Debates of May 2nd, 2022

COVID-19 Economic Measures

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, two important benefits that make it possible for parents to stay home with their young children and for workers to stay home when they are sick expire next Saturday, May 7.

Meanwhile, we are still waiting for employment insurance reform and paid sick leave, which are long overdue. Canada is going through the sixth wave of the pandemic.

Can the Minister of Finance explain why her government is once again leaving workers out in the cold? Will she renew these extremely important matters?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect and deserve an EI system that is responsive to their needs. EI sickness benefits are an important support for Canadians who need to leave work because of illness or injury.

Workers receiving important treatments, or requiring a longer period to recover from an illness or injury, face a stressful income gap between the time they exhaust their benefits and when they are healthy enough to return to work. That is why we extended EI sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks, providing approximately 169,000 Canadians every year with additional time and flexibility to recover and return to work.

There is more to do, to be sure, and we will keep working so that EI is there for Canadians when they need it most.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is right: Canadians do deserve an employment insurance system that is there for them and that works. In fact, they should have had that in place before the Liberals ended pandemic benefits that allowed them to stay home with their children when they were sick, and that allowed them to stay home from work when they were sick to not put their colleagues in danger.

Instead, what we have is a situation where the government is allowing these benefits to end without having put the 10 paid sick days in place and without having put the employment insurance reforms in place.

Will the government either present these reforms immediately or extend the benefits until it reforms EI and puts the 10 paid sick days in place?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, we have brought forward legislation that has passed through this place with regard to 10 paid sick days. We have also worked hard to modernize the EI program so that it responds to the needs of all Canadians and is fair and equal. That includes giving parents the choice of taking either 12 or 18 months for parental leave and introducing the new parental sharing benefit so they can share the joy and work of raising their children more equally.

We are following through on our promise to modernize the system with targeted consultations with Canadians. That will bring forward a vision for a new and modern EI system. We know there is more work to do and we are getting to it.

Ethics

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, throughout my prosecutorial career, I worked on hundreds of cases that took years to complete. Notwithstanding many unknowns, procedural delays and complicated evidence, the truth always prevailed. Criminals must always be punished. Now Canadians demand answers from our Attorney General.

If new evidence comes to light in relation to the member for Papineau's illegal vacation, even after six years, will the minister follow his oath of office and ensure that the member for Papineau will not be let off the hook?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows from his long experience as a prosecutor, both the police and the prosecution services are independent in our Canadian system.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a former Crown prosecutor and somebody who taught at a law school, I note that an investigation can be reopened years after if new evidence surfaces. In the case of a fraud in hundreds of thousands of dollars, this may result in a penitentiary sentence on conviction.

My question for the Attorney General is this. Would he support the reopening of an investigation into a serious criminal fraud if new evidence surfaced six years later?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, as the Conservatives want to be able to continue to get into personal attacks, we will continue to focus our attention on what is important to Canadians. That is one of the reasons why we have seen the type of response and different types of pandemic support programs, whether it was packages such as the CERB or the wage loss program. There are so many things that as a government we have done in order to support Canadians because we remain focused on them as opposed to what the Conservatives are remaining focused on, which is personal character assassination.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when asked about his very luxurious and illegal trip, the Prime Minister says that it happened six years ago and that there is no point talking about it anymore. However, any other Canadian would have had to face due process. Apparently the Prime Minister thinks he is above the law.

Is the Minister of Justice okay with this? Does he not think the case should be reopened in light of this new information?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if you ask the question four times, five times, or whatever number of times, the answer is really not going to change. Not you, Mr. Speaker, but—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order, order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to give some advice to the Conservative opposition. No matter how many times they might, as the opposition party, want to rephrase a particular question, I understand that their focus is more on character assassination, whether it is of the Prime Minister's or other ministers'. My suggestion is that no matter how persistent they are at that, we will be equally if not more persistent in serving Canadians by developing good legislation and good budgetary measures that are going to help Canadians every day of their lives.

Public Safety

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for three weeks, MPs, staff and members of the public all walked through the protest in downtown Ottawa. Meanwhile, the government is claiming that the national security threat was so serious and so dangerous that it could not be addressed using any other law.

If that is the case, how were we all permitted to walk through that protest every day? Either there was not a real threat and the Liberals were just overcompensating for their incompetent management of the protest, or they were knowingly putting us all in danger.

Which one was it?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, with great respect to my colleague, she knows full well that the Rideau Centre was completely shut down and that small businesses were shut down. She knows full well that Ottawa residents were unable to get to work and unable to drop off their children at day care. If she does not take my word for it, she can listen to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which said that the Emergencies Act was “critical to assisting law enforcement in addressing the mass national and international organization of the Freedom Convoy 2022.”

We invoked the act because it was necessary, and it worked.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to adequately justify the use of the Emergencies Act, the government must demonstrate that there is not an already existing law in place that could deal with this so-called emergency. Since the Prime Minister invoked the act on February 14 in response to the Ottawa protesters, I have to assume that there is in fact good evidence that procedure was followed. However, to know for certain, we need access to certain documents that are held by cabinet right now. The Prime Minister is hiding behind secrecy. This is strange for a Prime Minister who has committed to openness and transparency.

Therefore, the question really is this: Why the cover-up?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we have been transparent all along about the reasons why we needed to invoke the Emergencies Act. We debated that motion right here in this chamber. It is very discouraging to hear the members of the Conservative Party continue to diminish and downplay the severity of the national emergency that beset this community and multiple ports of entry.

Again, if the Conservatives do not want to take it from the government, let them listen to what the president and CEO of the Surrey Board of Trade said in British Columbia, calling it “an unacceptable sabotage of the economy”. She said, “The impact of these blockades is choking already impacted supply chains”. I would encourage and urge my Conservative colleagues to speak to Canadians.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope this is not the evidence the government is hoping to rely on.

During the appointment process for the Emergencies Act inquiry, which led to the selection of Justice Rouleau, can the Minister of Public Safety confirm whether any ministers or members of their political staff spoke with the judge before his appointment? If so, did they discuss what kind of evidence the inquiry would or would not seek, including documents covered by cabinet confidentiality or solicitor-client privilege?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to my colleague's original comment about his not wanting the commissioner and the parliamentary committee to consider the testimonials and lived experiences of Canadians, including the president of the Ottawa Coalition of Business Improvement Areas, small business leaders and ordinary Ottawans who live outside of this chamber, I would encourage him to revisit his position. We are listening to Canadians about the impacts of the illegal blockades.

Of course, Judge Rouleau will carry out his inquiry independently and transparently to ensure there is accountability on his decision.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Prime Minister refused to grant any immigration powers to the Premier of Quebec.

It would be less insulting if the federal government were the least bit competent, but everything it touches is a disaster. The wait time is now 31 months for Quebeckers applying for permanent residence. There is a backlog of 29,000 case files. The government is being sued by people who have been waiting for 13 years.

Does the Prime Minister realize that not only should he give Quebec the powers it is asking for, but he should be grateful to do so?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, immigration is essential to our economy.

As the member opposite knows, Quebec sets its own immigration targets. Last year the province welcomed over 50,000 new permanent residents. This year Quebec has increased its immigration targets significantly, which will help reduce wait times.

We will always work very closely with the Quebec government to ensure that the immigration system continues to work for Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they cannot even name the problem, so it will be really difficult to solve it.

There is a backlog of 29,000 files, and there are court cases that have been dragging on for 13 years. These are people. They are not files; they are people. That is what the Prime Minister is forgetting in his quarrel with Quebec.

The federal government has proven, year after year, that it is either incapable of taking care of these people or does not consider this issue important enough to do better.

Why not simply give Quebec the power to manage its own immigration?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank the member for the question, but he is well aware that Quebec sets the selection criteria for immigrants coming to Quebec, and that includes language skills.

Immigration is crucial and, as I have already told the member, we have welcomed more than 50,000 new permanent residents to the province. Quebec and Canada are working together to welcome more immigrants here, in Canada.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Ottawa must also give Quebec the power to manage temporary foreign workers.

Each year, the federal government creates delays by forcing every business to produce labour market studies that already exist. Quebec already produces them for all of its economic sectors. Quebec could simply apply them to temporary foreign workers by integrating them into its labour strategy. It is as easy as that.

When will the federal government stop burdening our businesses and transfer the management of temporary foreign workers to Quebec?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec reaps significant benefits from the Canada—Quebec accord on immigration.

In fact, Quebec selects 74% of permanent immigrants. It sets the criteria, including knowledge of French. Quebec also determines the profiles for temporary foreign workers and foreign students, including their knowledge of the French language. In 2020-2021 alone, we sent nearly $700 million to Quebec to help integrate immigrants, which includes French-language learning.

We are working together despite the fact that the Bloc would like to stir up trouble where there is none. We are working well together.