Debates of June 13th, 2022

Official Languages

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Liberal lieutenant was right on Friday when he told journalists that “there is only one endangered [official] language in North America and that's French”.

That could not be any clearer and that is why we are calling out Bill C‑13 on official languages for not protecting French in Quebec, even though it is the only endangered official language.

Will the government finally understand that the threat to French in Quebec is English and that Bill C‑13 in Quebec protects English, not the endangered language, French? It makes no sense.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

We agree that French is in decline in North America and, indeed, in Canada. We also agree that the French language is the only minority language in the country. That is why we are moving forward with an ambitious bill to do everything we can to protect and promote our two beautiful languages.

I hope that the Bloc Québécois and the opposition members will work with us to ensure that this bill is passed as soon as possible. It is urgent.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once it becomes clear that French is the only official language that is in jeopardy, then the next logical step is to let Quebec manage its French language itself. Instead, the federal government is giving priority to Bill C-13 to promote an institutional bilingualism that makes French optional.

This is a direct attack on the only official language in jeopardy: French. That is why the Government of Quebec proposed amendments to Bill C-13 to protect French in Quebec, as Quebeckers are calling for.

Will the government amend Bill C-13 so that Quebeckers can finally manage their own affairs and protect their language where they live?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. We are the first government to recognize that French is in decline in Canada. That is why we are moving forward with an ambitious bill that will actually resolve this situation.

Once again, I would really like it if the Bloc Québécois and all the opposition members would work with us and stop playing games. This is a very important bill for all Canadians. I hope that it will be given royal assent as soon as possible.

The Economy

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, times are tough for a lot of people.

Today we learned that one in four homeowners will have to sell their home if interest rates go up. Yes, I said one in four. People are in debt. They are struggling to pay for rent, food and gas. Meanwhile, as oil companies, banks and grocery stores rake in massive profits, the Liberals are cutting assistance measures. They are making cuts to EI for workers and are cutting child benefits.

When will the Liberals go after the ultrarich and stop making life harder for families that are already struggling to get by?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, our government has committed to making sure that everyone pays their fair share.

We have taken measures by permanently increasing the income tax rate by 1.5% for corporations, banks and insurance groups, and by introducing the Canada recovery dividend, a 15% tax on banks and insurance groups, to help cover the cost of combatting COVID-19. We have also introduced a luxury tax on very expensive vehicles, planes and boats.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one in four homeowners believes they will lose their house because they cannot keep up with the rising interest rates. The Liberals' failure to help struggling Canadians is going to result in people being homeless, and no doubt corporate landlords are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of being able to sweep up these distressed properties. The Liberals cannot just stand by and do nothing.

Instead of cutting funding, will the government put more money in families' pockets by increasing the Canada child benefit by $500 and doubling the GST rebate?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we understand affordability matters to Canadians, and that is why we have already taken action and taken measures that are putting additional money in the pockets of Canadians who need it most this year.

This year the Canada workers benefit has gone up, so now a family of three is getting up to $2,300 more. This year the OAS is going up by 10%, so a senior is going to get $815 more. This year, people facing housing affordability challenges are getting $500.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety has repeatedly claimed, “At the recommendation of police, we invoked the Emergencies Act”.

I know he likes to quote RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, so I will try this one on for size. She said, “No, there was never a question of requesting the Emergencies Act”. Clearly, it was not an option considered by police.

Now the minister is saying what he really meant to say is that they consulted with police. His story is changing so often that it is no surprise his deputy minister is saying he was misunderstood. How can Canadians trust this minister?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, this is a prime example of cherry-picking from the commissioner's testimony. If he went on to read, he would see that the commissioner said, in her own words, that the Emergencies Act was needed to restore public safety.

While he continues to bury his head in the sand on the material facts, and while he continues to bury his head on the conduct of the interim leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, who egged on the illegal blockades long after they became a threat to public safety, we were working 24-7 with law enforcement to restore public safety. We will never apologize for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, without parliamentary accountability, Canadians would never know the truth about how the Liberal government invoked the Emergencies Act. We were led to believe that protesters tried to burn down a building, which was false. We were led to believe that they were being funded with dark money, which was false. We were led to believe that they were planning to violently overthrow the government, which was false. The Minister of Public Safety even claimed that police asked for extraordinary powers to deal with the situation, which was false.

With this much misinformation, it is no wonder Canadians' trust in government is at an all-time low. Will the minister take the first step in rebuilding this trust and apologize for misleading Canadians?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about parliamentary accountability. I wonder whether it is true or false that it was parliamentarily reckless to say the following in the middle of the illegal occupation.

In an email sent from the interim Conservative Party leader to her caucus, “I don't think we should be asking them to go home. I understand the mood may shift soon. So we need to turn this into the PM's problem.” In other words, that would be a political problem. True or false, was that parliamentarily responsible? I do not think so.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety keeps telling us that the government only invoked the Emergencies Act after it was requested by police. We know from testimony that the police never requested the Emergencies Act, just as we know the government has not been transparent on the special forces spy flight over the protest. None of this was necessary.

How does the minister explain away his story being so different from those of senior police officials and his own deputy minister?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, during the illegal occupation and blockades of last winter, we saw Canadians put out of work. We saw families unable to take their children to school. We saw seniors unable to get around as a result of the illegal blockades—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am going to have to interrupt.

I will let the minister start from the top.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, in the middle of the illegal occupation, we saw Canadians put out of work. We saw families who were unable to take their kids to child care. We saw the entire town of Ottawa under siege. That is why we invoked the Emergencies Act. Of course we consulted. Of course we sought the advice of police and law enforcement because we understood that was the best way to inform that decision.

I wonder why the Conservative Party does not just stand up and accept its share of the responsibility for prolonging that illegal occupation as a result of the reckless abandon that it showed throughout?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the government, the special forces spy flight over the Ottawa protest was just training. I wonder where that data went. The minister said the Emergencies Act was justified because of an attempt at arson, which was not so, and because the protest was significantly foreign funded, which was also not so. As well, police never asked for the invocation of the act.

When will the government admit that the Emergencies Act was a power grab overreach to stifle legitimate, democratic dissent?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as we—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we have told this House many times, the flight in question was part of a Canadian Armed Forces training exercise that was planned prior to and unrelated to the convoy protest. This training had nothing to do with the illegal blockade.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Emergencies Act can only be invoked when there is no other law to deal with the situation. It is not clear that this threshold was met. Members of the law enforcement community have said that the threshold was not met, including Chris Lewis, former commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, Ontario's largest police force.

When the public safety minister says that an unnamed police enforcement official made the request to invoke these powers, it is material. I have a very simple question: Who is this unnamed police enforcement official?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to quote law enforcement. Let me cite from the letter from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which characterized the illegal blockades, and I am saying it right here from the language, were “unprecedented demonstrations, protests, occupations, and acts of civil disobedience”. In other words, they were the likes of which we have never seen before.

I will again quote from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which said, “The Emergency Economic Measures Order is critical to assisting law enforcement in addressing the mass national and international organization of the Freedom Convoy 2022.” How is that for law enforcement?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question.

Suspending civil liberties is serious. That is why the act can only be invoked when there is no law in Canada to deal with the situation. That is why a committee of Parliament and a public inquiry must be established to determine whether or not the threshold for invocation was met.

For the committee and the inquiry to do its work, the government must be honest and forthright with its answers. The minister's answers are anything but. Again, I have a very simple question. The government came to office with a great deal of idealism. Does any remain?