Debates of June 18th, 2021

Public Safety

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, we witnessed a great, very rare and extremely important moment in the House. The House found the Public Health Agency of Canada in contempt for its failure to provide the documents about the events that occurred at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg and ordered PHAC to produce these documents.

We know that the Prime Minister refused three times to comply with orders of the House to that effect. On Monday, the Prime Minister will have two options: He can obey our laws and regulations, or he can flout them.

What will he do?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, we will not play partisan games with national security. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, in his announcement to pull out of NSICOP, was roundly criticized by a number of security experts, including, for example, Stephen Saideman, Paterson Chair of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. He said the Leader of the Opposition “is earning this level of support with his move of pulling out of NSICOP. Oversight? Why bother when we can grandstand?”

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is precisely because we are committed to national security that we are asking these questions and demanding the truth.

Why did the Public Health Agency of Canada give the highest security clearance to a researcher with ties to the Chinese army?

Why did PHAC give the highest security clearance to two researchers who were marched out of the laboratory by the RCMP?

We want clear answers, and these answers cannot come from just anyone. The answers must come from the government.

What will the Prime Minister do on Monday? Will he table the documents, yes or no?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, let me respond again with some of the criticism that we heard from the national security expert community yesterday after the announcement of the Leader of the Opposition's decision to pull out of NSICOP.

Let us listen to Stephanie Carvin, association professor at Carleton University. She said, “This bulldozer approach to national security is misguided, dangerous and will result in a less transparent system overall.”

What does the Conservative Party want, a transparent safe system for Canadians or partisan gain?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot get over the fact that she said that with a big smile.

The reality is that Canadians need reassurance. As far as I know, the minister is an MP duly elected by the people, and she must comply with the rules of the House of Commons. This is an order of the House, and the government must support it.

The Prime Minister refused three times. Monday is the moment of truth.

Does the Prime Minister respect the House of Commons, yes or no?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, again, as we have said, those documents were fully provided in an unredacted manner to NSICOP, the appropriate committee of parliamentarians to review security documents of this nature.

Let us hear what Thomas Juneau, associate professor at the University of Ottawa said. In regard to the opposition's choice to pull out of NSICOP, he said, “This is a big setback for the parliamentary oversight of intelligence in Canada and, more broadly, for efforts to improve transparency and accountability.” That speaks for itself.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the role of Parliament is to hold the government to account. The National Microbiology Lab saw a significant security issue happen earlier this year, and Parliament needs to determine what happened so that it does not happen again. In order to do that, we need to see the documents that are related to this incident. There have been numerous orders for the government to provide them to Parliament, not to a different committee that is not an official parliamentary committee.

Will the Minister of Health comply with the House order and send Iain Stewart here with the documents on Monday?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, the member knows full well that the unredacted documents are with NSICOP, fully unredacted, for appropriate review to protect national security.

Let us hear more from Thomas Juneau, the associate professor at the University of Ottawa. He said, “What is going on now is several steps above what is normal. The public criticism of NSICOP and the withdrawal of its members damages the confidence and trust that are necessary to its operations.” What a short-term play. Playing games with national security is never okay.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the minister is not accountable to Thomas Juneau. She is accountable to this place.

NSICOP is not an official parliamentary committee and it happens in secret. What is happening here is the government provided documents to that committee so that we could not look at them and we could not fix these issues on behalf of our constituents and the people of Canada. That is wrong and that is why this place is supreme.

I will ask the minister this one more time. Will she comply with the House order and send Iain Stewart here to be admonished with the documents per the motion that was passed yesterday?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, on this side, we will never play games with Canadians' national security and privacy concerns. That is why we have a special committee to review documents of this nature that are sensitive in nature.

If the member of the opposition does not believe me, let us listen to Stephen Saideman, Paterson Chair of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. He said, “The question right now is why is [the Leader of the Opposition] abandoning NSICOP? Its reviews [thus] far have raised important issues and serve as basis of comparison for changes down the road. I think it is short-term stance”. We will not play short-term games for partisan purposes.

Official Languages

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, three days ago, the government introduced a bill to protect the French language.

Three days, just three short days later, we are learning that Ottawa wants to appoint a unilingual anglophone as CEO of the Canadian Museum of History. This sends a very clear message. The federal government is appointing a unilingual anglophone to be in charge of how history is told in Canada.

The worst part is that this appointment is not at a museum in Toronto or a museum in Calgary. It is at a museum in Gatineau. Is the minister aware of the message he is sending, and will he back down?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important question. Since I was appointed, and since forming government, actually, we have recognized the importance of protecting and promoting French in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, as well as the importance of protecting our minority language communities.

The bill we are introducing aims to do just that, and I hope everyone in the House will support it.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, three days after the federal government's big show about protecting French, nothing has changed on the ground.

CBC/Radio-Canada revealed that, in its job posting, the federal government said that fluency in both official languages would be preferable. For a museum in Quebec that serves a large population of Franco-Ontarians and that is supposed to hire employees who speak French, fluency in French is not preferable; it is essential.

After all of the debates we have had this year about the decline of French, how can the federal government still be so negligent?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important question.

The Bloc Québécois does not have a monopoly on love for the French language. I have always worked in French and will continue to do so. It is my language and my identity. It is our history and we are all very proud of it.

The bill introduced by the minister reflects all of that. We are the first government to acknowledge that there has been a decline in French and that we need to do something to protect and promote that language. That is what we are doing and that is what we will continue to do. We are assuming our responsibilities within the limits of our jurisdiction, and I hope that all members will support this bill.

Public Safety

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, land border communities and families have been reeling for more than a year as parents, brothers, sisters, loved ones and even children have been torn apart by restrictions. We all want to keep everyone safe. That is the entire point of family reunification for families and businesses. However, at every turn the Liberals ignore input, fearmonger and never offer solutions. What is worse is that the elite exclusivism and the shroud of secrecy create anxiety and depression.

The NDP proposed an inclusive safe border task force to find solutions and give stakeholders and the public confidence. What is it going to take before the Liberals offer a plan to help Canadians through this ordeal?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, last year we introduced major reciprocal border restrictions with countries like the United States for public health reasons. That was an evidence-based decision to protect the health of Canadians.

We ensure that our border services officers have the most relevant, up-to-date information so they can make quick decisions for citizens who have to cross the border for essential reasons. We will continue to monitor and assess the situation as it evolves, and we will make decisions focused on protecting Canadians from COVID‑19.

Veterans Affairs

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, Roy is a veteran with nine years of service to our country. He left the military with an operational stress injury and applied to VAC for the remedy, but everything went wrong and it kept going wrong. Since 2012, this veteran has been trying to get help. Roy cannot sleep. He cannot hold a job. He has been traumatized by the very department that should be helping him. Roy's file requires a simple but meaningful fix, but his MP and the minister have failed him.

Will his MP and the minister finally stand up for Roy, or will they continue to ignore him hoping he will go away?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, ensuring that our veterans and their families have the mental health support they need is our absolute top priority. I have directed my department to demonstrate maximum flexibility in addressing the urgent mental health needs for veterans and their families. Budget 2021 provides $140 million to cover mental health costs for veterans while they are waiting for their disability benefits application to be processed.

We understand the vital role families play in supporting our veterans, and we will continue to look at way to provide the best possible support for our veterans and their families.

National Defence

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, last night, the majority of the House of Commons voted to censure the Minister of National Defence for his litany of failures. The most egregious thing he has been condemned for is allowing the crisis of sexual misconduct to fester in the military. Referring to the victims of military sexual traumas, Stephanie Carvin, associate professor at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, said the minister failed utterly to protect them or ensure there is any kind of justice for them in over six years of being the defence minister.

Will the Prime Minister fire the defence minister today?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, yesterday shows that the Conservatives are more focused on waging personal and partisan attacks than supporting the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. As opposition members themselves admitted, that vote will do nothing to help our women and men in uniform, including those who have experienced misconduct.

Do members know what would help the women and men in uniform? It is supporting the nearly one-quarter of a million dollars in budget 2021 committed to ending sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. However, the opposition will not do that.

While the Conservatives play partisan games, we are focused on creating a lasting and positive culture change.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the member really wants to help victims of sexual misconduct in the military, she would quit obstructing the national defence committee's work.

There is a growing wave of consensus that the Minister of National Defence is ill-suited to implement the changes needed to end sexual misconduct since he has already failed to protect our women and men in uniform. Military sexual assault survivor Stéphanie Raymond said the defence minister “has missed too many opportunities to act. Unfortunately, he too is part of the problem [if] he continues to camouflage, or to be complicit by omission.” She also states, “The minister, basically, I think he should perhaps leave his functions.”

When will the Prime Minister do the right thing and show the defence minister the door?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, we will take no lessons from the Conservatives, who, while under the Harper government, appointed a chief of the defence staff who was under active investigation by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. If the Conservatives were serious about this issue, they would support budget 2021 and the $236 million dedicated to combatting and eradicating sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

As for the committee, Liberal members have asked 20 times for the committee to adjourn debate so we can move on to the reports, but the opposition has refused.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, a scathing Toronto Star editorial said, “One of the minor mysteries of Ottawa in the spring of 2021 is why on earth [the defence minister] is still Canada’s minister of national defence. [His] credibility has been so thoroughly shredded by the sexual misconduct scandals paralyzing the Canadian Forces”. Sexual misconduct expert Megan MacKenzie from Simon Fraser University said the defence minister has “zero credibility” on sexual misconduct.

Why will the Prime Minister not fire the Minister of National Defence?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is an inspirational trailblazer and ally who we are absolutely proud to have on our team. He has spent his career breaking down barriers to inclusion. The minister has lived a life of service to Canadians, whether that was during his time in the Canadian Armed Forces, as a member of the Vancouver Police Department or now as a cabinet minister.

This House and Canada are better for the service of the Minister of National Defence.

The Economy

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, here we are in the magic million job month. June was supposed to be the month in which all of the pre-COVID jobs would be recovered: a million of them in chart 35. It is right there in the minister's budget that all of the jobs would be restored this month, yet we have lost a quarter of a million jobs in the last two months and have the second-highest unemployment in the G7.

Will this month be as miraculous as the government claims? Will we have all of those million jobs back when the numbers come out next month?