House of Commons Hansard #137 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was national.
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Mr. Speaker, the government is not answering our very legitimate questions. We know the Prime Minister has been briefed at least three times about foreign interference since the 2019 election. In the briefings, CSIS mentioned Beijing’s foreign interference and also mentioned politicians and riding associations being targeted.
I have a simple question. Was the Prime Minister told about Beijing targeting candidates in the 2019 or 2021 election?
Marco Mendicino LiberalMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague has heard on many occasions now, we had independent panels look at allegations of foreign interference. He can also be assured, as all members can, that the RCMP and CSIS have their eyes wide open when it comes to potential threats of foreign interference.
We are giving the community all the tools and resources it needs so we can protect all of our institutions, including for elections. That is something all members should share as a common objective.
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Mr. Speaker, CSIS also said in those briefings that the government's response to foreign interference should be “grounded in transparency and sunlight” so that foreign interference is “exposed to the public”.
The government's response to our legitimate questions has been anything but; it has stonewalled us for weeks. Commissioner Lucki said yesterday that the RCMP has investigations into broad foreign interference, including “interference in democratic processes.”
I have a simple question. Do these investigations include the 2019 or 2021 election?
Dominic LeBlanc LiberalMinister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is an experienced member of the House and he sat in cabinet. He would know that ministers do not answer questions on details of specific police investigations in the House of Commons. What governments do is put in place the appropriate processes to ensure that our democratic institutions are protected from foreign interference, a concern that all members of the House share.
As my colleagues have pointed out, we took steps that previous Conservative governments did not think they should take to put in place the appropriate mechanisms to ensure the integrity of our elections, and that is exactly what we did.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned from the RCMP commissioner that there are ongoing RCMP investigations into Beijing's election interference in 2019. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a very straightforward and specific question of the Prime Minister, one he has repeatedly refused to answer. It is whether he was briefed about election interference by Beijing.
Canadians deserve transparency, so again, on election interference by Beijing, was the Prime Minister briefed, yes or no?
Marco Mendicino LiberalMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and all members of this chamber can be assured of the integrity of the 2019 and 2021 elections, because we had independent panels that looked with great detail and great attention at documents, interviewed witnesses and confirmed the result. More importantly, we will continue to give all tools necessary to our independent police community and independent national security community so they can protect all democratic institutions, and Canadians can have their voices reflected in our governments.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a request from the parliamentary committee looking into foreign interference in our election, the RCMP refused to provide documents in its possession because they could compromise ongoing investigations.
CSIS has been a bit more forthcoming. I have here a top secret document entitled “Briefing for the Prime Minister on Foreign Interference”. There are just two people who deny that there has been foreign influence in our elections: the Prime Minister and the spokesperson for the Chinese government. No one believes either of them.
When will the Prime Minister finally tell the whole truth?
Dominic LeBlanc LiberalMinister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows full well that the government has been very transparent.
My colleague across the way is referring to documents that a House committee has requested. The good news is that there is a committee of parliamentarians specifically tasked with looking at these kinds of intelligence and national security issues.
I invite my colleague to ensure, as will we, that this committee has access to all the necessary information, as it is the appropriate group to be looking at these kinds of documents.
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Bank is about to take over another bank. Loblaws announced profits are up 30%. Large corporations avoided paying $30 billion in taxes. With the Liberals' help, corporate Canada is raking it in while workers, people on fixed incomes, northerners and indigenous peoples are paying the price. The current government is missing in action. The Deputy Prime Minister refuses to bring in a windfall tax. Instead, her solution is to cancel Disney+.
Instead of catering to billionaires, why will the Liberals not stand up for working people and make the ultrarich pay their fair share?
Chrystia Freeland LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, our government absolutely is committed to ensuring that everyone in Canada pays their fair share. In fact, we have brought in a COVID windfall tax. It is called the COVID recovery dividend. It is levied at 15% on financial institutions and insurers. We have also brought in a permanent 1.5% tax on banks and insurers. We have introduced a luxury tax of 10% on private planes, luxury cars and luxury boats.
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, while Telus has celebrated its highest ever second-quarter profits, shareholders are getting richer at the expense of Canadian workers by outsourcing 11,000 of its jobs overseas, and this is grotesque. Canadian workers are fed up. USW Local 1944 has reached a 97% strike mandate, and the current government is giving Telus millions of dollars in federal procurement contracts.
Will the current Liberal government stand up for workers by ending lucrative contracts with companies like Telus that use taxpayer dollars to ship our Canadian jobs overseas?
Andy Fillmore LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation
Mr. Speaker, we are concerned that Canadians pay some of the highest prices in the world to stay connected. That is why our government is taking action to make services more affordable and to hold the big national carriers accountable, and our plan is working. In 2020, our government announced a historic program to reduce mid-range cellphone plans by 25%. I am happy to report that our government reached this ambitious target ahead of schedule, but we know more work remains to be done. That is why we will continue to push for lower prices for Canadians.
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, we know how important EI sickness benefits are for Canadians who are impacted and have to be able to leave the workforce as a result of injuries or sickness. That is exactly why our government, in budget 2021, extended the EI sickness benefit, to make sure those Canadians who face an income gap between the time their benefits expire and when they are able to get back to work are protected.
Can the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion provide an update to the House on the work of that extension and how we are protecting Canadians?
Carla Qualtrough LiberalMinister of Employment
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kings—Hants for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents.
We know many workers face a stressful income gap between when they exhaust their EI sickness benefits and when they are able to return to work. That is why I am pleased to announce that, as of December 18, we are permanently extending EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks, which will benefit approximately 169,000 Canadians each year. This extension to 26 weeks will give workers more time to recover from serious illnesses or injuries before they rejoin the workforce.
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have made life easier for criminals in this country.
After seven years of their soft-on-crime approach, violent crime has increased 32%, gang homicide is up 92%, and the overall incidents of violent crime in 2021 were up 124,000 compared to 2015. For a government that claims to make evidence-based decisions, it appears to be wilfully blind to the evidence.
Will the government stop its soft-on-crime policies?
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in Canada's history, we have repealed mandatory minimum penalties, giving judges the flexibility to impose sentences that fit the crimes.
We have repealed the MMP that contribute most to the overincarceration of indigenous, Black and racialized people. The adoption of Bill C-5 means prosecutors and police can dedicate more resources and time to fighting serious crimes.
I want to thank all those who supported us, including members of the opposition, as well as senators, in getting Bill C-5 through royal assent.
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Mr. Speaker, the government's misguided approach continues with Bill C-5.
Bill C-5 reduces the mandatory minimum sentences for numerous violent crimes, including crimes with firearms. Bill C-75 made it easier for criminals to get out on bail. Now, rather than going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Liberals are targeting law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters with Bill C-21.
When will the government stop its soft-on-crime approach and get serious about public safety?
Ahmed Hussen LiberalMinister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion
Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member is entitled to his opinions, but he is not entitled to the facts.
The fact is that the Conservatives cut $390 million from CBSA, further weakening our borders. In addition, the Conservatives are comfortable with attacking Bill C-5, which comes from the first government to tackle the issue of the massive overrepresentation of indigenous and Black Canadian people in our prison system. That is a scandal and the Conservatives should not fight that.
We are trying to fix the systemic discriminatory effects of mandatory minimum sentences that have not improved community safety but have led to a massive increase in overrepresentation of disadvantaged groups.
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, violent crime has risen 32% since the Liberals formed government in 2015.
This is a fact across all of Canada, including in my riding where I am reading local headlines, titled “Arrested again” for “participation in a criminal organization”, “Failure to comply with a probation order”, “Eleven counts of knowledge of possession of a firearm while prohibited”, “Two counts of disobeying a court order” and “Two counts of breach of a weapons prohibition”.
Why are the Liberals removing mandatory minimums on repeat offenders? When will they repeal their soft-on-crime policies?
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, serious crimes will always have serious consequences.
Bill C-5 is about moving past the failed policies of the Conservatives that clogged our system and filled our prisons with low-risk first-time offenders, time and resources that should have been devoted to fighting serious crimes.
In fact, former Supreme Court Justice Moldaver, whom no one could accuse of being soft on crime, recently stressed the need for a different approach to less serious offences. In the past decade we saw the impact of harsh, ineffective policies on indigenous and racialized people, and on those who suffer from addiction.
These are smart criminal justice policies.
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, let us make sure talking points do not get in the way of the facts.
Ten of the 12 mandatory minimums the Liberals are removing were introduced by previous Liberal governments, i.e., the senior Trudeau and Chrétien governments. What did the previous Liberal governments get so wrong?
As violent crime continued to increase in the last seven years under the Liberal government, why is it so focused on helping criminals and repeat offenders instead of standing up for the victims?
When will the Liberals repeal their soft-on-crime agenda?
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the opposition is defending those failed policies because it is defending itself.
The member and his party opposite have been in the forefront of the Harper era implementing policies targeting indigenous, Black and marginalized people. Those policies did not protect our communities. In fact, even Conservatives in the U.S. are abandoning mandatory minimum penalties and recognizing that they do not work.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, in a Radio-Canada interview on Sunday about the invocation of the Emergencies Act, the Minister of Public Safety defended himself, stating that the act has some shortcomings and needs to be updated.
That was a candid admission that his government knew it had not met the threshold for invoking the act, but did so anyway. In a country governed by the rule of law, the end does not justify the means.
Do the Liberals acknowledge and take responsibility for the fact that the precedent they set now authorizes any future government to suspend individual freedoms as it sees fit?
Dominic LeBlanc LiberalMinister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague opposite, but no matter how many times he says something that is not true, he cannot make it true.
Nothing our government did suspended Canadians' rights. We made an important decision in order to protect Canada's economy and keep Canadians safe. We were transparent at every stage of the decision-making process, including before the commission last week, and we look forward to Justice Rouleau's report, which will provide answers to all these questions.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the precedent that the father of the Emergencies Act, former minister Perrin Beatty, was concerned about.
When he appeared before the committee, he said that once the act has been used for the first time, the temptation will be to use it for other crises. He recalled that he had consciously included the specific criteria that must be met in order to counteract the arbitrariness and abuses that the old War Measures Act allowed for. The Liberals flouted these criteria when they invoked the act.
Can the minister tell us what will prevent any future governments from using it arbitrarily to suspend individual freedoms?