SoVote

Dec/2/21 3:39:50 p.m.
Watch

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 23, 2021, by the member for Banff—Airdrie and the member for Salaberry—Suroît concerning the Board of Internal Economy’s decision requiring vaccination against COVID-19 for members accessing the House of Commons precinct. In his intervention, the member for Banff—Airdrie, citing references and precedents, alleged that the board neither has the statutory authority nor the delegated authority from the House to make the decision it made on October 19, 2021, requiring that members be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or provide a valid medical exemption coupled with negative test results to be able to access the precinct. The government House leader stated that the board acted within its mandate as per section 52.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act with regard to action respecting all financial and administrative matters concerning the House, its premises, its services and members. He noted that the board’s decision takes into account the collective interest and health of all members to permit the House to discharge its functions. The member for Salaberry—Suroît also later rose on a similar matter, stating that the Conservative Party's refusal to disclose its members' vaccination status is in itself a violation of the House’s privileges. She noted that the collective privileges of the House take precedence over those of individual members insofar as the health and safety of members is concerned. The Chair wants to address this particular concern by assuring everyone in this House that all medical exemptions, whether for members or for staff, are reviewed by the health and safety personnel of the House administration. Anyone with a valid exemption must provide a recent negative COVID-19 test result in order to access the buildings in the precinct. The question for the Chair to consider is whether the issue of the interplay between the board’s decision and the privileges of the House deserves priority of consideration over all other business. The Board of Internal Economy is the statutory governing body of the House of Commons. Its authority comes from the Parliament of Canada Act, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Standing Orders of the House. It is composed of members from all recognized parties and chaired by the Speaker. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the board has instituted various health and safety measures for the protection of everyone working in the precinct and to ensure the continued functioning of the House. Among its privileges, rights and powers, the House has the right to regulate and administer its precinct, as well as the authority to maintain the attendance and service of its members. As stated in the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 122, and I quote: The privileges of the House of Commons include “such rights as are necessary for free action within its jurisdiction and the necessary authority to enforce these rights if challenged”. It is well established that, by extension, the House has complete and sole authority to regulate and administer its precinct, without outside interference, including controlling access to the buildings. If limits are to be placed on members’ access to the buildings, it would seem consistent with these principles that such limits be established by the House itself. However, it is important to consider the unique context in which the board’s decision was made. During a time when Parliament was dissolved, the board was faced with a decision regarding mandatory vaccinations in order to access the precinct. It made a decision, after considering recommendations from various public health authorities to limit the spread of COVID-19 during the ongoing pandemic, to protect the health and safety of all those who work in these buildings. As the House had not yet been called into session, it was not in a position to pronounce itself on the matter. The board's decision to restrict access to the precinct only to those who are fully vaccinated or who have a valid medical exemption, including members, has the effect of putting conditions on members' participation in the proceedings of the House. Since the question of privilege was raised, the House has adopted a motion that addresses this matter, meaning the House has explicitly endorsed the BOIE's decision and the conditions it imposes on members' participation in the proceedings. While the matter of mandatory vaccination for members has been settled, the Chair is satisfied that the interplay between the rights and privileges of the House and the jurisdiction of the board remains an issue, with the board appearing to have exceeded its authority in a way that conflicts with the privileges of the House. Accordingly, the Chair is prepared to rule that there is a prima facie question of privilege. The Chair has read the motion suggested by the member for Banff—Airdrie in his written notice and, given the developments in this matter, does not believe that it falls within the limited scope of this type of motion. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 150, states, “The terms of the motion have generally provided that the matter be referred to committee for study”. The Chair has previously stated, in similar circumstances, in a decision from June 16, 2021, on page 8552 of the Debates, “given that the parameters for such motions are clear and that the practice is well established, the proposed motion should be a motion of censure or to refer the matter to the appropriate committee for study.” The support and guidance of the Chair and the table officers are available to the member for Banff—Airdrie as he drafts his motion. As a result, the Chair reserves his final ruling and will return to the House as soon as the member is ready to move the appropriate motion. I want to thank hon. members for their attention.

1014 words

All Topics

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/2/21 3:48:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by my hon. colleague across the aisle, with respect to the order made by the House in the previous Parliament for a public release of documents from the Public Health Agency of Canada relating to the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. I will put aside the question of the appropriateness or the ability of an order made in one Parliament to bind a future Parliament. Rather, I will stick to the substance of the matter raised in the previous Parliament, and our government's desire to work collaboratively with opposition parties to find an appropriate mechanism to deal with the request for documents that contain information subject to national security confidentiality. As we all know, in the 43rd Parliament all opposition parties pressed the government to publicly release documents that contained information subject to national security that would have been injurious to Canada's reputation with its international security partners. In the previous Parliament, members should know that the Public Health Agency worked diligently to try to comply with the order of the House. In undertaking this work, the agency attempted to balance the right of parliamentarians to have access to information and the duty of the government to protect such information from public disclosure. Accordingly, the former minister of health referred the matter to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, given the committee members' expertise on matters of national security. The committee, made up of both House and Senate members, has a broad mandate and can review any activity carried out by a department that relates to national security or intelligence. The government continues to believe that this is an appropriate mechanism for parliamentary review of documents, and the best way to ensure the protection of information subject to national security confidentiality. Unfortunately, the opposition parties did not find this to be an acceptable approach. If the matter is revived again in this new Parliament by way of a substantive motion, our government believes that with the co-operation of the other members a solution to this impasse can be found. This spirit brings to mind Speaker Milliken's ruling of April 27, 2010, respecting the right to institute inquiries and to order the production of documents. I will quote from Speaker Milliken's ruling: Certainly from the submissions I have heard, it is evident to the Chair that all members take seriously the sensitive nature of these documents and the need to protect the confidential information they contain. The Chair must conclude that it is within the powers of the House of Commons to ask for the documents sought in the December 10 order it adopted. Now it seems to me that the issue before us is this: Is it possible to put in place a mechanism by which these documents could be made available to the House without compromising the security and confidentiality of the information they contain? In other words, is it possible for the two sides, working together in the best interests of the Canadians they serve, to devise a means where both their concerns are met? Surely that is not too much to hope for. Building on the approach taken by the House in 2010, our government believes there is good reason for hope of a resolution. I would like to walk members through a proposed vetting mechanism that would allow certain parliamentarians to see unredacted versions of the documents while ensuring the ongoing protection of sensitive information. The proposed mechanism is based on the ad hoc committee of parliamentarians and the panel of arbiters used in 2010 for records related to the transfer of Afghan detainees from the Canadian Armed Forces to the Afghan authorities. The proposed model balances two key principles: first, accountability to Parliament by maximizing disclosure and transparency to the greatest extent that is possible; and second, the protection of sensitive and confidential information from disclosure where it would be injurious to our nation. It reflects the government's understanding of the House of Commons' role in holding the government to account and its need for complete and accurate information in order to fulfill this role. At the same time, it reflects the House of Commons' understanding of the government's responsibilities in matters of national security, national defence and international relations. It further reflects that information subject to solicitor-client privilege or cabinet confidences are classes of information that Parliament has long recognized are sensitive and may require protection from disclosure. I would now like to walk members through the proposal detailing the composition of the committees, the panel of arbiters, appropriate security measures to safeguard the information and the methods for screening records. Let me begin with the proposed composition of the committee and the panel of arbiters. The government and opposition parties would sign a memorandum of understanding to create the committee and select a panel of arbiters. The committee would be comprised of one member from each of the signatory parties and one alternate member from each party. The panel of arbiters could be comprised of three former senior judges who were agreed upon by the signatories. Second, let me address the security measures to safeguard information. Members of the ad hoc committee would conduct their business within a secure government facility and be subject to appropriate security measures to safeguard sensitive and confidential information. This includes procedural, physical and technical security measures and the requirement that members of the committee would undergo the same security screening as members of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians in order to obtain the appropriate security clearance. The work of the ad hoc committee and the panel of arbiters would be supported by security-cleared, non-partisan public servants. MPs on the committee would be provided with both the redacted and non-redacted versions of the documents provided by the government. Where there is a disagreement concerning what information should be released publicly, the committee would refer the disputed information to the panel of arbiters. The panel of arbiters, agreed upon by all parties, would make a binding determination regarding how that information could be made available to members of Parliament and the public without compromising national security, national defence or international relations. This could occur by redaction, the writing of summaries, or the full or partial release of the material. Finally, let me touch upon methods for the screening of records. The proposed model has a method for screening records containing information, the disclosure of which would be injurious to national security, national defence or international relations, otherwise collectively known as national security confidentialities. Madam Speaker, as you can see, our government has taken seriously the need to provide a reasonable oversight mechanism for the review of documents containing confidential national security information, as stipulated in Speaker Milliken's April 2010 ruling. Members will note the similarity to the approach taken in 2010, which was deemed by a majority of the recognized parties at the time to be both reasonable and an effective balance between the interests of parliamentarians in obtaining the information they need and ensuring that confidential national security information is treated with the discretion necessary to protect the interests of Canadians and our great country. I was a critic at that time in 2010. I can say the system worked with great effectiveness at achieving that balance. I look forward to fruitful deliberations with my colleagues on the opposition benches and, as Speaker Milliken stated, I believe that collaboration among all parties is truly not too much to hope for. I thank members of the House for their attention to this important matter and for their indulgence in responding to this question of privilege. In closing, we believe this proposal constitutes a good-faith effort by the government to resolve this matter responsibly. It recognizes the role of the House of Commons to do its work, and it also respects the government's obligation to protect Canadians from the harm that could occur with the release of sensitive national security information. In the end, it is a responsibility that we each bear as a member of Parliament. We must do our jobs in this place, and we must fulfill our duties in a responsible manner to uphold the principles of national security designated to us to protect this great country.

1403 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/2/21 3:58:19 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. government House leader. The matter will be taken under consideration and we will return as quickly as possible.

22 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.)

Dec/2/21 3:58:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, within the throne speech there is so much to provide comment on. I personally have reflected a great deal on child care. What would my colleague say is one of the things that makes her look forward to the coming days, when we think of the throne speech? Is there something specific to her constituents?

57 words

Ms. Lena Metlege Diab (Halifax West, Lib.)

Dec/2/21 3:59:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, welcome to the chair. It is my first opportunity to speak and see you sitting there, so it is lovely to see you sitting there. I thank my colleague. When I was a minister and a member of the provincial Nova Scotia legislature, I was so proud when the Prime Minister and the current Minister of Immigration and some members of the legislature of Nova Scotia attended my riding to make the very important announcement on child care. It was at Mount Saint Vincent University. It was precedent-setting for the province, and indeed it will be for the country. It is going to benefit my daughters who have children. As we all know, child care and the cost of living are very difficult, but I am very much looking forward to all the provinces in this country signing on.

142 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Dec/2/21 4:00:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome the member opposite to the House. In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, we have a lot of seniors. Many of them are on OAS and GIS, and they have to take jobs on top of those to make ends meet. When the pandemic hit they received the CERB, and now their GIS is being taken away or reduced. I have been trying to have this issue addressed for about a year and a half. Between that and the increase to OAS only for seniors aged 75 and above, there are a lot of seniors who are going to be suffering. I did not hear much in the throne speech that would address that. Could the member comment?

125 words

Ms. Lena Metlege Diab

Dec/2/21 4:01:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for welcoming me to the House. I am very pleased to be here and to be able to work collaboratively with the member and all her colleagues. That is a very good question, and it is one I heard a lot at the doors when I campaigned in my riding. I have spoken to our colleagues on this side of the House about it, and it is a matter that the minister is very much aware of. It is a matter that I very much look forward to her department working on, and I have been assured that it is working on it. I know that seniors received the rebate in the summer, and that was very welcome by most of them. As I said, I look forward to the minister and the department working on that as well.

145 words

Mr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC)

Dec/2/21 4:02:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask the member opposite a question. I appreciate her words and congratulate her on her electoral victory. The member mentioned child care quite often in her speech, and in her questions and comments. Given that the federal government was running a significant deficit prior to the pandemic and Liberals are running a massive deficit now, how is child care being paid for? Is it going to be deficit-financed, to put on the backs of those children entering child care whenever this money starts flowing and whenever these child care spaces start being created?

101 words

Ms. Lena Metlege Diab

Dec/2/21 4:03:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to answer that question because our country and our families depend on these investments and this is one way to get more families, men and women back into the workforce. We all know we have labour shortages. We need to get people back to work and we all know child care is very expensive. It is an investment in our children, in my case in my grandchildren, and I very much look forward to that. This is an investment. That is one thing my father taught me as a small child. These are investments as opposed to expenses. This is how I view it.

110 words

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC)

Dec/2/21 4:03:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in response to the ruling from the Chair just a few moments ago, I do thank the Speaker for that ruling. I believe he certainly has established that the principle that the Board of the Internal Economy does not have the independent authority to deny members access to the precinct. Therefore, I am satisfied with the ruling, and I think the fact that the precedent has been set is satisfactory. I do thank the Speaker for the ruling.

80 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/2/21 4:04:35 p.m.
Watch

We find it a bit irregular that that is the answer to the ruling. We will take due note and will come back, if necessary. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

35 words

Mr. Arif Virani (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.)

Dec/2/21 4:05:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-4 Bill C-3

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak for the first time in an intervention in this House of Commons in the 44th Parliament. I am speaking from my riding in Parkdale—High Park, which is situated on the traditional territory of the Anishnabeg, the Chippewa, Haudenosaunee, the Huron Wendat and, most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit. Toronto is well known as the home of many diverse first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples today. As I speak for the first time in this chamber on legislation in the 44th Parliament, I want to thank some important people who have brought me to this situation. First and foremost is my family, my two sons, Zakir and Nitin, and my wife, Suchita, who, when she is not supporting me in these political endeavours, is actually keeping our country safe from COVID-19 as a member of the incredible team at the Public Health Agency of Canada that works on border health and quarantine controls. Thanks very much to Suchita for everything she is doing to keep our country safe. I want to thank the countless volunteers who helped me get to where I am today. I want to thank all of the family members and friends who came out to knock on doors, put up signs and do all of the work behind the scenes that made the campaign possible. It is a humbling thing for a person to be asked by the members of their community to be their voice in Parliament and to have this honour bestowed upon me for the third straight occasion. It is a privilege and responsibility that I do not take lightly. My priorities in this Parliament remain those that my constituents speak to me about and those that I am passionate about. Those are climate action and housing affordability, subjects of key concern for the residents of Parkdale—High Park and things that I have my life work, which are promoting human rights abroad and domestically, and secondly, fighting discrimination and racism wherever they rear their ugly head. In terms of the Speech from the Throne, what I would say is that in electing this government for the third straight occasion, I believe Canadians made clear their priorities for the 44th Parliament. That is, most fundamentally, to finish the fight against COVID-19 and to build back our economy in a way that is more inclusive than before we had ever heard of the term “coronavirus” or the term “COVID-19”. Let me turn to health care first in terms of my intervention today, because we are now in the midst of yet another variant, omicron. In terms of health care and COVID-19, I want to first of all start by echoing some of what we heard in the Speech from the Throne. My condolences to not only the family of the senator who passed because of COVID, Senator Forest-Niesing, but also to the families of 29,714 individuals who, as of early December of this year, have lost their lives due to COVID-19. We have, by international accounts, one of the most successful vaccination campaigns in the world as of right now: 86% of all Canadians who are 12 and over are fully vaccinated. In my city of Toronto, it is 85% and that surpasses many other major cities such as London, England; New York City; Chicago; and Los Angeles. We will continue as a government to build off the fact that we have provided 60 million vaccination doses thus far, including boosters and first doses to young people. In terms of young people, members heard me mention Zakir and Nitin. My boys are age 10 and 7, respectively. They got their first dose last Sunday at a walk-in clinic in Toronto, making me and their mom, Suchita, very proud of those two little guys. Instead of exhibiting vaccine hesitancy, they exhibited vaccine restlessness and fought with each other over who would get to go first. My parents, both nearly 80, are being vaccinated for the third time this week. Now that I am of the tender age of 50, apparently in Ontario I will be eligible for my third dose because that is what is happening with boosters for those who are over 50. I am now part of that little group. I think what is important is that we have a track record as a government of providing vaccines for free to all Canadians who want vaccines. I am proud of that record and our record of making vaccines mandatory for federal civil servants, federally regulated industries and interprovincial travel. I am also very proud that one of the first acts that we have taken as the Liberal government was to table legislation, Bill C-3, which would create a new offence for those who intimidate health care workers or seek to prevent someone from accessing health care treatment. I am not just speaking about my wife here. I am speaking about thousands and thousands of other health care workers who have done so much to keep us safe from COVID-19 in these past 22 months. Those individuals deserve our praise and our gratitude, not our scorn or our abuse. However, I know that ending this pandemic requires investing in our health care systems and dismantling barriers for vulnerable populations. I am thinking about Joyce Echaquan and the indigenous experience in health care in this country. It is also about clearing the backlog of COVID-19 cases. It is about reducing delays, strengthening the protections in our long-term care homes and protecting seniors in care, improving access to mental health and addictions services and I am proud that we now have a minister devoted to just that, and preventing privatization from entering our health care systems. Members heard me speak about climate as one of my priorities and one of the priorities of my constituents. Climate change was top of mind for voters in this fall's election, not just in my riding, but around the country. Obviously, our thoughts, prayers and hopes go out to all of our neighbours in British Columbia who are, in the span of several months, dealing with wildfires and now dealing with tragic mudslides. Tackling climate change is not a B.C. issue. It is a Canadian issue. It is a global issue. We were elected with a mandate to move on this and that is exactly what we are doing. We heard that outlined in the Speech from the Throne. We are increasing the price on pollution and the climate rebate, which allows Canadians to make changes in their own personal lives. We are banning single-use plastics. We are making it impossible to buy a new car or light-duty truck that is not electric by 2035, and we are making that more possible by providing generous federal rebates for the purchase of such vehicles and by providing more vehicle charging infrastructure. We are putting a cap on oil and gas sector GHG emissions and moving the entire country to net-zero emissions by 2050 on legislated five-year increments. We are ending fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. On the electricity grid, we are phasing out coal as a source of energy across the country by 2030. This is something that we, as Liberals, were successful in doing in Ontario over a decade ago by phasing out coal. How does this impact my constituents? In ridings like mine in Parkdale—High Park, we have increased bike shares and bike lanes. There are nine new bike shares to promote active transport. We have provided funding for green infrastructure to the High Park Zoo and the High Park Nature Centre to the tune of almost $4 million for sustainable energy projects. On housing, we are strengthening our economy by ensuring that housing is affordable. I heard repeatedly on the campaign trail from all sectors about supportive housing, rental housing and those who want to buy. We are delivering for communities like mine through things like the NHS, the national housing plan, subsidies for co-op renters in federal co-ops and $1.2 billion put into TCHC to maintain, repair and renovate units. We have also implemented a rapid housing initiative and expanded it, which has delivered $14 million to constituents in my riding to ensure that new housing is being built. This is critical to that inclusive recovery. I also talked about human rights and fighting discrimination. I came to this place as a Constitution and human rights lawyer in 2015. The orientation that I have and commitment to protecting fundamental freedoms has not wavered. In these past six years, I have been very privileged to work on many aspects such as settling Syrian refugees, reenacting a national anti-racism strategy, fighting Islamophobia, securing legal aid for refugee claimants and tabling legislation to combat online hate in the last Parliament. This is important human rights work and it must continue. I pledge to my constituents to continue to be a strong voice for human rights for those in Eastern Europe who are facing aggression by Vladimir Putin and Russia, including Ukrainians and Poles. I also redoubled my commitment to my Tibetan constituents who seek nothing more than the basic permission to speak their language and practise Tibetan Buddhism from the Government of the People's Republic of China. The Middle Way approach, advocated by the Dalai Lama, can help secure this and I will continue to advocate for that approach. Domestically, advocacy for human rights must include renewed commitment to reconciliation. I learned so much about where we are and how far we have to go when I was privileged to work on the Indigenous Languages Act in the 42nd Parliament. My constituents, like me, were horrified by the discoveries of the unmarked graves at residential school sites. I have committed to my constituents publicly and I will commit to them here today that my work on fighting discrimination will focus on fighting anti-indigenous discrimination. There is so much more work to be done in terms of boil water advisories and ending discrimination in the child welfare system. Finally, I commit to the work that is needed to be done with the LGBTQ2 community. We had a historic day in Parliament yesterday with Bill C-4 receiving unanimous consent, but the work is not done until that bill passes through the Senate and becomes law through royal assent. Only then will the equality rights of LGBTQ2 Canadians and all Canadians be fully protected. This is the work I am committed to in terms of climate action, housing action, fighting against inequality, and fighting against discrimination and for human rights, domestically and abroad. The Speech from the Throne outlines what we will be doing as a government and I am very proud to be partaking in that work.

1829 words

All Topics

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Dec/2/21 4:15:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the member is very intelligent, as a lawyer, and he has been fighting for people's human rights. One of the charter rights of all Canadians is to freely enter and leave the country. Liberal policies are preventing almost three million Canadians who are not yet vaccinated from taking a plane or a train, and they cannot cross a land border. They are essentially trapped in the country. Would he agree that that is a violation of their charter rights? What reasonable accommodations would the government be willing to put forward to address it?

98 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Dec/2/21 4:16:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Sarnia—Lambton on her re-election to the chamber, and she raises an important point. Fundamental freedoms have been at issue, in terms of COVID and the response to the COVID pandemic, but when we are talking about charter rights and mobility rights, it needs to be crystal clear that people have the right of entry and exit from the country, and the right to re-enter. Even the most recent restrictions we have put on people who have been travelling to places or countries that have an omicron epidemic in their localities do not restrict the return of Canadians into this country. That is the first point. The second point is understanding that all charter rights are subject to what is called the saving clause, under section 1, where reasonable limitations can be put on charter rights if they are reasonably prescribed and deemed a reasonable limit that is commensurate with a free and democratic society. The pandemic we are living through is an emergency of a type not seen in 100 years. It has required extensive measures and sometimes extensive limitations in order to keep people safe. That is something I am sure the member for Sarnia—Lambton and I would agree on, and it is the fundamental—

220 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/2/21 4:17:11 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Mirabel.

8 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Dec/2/21 4:17:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Parkdale—High Park from the bottom of my heart for his speech. I can see that he is quite familiar with the health care system and its funding, as well as mental health. I must make a confession today. The only time I read the Canadian Constitution was the French version, in which health is an exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Could my colleague tell me what is written in the English version, please?

82 words

Mr. Arif Virani

Dec/2/21 4:17:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Mirabel for his question and welcome him to the House. In fact, health care is a shared jurisdiction between the two levels of government. I could give a number of examples, the first being the Canada Health Act, which divides the health care powers and allocates some to the federal government. I can also highlight the Tobacco Control Act, which allows the federal government to enact regulations that deal with health and has been upheld in litigation cases as properly falling under the federal health care jurisdiction. Of course, we would also recognize the fact that the federal government, at the Canadian level, has jurisdiction over health care matters with respect to first nations populations. Therefore, the member's categorization is unfortunately incorrect. The federal government does have shared jurisdiction over health.

139 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Dec/2/21 4:18:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I noted with great interest that the member for Parkdale—High Park mentioned the fight against all the different kinds of hate we confront in our communities, especially Islamophobia. Being from London, Ontario, this is of great concern to me, and I was very pleased that the House unanimously adopted my motion to push for that summit on confronting and fighting against Islamophobia. That summit, in fact, was held over the summer. However, I am very interested to hear from this member what his government plans to do going forward from the recommendations that came from all the incredible organizations across this country that contributed to that summit, as well as how quickly it will move on those summit recommendations.

123 words

Mr. Arif Virani

Dec/2/21 4:19:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the pain the member for London—Fanshawe is speaking of concerning the death of the Afzaal family, so tragically killed in a terrorist attack when a van ran onto the road and struck down the family. That is horror, that is terrorism and that needs to be combatted, and I thank her for moving that Islamophobia summit. In terms of that work, our platform included two very specific commitments, which deal with how people are radicalized to that level of hatred that they can take people's lives. That was, firstly, a commitment to, within 100 days, retable legislation that deals with combatting online hate, and secondly, a commitment to, within 100 days, regulate Internet giants that unfortunately do not just tolerate hate but sometimes propagate it.

132 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Dec/2/21 4:20:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Shefford. I would like to take a moment to thank the volunteers at the Centre d'entraide Saint‑Colomban, the parish of Saint Francis of Assisi in Oka, and the Carrefour d'entraide Saint-Placide for organizing their charity drive. This was a tremendous act of selflessness, and I commend them. In passing, I would also like to commend one of my constituents, Jasmine Bikarski-Lalande. As a new member of Parliament, I was hoping to hear great things here, especially in the Speech from the Throne. To me, that speech was the ideal time for the government to set out its agenda and, without explaining each of its policies in detail, at least share its ambitions for the next four years. I say four years because I hope the Liberals realize that they cannot just call an election whenever they feel like it. I had expectations when reading the Speech from the Throne, and this may have been the academic in me, but I was looking for footnotes because the speech was lacking in content, which bothered me. During the tough election campaign, I met with Mirabel residents who wanted to know why the election had been called and why they would have to go to the polling station in the middle of summer in the middle of a pandemic. These people, these families, these young people, including people from flood-stricken Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑lac, also talked to me about the environment and climate change. I was expecting to find answers in the throne speech. The Bloc Québécois has been sounding the alarm for years now, saying that the government, whether current or previous, is not doing anything. We are told that we have it all wrong, so we respond that the government is not meeting its targets, and then we are told again that we have it all wrong and that the government is taking action. Did the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development have it all wrong when he indicated in the report he released a few days ago that the government had not delivered? Canada is the laughingstock of the G7. It cannot even meet its own targets and it is using 2005 as the baseline year instead of 1990 so that it can conceal 15 years of unchecked exploitation of dirty oil. That is unacceptable. The other self-respecting countries, including Quebec and the 27 EU countries, use 1990 as the baseline year. Being open-minded, I was curious to see how the minister would explain these facts. The minister told us that it was because of the Harper era. He said this even though the environment commissioner's report covered all the years under the current government. As I said, however, I keep an open mind, so I kept listening. The government told us that the Liberals were taking action, but that the Harper government had been so terrible that we were still suffering the consequences. I decided to do a bit of research to see what this government has done for the climate, and I will admit that it has taken action: it went out west to buy a pipeline that cost $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money. Not being very smart, I did not quite understand why the government did that. The explanation it gave was that the pipeline would be so profitable that the government could use the profits to fight climate change. I am a good researcher, so I checked reports from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I figured that the federal government must be making money on this, because every 15 minutes, the minister says that the government is taking action on climate change. However, the rate of return on the public money invested in the pipeline is 0.5%. In comparison, as the Conservatives keep saying, the inflation rate is 5%. As members can see, the environment is of virtually no importance to the government. I wanted to make a joke. I wanted to calculate how many trees could be planted with the profits from this pipeline, but I realized that without Alberta's tax relief, the pipeline would be in the red. In order for my joke to work, I would have to go into the forest and tear down trees, which makes no sense. I continued to think about this. I am a very calm and logical person. I told myself that there was surely something going on that I did not understand. There are so many intelligent people in this place who are helping to save the planet. It was at that point that I understood what comes next. What comes next is that the pipeline has to be expanded. We did not figure it out, but Canada has to inject at least another $12 billion of public money into the pipeline. If we expand the pipeline, pump out more oil and increase production, what will happen? There will be more money to combat climate change. This is the kind of thing that makes Quebeckers and Canadians cynical. However, if Canadians and Quebeckers do not fully understand the message that the government is sending, the financial markets do. What message is the government sending the financial markets? It is the following. If you are a foreign company that decides to set up shop in western Canada and you make a bad investment in a pipeline, which, besides being unprofitable is not supported by civil society, the Liberal Party will be there to help you. If the company fails or is no good, the Liberal Party will be there to help. That is what is known as too big to fail. Let us not then be surprised when there are problems and a big part of the country is trapped in this industry. The Bloc Québécois is a party that makes proposals. What this situation shows us is that we must address the issue of the money going out to those provinces and this industry. The facts show that over the past five years, our own banks have invested $700 billion in this industry, money taken from savers, families, people who put money in the piggy bank. We are therefore proposing a green finance platform. It is very simple: We believe that Canadian banks should be required to publicly declare how much they are investing in the oil and gas sector. It is a matter of transparency. They should have to disclose their investments. Nutritional information is disclosed, chemicals are disclosed, the content of feather pillows has to be disclosed, but when we deposit our money with a Canadian financial institution, we cannot find out if our money is brown or green. That is what we are asking for. I know that the Conservatives will not like me. They believe in the free market, but as it happens, I am an economics professor. The first thing we teach CEGEP students is that a market economy only works when there is transparency, when people know where they are putting their money, when they know what they are doing. That is what we are asking for. In conclusion, I just want to say one thing. We know the western provinces are victims. Jean Chrétien himself said that, if he had given as much money to Quebec as he did to Alberta, he would have won every seat in Quebec. I personally think Quebeckers have better judgment than that. Still, the message is there. Western Canada's fossil fuel industry is essentially a state enterprise subsidized and supported by various levels of government. That is why we also want to propose green equalization, which is so important to us. This program, which will benefit provinces that do their utmost to reduce emissions, will take equalization and current oil subsidies into account. We are reaching out and hoping for a little introspection on both sides of the House. I can guarantee that there are not a lot of fingerprints on the dictionary page with the word “introspection”. If we want to fix the problem, we have to admit there is a problem. We are a petrostate. Quebeckers are victims of the petrostate. Quebec's economy is a victim of the petrostate. We need to cap production and reduce it. We need to focus on the future. That is a fact.

1425 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 9