Debates of June 7th, 2023

Housing

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, while the Bank of Canada continues to do its job to drive down inflation, which is going down, we will continue to do our job to be there to support Canadians who need it. We are making investments in things like dental care, a grocery rebate and supports for low-income renters. These are the kinds of things that Conservatives would be cutting instead.

Canadians are hurting, and the Conservatives' answer is cuts to programs, cuts to supports for families and cuts to Canadians at a time when they need it. Austerity is not the answer, and a responsible fiscal approach is. That is exactly what we are doing by supporting Canadians who need it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, austerity is exactly what Canadians are feeling in their household budgets today, while the government budgets overflow with abundance. There has already been a 16% year over year increase in the number of Canadians missing their mortgage payments.

After eight years under the Prime Minister, we have the highest household debt in the entire G7. Household debt is now 7% higher than our entire GDP. Now the Prime Minister's inflationary deficits are shooting up interest rates.

How much more will the average family have to plan to pay in mortgage payments per month?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have the lowest deficit in the G7, but the Leader of the Opposition wants us to do far less to support Canadians who need it right now. That is exactly backwards. His pursuit of ideological gains is hurting Canadians.

We are going to continue to be there in responsible, targeted ways, keeping our fiscal responsibility at the centre of what we do, while we support Canadians in targeted, noninflationary ways. That is what Canadians need right now.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just me anymore pointing out that deficits drive inflation. It is Liberals. It is former Liberal finance minister John Manley, who said that the Liberal deficits are “a bit like driving your car with one foot on the gas and the other on the brake generally, especially if there's slushy conditions under your tires.” He is pointing out that the Prime Minister presses his foot on the inflationary gas pedal while the Bank of Canada has to press on the brakes. The engine is eventually going to blow.

We know Canadians cannot pay their bills. Will the Prime Minister be honest today and tell Canadians how much their mortgage payments will go up because of these rate hikes?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, let us use a specific example of what the Leader of the Opposition calls inflationary spending. We made a decision that kids under 12 in this country should not have to pay for dental care. Their families should be able to send them to the dentist. Conservative politicians, who all have access to dental care through the House of Commons supports for their kids, do not think that Canadians who cannot afford to send their kids to the dentist should be doing that, and they say that is inflationary. That approach around cuts and austerity is not what Canadians need.

Democratic Institutions

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am appealing to the Prime Minister's sense of statesmanship.

Yesterday, his hand-picked special rapporteur had to admit to a parliamentary committee that his report contradicts the testimony of a parliamentarian who was the victim of Chinese interference and intimidation. The best excuse he could come up with was that he had drafted the report based on what he knew at the time.

He also had to admit that this means his report is incomplete. This is a report that is critical to keeping this country's citizens and parliamentarians safe, yet the author admits that it is incomplete. The House has stated several times that, worse yet, this report is potentially biased.

Will the Prime Minister agree to end Mr. Johnston's mandate?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the leader of the Bloc Québécois is not going to accept my answer as an answer to his question.

However, he has the opportunity to see the answers for himself. He has the opportunity to accept a briefing from our security and intelligence agencies, who will clarify the basis of the findings in the former governor general's report.

Like the leader of the Conservative Party, the leader of the Bloc refuses to accept these top secret briefings that would allow him to understand the underpinnings of our concerns.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I refuse to see in secret what should be seen by everyone. What I am proposing to the Prime Minister is a type of truce.

If Parliament would appoint an independent commissioner who would decide what should or should not be public, we could move on to other things.

Otherwise, we will have to ask and keep asking repeatedly how the Prime Minister can retain a rapporteur who is his friend and who admitted that his report, which was crucial to the security of his nation and mine, is incomplete and biased. He admitted that he did not speak to the Chief Electoral Officer or the Chinese nationals he is responsible for—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The right hon. Prime Minister.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc just said that he refuses to see in secret what should be public.

I completely understand that he is committed to his role in opposition and that he never expects to govern. However, as a leader and parliamentarian, he should understand that his responsibility to serve Canadians well comes with the opportunity, and even the duty, to dig deeper into the facts, something the public cannot do.

When it comes to national security, there are reasons why we must be discrete with the facts. He can be apprised of them.

Climate Change

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, ironically, as Canada is burning, today is Clean Air Day. Wildfires have made air quality hazardous for children, pregnant women and anyone with respiratory problems. We know that global warming will cause more and more wildfires.

What will it take for the Prime Minister to realize that now is the time to act to save our environment?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely. The irony is not lost on me that today is Clean Air Day in our country. These forest fires are worse than the ones in previous years, but they are not the worst we will ever see. In the years to come, the situation will only deteriorate.

Here in this House, however, the Conservative Party is still debating whether we should fight climate change at all instead of debating how we will fight climate change.

Our government is going to keep fighting climate change and protecting Canadians.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government has not taken the climate crisis seriously. Its actions show that very clearly.

Today is supposed to be Clean Air Day, and at the same time our country is burning. We can even smell the smoke in this chamber. Our country is literally on fire and the Liberal government thinks that business as usual is fine. We have a Conservative Party that is in full denial mode.

When will the Prime Minister realize we have to take this crisis seriously, we have to protect our environment and we have to protect the air for our kids and for our future?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, not only are we the government that has done more to fight climate change than any previous government in history, but independent expert evaluators judged our environmental plan in the last election as being significantly stronger than even the NDP's environmental plan. Unfortunately, we are caught in a debate where Conservatives are still arguing about whether or not we should be fighting climate change, instead of contributing to a debate around how best to fight climate change.

We have put forward a price on pollution that is changing corporate behaviour and driving down emissions. The Conservatives stand against it, but they do not have anything to offer.

Democratic Institutions

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, David Johnston, the loyal rapporteur of the Prime Minister, his ski buddy, his cottage neighbour, his dinner companion and member of the Trudeau Foundation, was incapable of seeing any conflict of interest. I can understand why our ethically challenged Prime Minister would be oblivious to this, but for a lawyer, law professor and dean of a law school, this is nothing but wilful blindness.

David Johnston has lost the trust of Parliament and Canadians. It is time to end the sham. When will the Prime Minister show Mr. Johnston the door and call for a public inquiry?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote what was said of the former governor general:

I think we're dealing with a very credible individual, and I think that that distant history bears little relevance to the fact that he has a very distinguished career. If we're suggesting just because at some point in history he was appointed by a former Conservative prime minister that he should be disqualified from participating in public life, I think that is a little bit extreme. This is a very qualified individual, and frankly, I haven't heard anybody question his integrity, and I have no reason to do so.

That was the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton.

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

Mr. Speaker, the special rapporteur's mandate is all about Beijing's interference in our electoral process. In Canada, we have only one federal electoral process; we have only one democratic institution, and that is the election of members to this House of Commons. Three times in the past three months, this House has voted for an independent public inquiry, yet the special rapporteur and the Prime Minister alone have rejected an inquiry.

How can confidence and trust be restored in our democracy if the Prime Minister and government continue to defy the democratic will of this House?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the member opposite that this is a very serious situation we are facing. Unfortunately, the leader of the Conservative Party is not taking this seriously. The Conservatives are looking for occasions to make personal attacks and toxic partisan attacks instead of actually looking at the question of foreign interference at the level of responsibility necessary. If the Leader of the Opposition were serious about that, he would accept the top secret briefings from our intelligence agencies that explain the underpinnings of the conclusions in the Johnston report, and he would be able to weigh in responsibly.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister's loyal rapporteur was asked to reconcile his conclusion that the spreading of disinformation in the 2021 election could not be attributed to the Beijing regime with the CSIS briefing to the former leader of the Conservative Party that said the opposite. The rapporteur said that he based his conclusion on evidence that he had at the time, evidence that was provided by the government.

Did the rapporteur ignore material evidence, or did the government withhold it from him? Which one is it?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that evidence is available to the Leader of the Opposition if only he were to accept a top secret briefing. He prefers to refuse it so he can continue his baseless personal attacks against an eminent Canadian.

Further than that, it is a panel of expert public service officials who determined, both in 2019 and in 2021, that election integrity held, a mechanism that this government put in place that previous governments never bothered with. That is how we know the integrity of the elections in 2019 and 2021 held.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a report of the government's rapid response mechanism identified that Beijing-controlled social media accounts were spreading disinformation in the 2021 election targeting the Conservative Party, including an account with 26 million followers, yet incredibly the rapporteur concluded otherwise. He ignored the report, ignored the evidence and instead whitewashed Beijing's interference.

The conclusions of the rapporteur have no credibility. Will the Prime Minister fire him and finally call an independent public inquiry?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, these are the conclusions of the top public officials who had the task, during the 2021 and 2019 elections, to monitor the foreign interference that has been going on in this country for years and years, against which the former minister of elections for the Conservatives, the current leader, did nothing.

We established a protocol whereby the integrity of those elections was evaluated and reported on. That integrity held. If the Conservatives think the integrity of the elections did not hold in 2019 or 2021, let them say so.

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

Mr. Speaker, like his good friend the Prime Minister, the loyal rapporteur turned a blind eye to important information in order to avoid recommending an independent public inquiry into the Beijing regime.

He did not see fit to question the Chief Electoral Officer. He did not question the member for Don Valley East. He did not consult the CSIS reports that were forwarded to the member for Durham. He did not read the CSIS reports that directly link Global Times, a disinformation newspaper, to the Chinese Communist Party. There was not a word about the police stations run by Beijing or the Trudeau Foundation.

Following this highly partisan demonstration, will the Prime Minister now announce an independent public inquiry?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, all the Conservative Party wants to do is make personal attacks against the former governor general, who was chosen by Stephen Harper himself.

The Conservatives want to make partisan and political attacks to try and score points. However, the reality is that if they wanted to take the issue of interference seriously, which everyone should, they would agree to the top secret briefing that was offered to the Leader of the Opposition so that he could get to the bottom of what happened and understand why the former governor general reached these conclusions.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister were serious, he would listen to the majority of members of the House.

Yesterday, David Johnston had one thing to do to convince Canadians, just one. He had to demonstrate, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is no conflict of interest between him and the Prime Minister. He failed miserably in that task by confirming, one after another, all of the perceived conflicts of interest that make it impossible for the House and Canadians to put their confidence in him.

When will the Prime Minister finally do the honourable thing? When will he put his friend, the former governor general, out of his misery and dismiss him from his position as independent special rapporteur?