Debates of June 9th, 2022

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, the incredible talent is the Conservative's talent of not understanding that these public health measures and vaccines are the reason Canada has succeeded in the fight against COVID‑19.

If the United States had matched Canada's vaccination rate, they could have avoided 690,000 hospitalizations and 163,000 deaths.

Justice

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all we ever hear from the minister is “if”. She never gives real answers. Let us talk about real-life things.

Even as shootings are on the rise in Montreal, the Liberals are in such a hurry to release criminals that they are going to gag the opposition to pass Bill C‑5, which imposes mandatory minimum sentences.

Here is what one Montrealer said on TVA: “My mother and I were sitting on the porch after supper, and we had to go inside and hide because there was shooting. There was gunshot after gunshot.”

This is not a war zone we are talking about; it is Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Why are the Liberals more interested in helping criminals than in offering reassurance to this woman and all Montrealers?

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are interested in is taking concrete action to reduce the number of guns, such as handguns, in Canada.

I find the Conservative members' questions absurd. They are against the important historic measures we are proposing.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives believe that meaningful and effective steps must be taken to end gun violence and gun crime in Canada. Canadians need to be safe, and victims of domestic violence need to be protected. While there are aspects of Bill C-21 that we can agree on, specifically on domestic violence issues, the rest of the bill falls short and would do nothing to end gun violence.

Will the Liberals agree to split Bill C-21 into two bills? One would be to protect the victims of domestic violence, while the other aspects of the bill would be reworked to offer real and effective solutions to gun crime and gun trafficking.

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

Mr. Speaker, speaking as a member of Parliament for downtown Toronto and as a mother of teenagers who live in my riding, I want to say very clearly that we will never water down our measures on gun control. We know that these are essential to protecting Canadians, and I just wish the members opposite would stop their posturing and join us in savings lives.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, divisive policies do not protect people. Fear does not protect people. Virtue-signalling does not protect people. The Liberals are using U.S.-style wedge politics for their own political gain. It will not keep Canadians safe, and it will not stop violence.

Conservatives will be putting forward a sincere offer to split Bill C-21 so that victims of domestic violence can be protected as soon as possible. We can work together to get this done, but it is up to the Liberals. They have two options: They can either accept the offer to protect victims immediately, or they can reject it and continue with their divisive rhetoric, which would leave victims vulnerable.

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

Mr. Speaker, do members know what protects Canadians? What protects Canadians is banning military-style assault weapons, which have no place in our society. What protects Canadians is limiting access to handguns, and I will tell members what is entirely insincere. It is the Conservatives' fake concern for Canadians who are victims of gun violence. Conservatives could support those Canadians by supporting our legislation.

Official Languages

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec gave all members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages a book of amendments for Bill C‑13, in which is sets out how to actually protect the French Language. Quebec reiterates that the bill must mention the particular situation of French as a minority language within an English-speaking continent. It also reiterates that the Charter of the French Language must apply to federally regulated businesses. Quebec has a unique expertise when it comes to the French language, earned over its 400-year history.

Will the federal government meet Quebec's demands?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said last week, our government recognizes that the French language needs to be strengthened in Quebec and across Canada. Our government knows that the French fact is declining in Quebec and across Canada and that we need to halt that decline.

With respect to expertise, it is clear that I am an anglophone and “ukrainophone”, but we have francophone members from Quebec and from all over the country in our party.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have seen a lot of bills, and it is extraordinary for Quebec to officially submit amendments to a federal bill. It is extraordinary because it is existential. Bill C-13 is about our official, common and national language. Quebec is saying that, without amendments, Bill C-13 does not protect French in Quebec. Rather, it promotes bilingualism, which leads to anglicization.

Does the federal government realize that there is one area, only one area, where Canada must must Quebec's demands, and that is the protection of the French language?

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that French in Quebec and Canada is an existential issue. I absolutely agree. As a Ukrainian Canadian, I understand full well, on a very personal level, the importance of language and culture. However, I must also say that Bill C-13 is an excellent bill that will protect French in Quebec and across the country.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the rising cost of living, the Liberals keep making comparisons rather than presenting solutions to help people. They say that things are better here than they are elsewhere. Basically, they are telling us to suck it up and stop whining.

Here is the reality, however. Workers are having to turn to food banks. Under the Liberals, the cost of housing rose faster in Canada than in any other G7 country. Meanwhile, investors are getting richer while families are struggling. People want solutions, not excuses.

When will the Liberals do something to make life more affordable for families?

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree that affordability is very important for Canadian families. That is why we have implemented practical, targeted solutions that have already put money back in Canadians' pockets.

For example, we increased the Canada workers benefit so that a family of three will receive $2,300 more this year. We are also making a one-time payment of $500 to people facing housing challenges. We are doing a lot more, but I see that I am out of time.

Housing

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while families struggle to afford groceries, rent and gas for their cars, the Liberals shrug and say that things are better here than elsewhere. Since they like comparisons so much, I have one for them. Under the Liberals, the cost of a home in Canada has increased faster than it has in any other country in the G7. Canadians cannot find a home they can afford, and they want solutions, not excuses. The government must act now.

Will the Liberals stop with the excuses and build 500,000 units of social housing and co-op housing to help families struggling to make ends meet?

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to co-op housing, and I did grow up in a co-op, our government, in the recent budget, put forward the biggest investment in co-op housing in a generation. That is something I am very proud of. I want to thank the MP for Milton for his hard work on that.

When it comes to other solutions to help Canadians with affordability, let me point to a very important program, the Canada workers benefit, which we have increased by $9 billion over five years. A family of three, this year, is getting $2,300 more.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, it is disturbing that Conservatives needed to ask the police to find out that the minister's statement claiming that police recommended the government invoke the Emergencies Act was in fact false.

No such recommendations were made by police. The deputy minister tried to explain the minister's claims, saying he was misunderstood. Why did the minister repeatedly fail to give Parliament accurate information? Was he just hoping he would not get caught?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the testimony of Commissioner Brenda Lucki of the RCMP, from the committee my hon. colleague is a member of. Referring to the government, she said:

When they did come up with measures, they came to us to ask if these measures would be useful.

Then, when they were revoking it, of course, they came again to us and asked, “Are you in a position that you no longer need the additional authorities?” It was a consultation.

That is precisely what we have said all along. It was the responsible thing to do to invoke the Emergencies Act. If we want to be a government, we have to know how to protect Canadians, and that is what we did.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister's story keeps changing.

Invoking the Emergencies Act set a precedent in our country's history. There is no room for the government to mislead, equivocate or to be misunderstood. Parliament was led to believe by the Minister of Public Safety that police asked the government to invoke the Emergencies Act, but now we know that is false.

Will the minister show some humility and apologize to Canadians for his inaccurate statements?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would think my colleague, the hon. member of this chamber, would have the humility to recognize the words I just said were not from the government but from the RCMP Commissioner in front of the committee, which he was privy to.

He heard those words that the commissioner said, that the government consulted, which is exactly what we have said all along. We sought the advice of law enforcement on the powers that they needed to restore public safety. What we did in invoking the Emergencies Act was the responsible thing to do to protect Canadians' safety.

Health

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last night at the health committee, the president of PHAC confirmed that the Prime Minister’s continued mandates are driven by political science. He said that there were no metrics to justify these mandates and no metrics that can be met to lift them.

While infectious disease experts and now PHAC are both pointing to politics as the reason for the federal mandates, officials are dropping the last of the provincial mandates. When will the Prime Minister and the government drop the politics and end the mandates?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Mr. Speaker, I was at that meeting. I thank my hon. colleague for the collaboration on the health committee.

All Canadians are sick and tired of COVID-19. We all agree that we want it to go away, but just wishing it away is not going to make it happen. Over the past few months we have made some amendments, we have made some changes, and we continue to see some deaths from COVID-19. In fact over 1,700 deaths from COVID-19 in May alone.

The most important thing that we can do to get through this pandemic is to consider getting vaccinated. We will continue to be informed by science, not the political games of the Conservative opposition.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary talks about political games. He is talking about vaccines. The Liberal government has already thrown five million doses in the garbage. We have heard from infectious disease specialists that their mandates are saving zero lives. They are ineffective. They are political in their entirety.

Dr. Tam said last night that the government would not do away with mandates because they would be too hard to force upon Canadians later. Does that sound like medical science to anyone?

The Prime Minister would not give up his control over Canadians because they would not let him take it from them again. Enough is enough. When will the Prime Minister end the mandates?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives cannot seem to make up their minds about vaccinations.

The member for Yorkton—Melville claims that the government has a secret agenda after refusing to get vaccinated.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this type of rhetoric is divisive and all members of the House should stop trying to spread—