. I believe the clock continued to run while the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London was talking. I just want to make sure that we will backtrack that.

I do not blame her for trying to interject on me there. When a party does not believe in climate change, it makes sense that any time somebody brought that to anybody's attention, it would want to shut it down. However, the Conservatives—

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

I am rising on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate this, but I find that he continues with the irrelevance of this conversation that he continues to have. If he could get back to it, because he is now absolutely misleading people. I believe in climate change, and I do not feel—

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

I am misleading people? That is not—

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:20 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Hon. member, please. We do not start a debate in the middle of the debate on a question of privilege. I would encourage the member to please go to the question of privilege and speak to it.

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, once again I was interrupted, a second time, because the Conservatives do not believe in climate change. I can understand why this is something that is tough for them to swallow, but the truth hurts sometimes and they are going to have to listen to it. This is what happens when 54% of Conservatives, in their party, say they do not believe in climate change. Members could go back and review the records from their most recent annual convention.

The Conservatives want to obstruct the passing of Bill C-10 which would update our Broadcasting Act to support our cultural sector. They continue to distort and hijack the issue by helping the web giants. The reality is those web giants are taking more of the share of how we listen to our music, watch TV and watch movies. Unless they are brought into the Canadian regulatory framework, then we will lose our cultural sovereignty.

That is precisely why Bill C-10 was brought forward and why we need to ensure that it is adopted. The Conservatives also want—

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:20 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

The member for Abbotsford, on a point of order.

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Madam Speaker, we have had a number of points of order made, all pointing to the fact that this member is not following the rule of relevance. If you wish, I would be glad to read the motion that is before us. It is a motion of contempt against the Liberal government and the Public Health Agency of Canada. That is what we are debating—

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePrivilegePrivate Members' Business

7:20 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

I have asked to consult a table officer on this issue.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on the point of order.