SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/1/22 6:18:54 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for the information he has provided in his point of order. We will certainly take it under consideration and come back to the House, if need be.

31 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/1/22 6:19:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-242

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-242. The process of introducing private members' legislation in the House is very important. It is an opportunity for individual members to bring forward ideas and concepts that they feel are important to put before the 338 members of Parliament, and I applaud the member for bringing forward something he is quite passionate about. I will say right off the bat that I take great exception to some of what I heard, especially in the last speech by the Conservative member. I recognize that the member who introduced this bill was around during the Stephen Harper government and is fully aware of what was going on at the time. I respect the fact that he tried to stray from referring too much to those days, but the member for Calgary Forest Lawn made a number of outrageous claims, in my opinion, one of which was about a Liberal-made backlog. This is coming from the Conservative Party that previously said the family reunification application system was a six-year wait. Why was that? It was—

189 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/1/22 6:20:38 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind members that there are no questions and comments and there should be no heckling. I would ask them to listen to what the hon. member says in case some of their colleagues want to speak on this and maybe talk in their speeches about some of what they have heard. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

58 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/1/22 6:21:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-242

Indeed, Madam Speaker, I have been listening very attentively to what they have said, and that is why my comments today are a reflection of what I heard, not something I had written before I came into the chamber, because that is an important part of the debate process. The member for Calgary Forest Lawn said it was a Liberal-made backlog. This is coming from a member who sits with the party of a former Conservative government that literally had a six-year backlog as it related to family reunification. Why was there such a huge backlog? It was very clear to Canadians at the time that the Stephen Harper government was more interested in immigration applications from people who were bringing what Conservatives perceived to be economic potential into the country. There was a much shorter time period to wait for immigration applications for those coming here to work versus those coming here for the purposes of family reunification. Although I am very pleased to see members of the Conservative Party now talking about the importance of family reunification, because it is indeed a very important part of the immigration process, I do not agree with the member's comments that this was a Liberal-made backlog, particularly in today's context. Earlier we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say that back in the Stephen Harper days, 5,000 applicants were allowed to apply for family reunification in Canada per year, and now we are in the neighbourhood of around 25,000 or 30,000 per year. It is disingenuous to suggest that this government has not been doing its job. I also found it very interesting when the member for Calgary Forest Lawn said that Conservatives see seniors and children as being a positive to our economic potential. That clearly did not come through in the previous programs that previous Conservative governments had. They took a position, as I mentioned, to move away from family reunification and more in the direction of those who had jobs lined up in Canada and were coming here for economic purposes. Again I am very pleased to see this new position that is being taken by Conservatives. I think it is great and I think it is the right thing; I just do not think that they can stand on firm ground when they talk about this government somehow failing.

409 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/1/22 6:24:08 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member will have five and a half minutes the next time this matter is before the House.

19 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Mar/1/22 6:25:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on December 9, 2021, I posed a question to the government seeking clarification as to what support Canada was providing our democratic ally Taiwan, in the face of escalating tension in the Taiwan Strait and increased aggression on the part of the Chinese Communist regime. Disappointingly, the response from the minister was wanting. While it is understandable that in the last several days much attention has shifted to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, the provocative actions of the Chinese Communist regime must not be ignored. They pose a real threat, not only to democratic Taiwan but to peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region, as well as the international rules-based order. Since June of 2020, Chinese military planes, including fighter jets and bombers, have entered Taiwan's air defence identification zone on an almost daily basis. Last October, we saw an unprecedented 150 Chinese military planes enter the air defence identification zone within the span of four days. Those incursions continue to this day. They are part of a broader grey zone assault by the Chinese Communist regime against Taiwan that consists of infiltration, cyber-attacks, the spreading of disinformation and military intimidation. In the face of this aggression, several of our democratic allies have signalled their strong support for Taiwan. For example, late last year, U.S. Secretary of State Blinken said that any attempt by China to invade Taiwan would be met with serious consequences. Just yesterday, a high-level U.S. delegation consisting of security and defence officials arrived in Taipei to reaffirm the U.S.'s steadfast support for Taiwan and Taiwan's security. Last February, a month ago, the U.K. House of Commons passed a unanimous motion that, among other things, called for a deepening of security co-operation between Taiwan and the United Kingdom. Our allies, Australia and Japan, have also been clear in their support for Taiwan. By contrast, the government's response has been largely one of silence. It is as if the government refuses to acknowledge the increased Chinese aggression in the Taiwan Strait. I put it to the government: When will the government step up, join our allies and unequivocally state our support for Taiwan in the face of Chinese Communist aggression?

378 words

Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 6:28:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me begin by assuring the House, including the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, that Canada is deeply concerned about recent tensions in the Taiwan Strait. This issue is important to Canada and to Canadians, especially given the extensive economic, cultural and people-to-people ties that we have had since 1970 with Taiwan, even within the one China policy. Under this policy, Canada recognizes the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China, taking note of, and neither challenging nor endorsing, the Chinese government's position on Taiwan. This framework has, however, allowed Canada to advance unofficial but very valuable ties with Taiwan based on complementary interests and our shared values. There are currently some 60,000 Canadians living in Taiwan, which makes it home to the fourth-largest Canadian diaspora community in the world. We have daily non-stop flights between Canada and Taipei and have had those since 2017. With two-way merchandise trade valued at some $7.4 billion in 2020, Taiwan is Canada's 15th-largest trading partner and a critical member of global supply chains, particularly for chip manufacturing and international shipping. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Taiwan was among the first to donate masks to Canada, a sign of our deep and enduring friendship. On issues ranging from global health to civil aviation, Canada has consistently supported Taiwan's meaningful participation in global discussions where it is useful and where Taiwan's absence would be detrimental to global interests. Despite international efforts to promote greater inclusion in international organizations, such as the World Health Assembly and the International Civil Aviation Organization, Taiwan remains shut out of important discussions where its presence would benefit all of us. In recent years, we have observed increased incursions into Taiwan's self-declared air defence identification zone by the People's Liberation Army. Canada is very concerned about these actions and incidents that could result in further escalations across the Taiwan Strait. Canadian officials have communicated directly to Chinese authorities our concerns about destabilizing military actions across the strait. We are doing so practically as well by taking part in operations in the region, most recently through the involvement of Canada's frigate HMCS Winnipeg. We are there, we are communicating strongly and we want to ensure that Taiwan is secure in its region. That is very important to Canada. We will continue to monitor the cross-strait developments closely while reiterating our strong support for constructive efforts that contribute to peace, stability and dialogue in the region. As a progressive democracy, Taiwan demonstrates that Confucian values and individual rights and freedoms, including for women, the LGBTQ community and indigenous peoples, can coexist. Canada has many other unique reasons to advance its ties with Taiwan without reference to the agenda of third parties. This long-standing approach has guided Canada's engagement with Taiwan for over five decades and will remain a cornerstone of our continued engagement in the future.

503 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Mar/1/22 6:32:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I share the hon. parliamentary secretary's sentiments and I concur with him that Taiwan is an important ally to Canada in terms of our trade, our people-to-people links and our shared values. That is why the government's inaction to strongly signal its support for Taiwan in the face of Chinese communist aggression has been so disappointing. In that regard, Canada has fallen short of our allies. There are meaningful things that Canada can be doing. Canada could, for example, establish meaningful security co-operation with Taiwan. We could be a leader in encouraging Taiwan's participation in multilateral military exercises. Unlike the government, which did not signal its support, we should be signalling our support for Taiwan's inclusion in the CPTPP. Those are three practical measures that could be taken. It is time the government began to act.

145 words

Hon. Robert Oliphant

Mar/1/22 6:33:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would assert again to the House that Canada remains committed to advancing our interests and those of Taiwan within the framework of Canada's one China policy. Our engagement with Taiwan is multi-faceted and has on its own merits an important role to play in advancing Canadian interests. Those are as important as the very concerning things the member raised regarding the cross-strait security question. As our sixth-largest trading partner in the Indo-Pacific, Taiwan and its economic stability matter to Canadians, to Canadian businesses and to Canadian exporters. For instance, recognizing Taiwan's crucial position in global supply chains, Canada recently launched exploratory discussions on a possible foreign investment promotion and protection arrangement with Taiwan. We will continue to advance Canadian interests and establish security in the region.

135 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Mar/1/22 6:34:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the adjournment proceedings tonight. I will start with a candid comment that I have said to several constituents over the course of the last few weeks when we have debated the many issues facing the city of Ottawa specifically and our country: I cannot wait until we can come to the floor of the House of Commons and not talk about COVID or convoys. However, I want to follow up on the supplemental question I asked in question period a few weeks ago about a reopening plan from this government. As I said before, this should be a happy time for our country. We are seeing a drop in severity with the latest COVID-19 variant, and we have seen the surge begin to eliminate itself. We have seen public health data and public health experts say that we are now in a phase of this pandemic, thankfully, where we do not have to live in fear and where we can learn to live with COVID and adjust our public health measures to do so. A few weeks ago in our opposition day motion, we simply asked for a plan. The motion was voted down down by the government and the NDP, not because of science but because of politics. It was reasonable at this point in the game, and it was not unrealistic. Several provinces, provincial premiers and leaders around the world in similar situations to what Canada has faced during this pandemic have given their citizens hope to say that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, here is the plan, here are the metrics, here are the benchmarks to know that we are finally getting to the end of this pandemic, and here is when we can see some closure and some advancement on getting back to normal. I had to laugh because the motion was voted down and two days later an NDP member stood up in question period and said, “We need a plan”. The NDP just voted against it three days before. Nevertheless, we are still here, unfortunately, in a situation where, yes, things have certainly been tense in our country over the past few weeks and months. A lot of my constituents say, and rightly so, that there is a difference between the federal restrictions and measures that have been put in place and the provincial ones. A lot of provincial premiers and leaders have shown plans and timelines and made progress, but at the federal level we do not see that same leadership. We have asked the government numerous times to provide the science and data that shows the reason for mandates and some of the measures it is responsible for, but these things are still in place and we have gotten silence back. However, others are speaking up in this country. I think of the many border communities in the province of Ontario, where home is to me, such as the city of Cornwall, the port of entry there and SD&G. Local mayors and tourism businesses are wanting to see the restrictive measures at land borders finally and rightfully lifted. There have been leaders as well. For example, I will quote an article where Mayor Drew Dilkens from the City of Windsor said this: “So I think what we need to do is trust Canadians to make smart decisions. We've asked people to get vaccinated, that is the high water mark here of the pandemic. But having a requirement for a test is really an optical illusion for safety. It really is providing no real protection.” Dilkens and his counterparts said the science doesn't support testing of this kind and it remains a barrier for those looking to cross land borders between the U.S. and Canada. We also still have on the table from the government the idea of an interprovincial mandate for truck drivers, which would be extremely inappropriate considering the data, public health advice and the direction of provincial leaders and many countries around the world. My supplemental question to the government is this: What are the metrics? What are the time frames? Where is the hope to get back to a semblance of normalcy and to get back to normal? Canadians have been more than patient. They have done their part. There is no reason why at this point in the game they cannot have a detailed plan.

752 words

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 6:38:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member, although the question he asked me was not the question that I was given to respond to. Just before I do respond with the speech that I was given, I would just say that COVID is not listening to Parliament. COVID is not listening to politicians. We talk about providing a plan. Two years ago, almost to the day, we were hit with a pandemic that none of us ever expected to see. I am very proud of how our government has responded. I was really proud, at the beginning of the pandemic, of how all the parties came together in March 2020. I remember a press conference in which all parties were saying that we needed to pull together. That changed over the months, unfortunately. I wish that in March 2020, somebody could have said, “Okay, in two weeks time, this is what is going to happen,” but none of us knew. None of us expected it. The member said that the government needs to say what the plan is. We have never been able to say that, because we do not know what the virus is going to do. I think we have acted responsibly. We have always had the health and safety of Canadians at the heart of every decision we have made. That is the most important thing that we can do. It is important that the opposition work with us. It is important that we work together. We are always open to hearing constructive ideas from the opposition, from all parties in the House and from all members of the House as to the best way forward. I do not know how much time I have left, but I was of the understanding that the question was going to be about the implementation of the Emergencies Act. I would like to just touch on part of that, only because I think it is important to highlight the importance of our national unity and the leadership of the government. Canadians are looking for the country to come together. They are looking for all of us to listen to each other in a respectful way. Over the last few months, we seem to have lost the ability to disagree agreeably. I do not say that about the hon. member, who in my experience has always had the ability to disagree agreeably, and I appreciate that. I know that our government appreciates those who come to these really difficult issues in ways that are constructive. Unfortunately, the rhetoric and the misinformation created, in our peaceful country, peaceful protests that turned into an occupation. That turned into convoys that were blocking trade in my community of Oakville North—Burlington. We saw Ford of Canada with layoffs. We moved away from having those dialogues. The conversation is important, but it is unrealistic to say that we could present a plan for something that would not be listening to anything we said.

501 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/1/22 6:42:01 p.m.
Watch

I am not sure which matter was being brought before the House, because I do not have that in front of me at this point. Someone may have gotten the notice wrong. I will allow the hon. member to have his last minute and the hon. parliamentary secretary will be able to respond. The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

63 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

Mar/1/22 6:42:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize for any hiccups, but it was relatively relevant to the topic. The Emergencies Act is an example of something that we were confronted with as Parliament in the past few weeks. I will just say this to my hon. colleague. We are now into year three of the pandemic. The light at the end of the tunnel is here. It is not politicians that are saying that out of turn. We are hearing more public health leaders and experts saying this. We are at a time when we could start to end federal mandates. People could start to get back to work and get their livelihoods back, and do so safely. We could have federal public service workers return to downtown Ottawa to get our economy going again in the city of Ottawa and in eastern Ontario. We are at a spot now where we could rule out the need for interprovincial truck mandates. We could look for travel and tourism at our land borders, which is very important to the city of Cornwall in my region. I would just say, for travel and tourism, time is of the essence. A plan, metrics, and light, hope and optimism are needed for the many people who rely on American visitors coming up and using our land borders each year. I would encourage the government, once again, to please get a plan, get back open, end mandates and get back to normal.

244 words

Ms. Pam Damoff

Mar/1/22 6:43:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more that we need optimism and we need hope. I would say that in the fall we all were feeling that. I know I renewed my season's tickets to my favour lacrosse team. I had gone to a game. It felt like we were moving out of it, and I do not think any of us here expected the devastation that omicron brought and the challenges that our health care system had. Most of these mandates that people are frustrated with are actually put in place by the provincial governments, so when we were faced with something that none of us expected back in the fall, government had to react to it. I agree that we need to be hopeful. I agree that we need to be optimistic and I know that all of us want to return to the “before” times, but, with all due respect, I will go back to what I said before: COVID is not listening to us. We do not know what kind of thing is going to happen in the future. We need to be nimble. We need to be able to react to that. I thank the hon. member for his constructive comments.

209 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

Mar/1/22 6:44:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it has been nearly a month since I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage whether he would consider hosting a national conference on the future of art. Since then, performing artists have continued to reach out to me about how their livelihoods are imperiled. The arts community is an integral part of our economy, and while the additional funding by the government via the Canada performing arts workers resilience fund was a positive step for sector resilience, we are far from the end of the crisis. This is why I called on the minister to convene a national conference on the future of art, because it is clear that we have to find a way to live with COVID. It is clear also that every industry is different and that we must develop a targeted approach to how we will support different sectors and how we will support the arts community. I will give an example. When the Province of Ontario initiated a lockdown in response to the omicron variant, the arts were lumped into the same bucket as sports arenas. It did not matter that when we were watching Come From Away or when I went to see The Nutcracker, I and other audience members were doing so quietly and we were masked. It did not matter that this was an experience vastly different from that of the Scotiabank Arena, where audiences are eating and drinking and cheering for the Raptors and the Leafs. Let me be clear. I know that everyone here will appreciate that this fell within provincial jurisdiction. However, it is federally, not just in funding but also in leading and in convening, that the government can take action because, unfortunately, the decimation to the arts community is sadly not just exclusively in my riding and not just in Ontario but all across Canada. This is why Canada needs, and again I reiterate my call for it, a national conference to forge the path forward on the future of art in our country. Like my hon. colleague, I have been at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, where we have heard from many witnesses about the need for this because of the crippling impact that COVID has had on their sector. In fact, quite a number of the witnesses whom the heritage committee has heard from were from my riding of Spadina—Fort York, such as Ms. Kendra Bator of Mirvish Productions and Ms. Barbara Diabo, chair of the grand council of the Indigenous Performing Arts Alliance, to name but a couple. The statements provided by them and other witnesses were startling. The cost that COVID has levied on the Canadian arts community is alarming, and we must act, because the cost of inaction is not just on Canadian art and culture, which I would suggest is priceless; the price of inaction will mean jobs lost, local businesses continuing to be devastated, and forgone tax revenue. Let me share some of the stats that Kendra from Mirvish, which is our country's largest theatre production company, shared with the heritage committee. In 2019, over 1.8 million people attended a commercial theatre production. On tickets alone, audiences spent over $160 million, generating over $19 million in tax revenue. This does not even include a billion dollars spent on additional travel, hotels, restaurants, parking and retail. When people support the arts community, they are also supporting Canadian small businesses. When they support the arts community, they are also supporting Canadian tourism. When they support the arts community, they are supporting Canadian jobs and culture. Does my hon. colleague not agree that we have to take action and that the government must convene a national conference on the future of art?

626 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 6:48:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his suggestion, but he is late to the game. This is something the minister has committed to. Unfortunately, due to the omicron wave, the summit for artists and creators has been delayed, but it is something we are committed to moving forward on. Since the beginning of the pandemic, our government has engaged with both organizations and individuals who work in the cultural sector and acted upon their concerns through both universal measures that were broadly available to Canadians and unprecedented investments in new and existing programs specific to the cultural sector. We have made every effort to mitigate the financial hardships experienced by organizations, performers, artists and technicians whose employment has been interrupted by the pandemic. We were there in the spring of 2020 with the emergency support fund for culture, heritage and sport organizations to blunt the initial impact of the pandemic. Our 2020 fall economic statement committed $181.5 million to support the planning and presentation of COVID-19 safe events and performances, as well as to provide work opportunities, including a dedicated $40-million envelope for the support for workers in live arts and music sectors fund in fiscal year 2021-22. Budget 2021 included an investment of $500 million over two years for the recovery fund for arts, culture, heritage and sport sectors, and the reopening fund. Substantial portions of budget 2021 funds are being invested in the live arts presentation sector, community festivals, performing arts organizations and music. Our government has modified our programs to make them more responsive to changing conditions on the ground, and we did that most recently with the expansion of the Canada worker lockdown benefit announced in December. We know that the capacity reductions, cancellations and closures across the country, which were necessary to protect public health, have been devastating for workers in the live performance sector, particularly self-employed gig workers. This is why we announced an investment of $60 million in the Canada performing arts workers resilience fund for 2022-23. This new temporary program has been launched and will support sector-delivered initiatives that improve the economic, career and personal situations of independent and self-employed workers in the live performance sector. These initiatives can include direct financial support to these workers for emergency or hardship relief, as well as programs and services that provide career transition advice, counselling services, skills enhancement or professional development activities. Throughout the pandemic, direct engagement with the arts and culture sectors has been essential to delivering a robust and relevant response. We remain committed to holding a national summit on plans to restart and position the arts, culture and heritage sectors for the future. This event has been under development, but, as I mentioned, it has been postponed until public health restrictions allow for face-to-face meetings to take place safely. The department is finalizing plans and dates for this event in light of evolving public health conditions. The summit will be held in person as soon it is safe to do so, with a continuing focus on post-COVID recovery and the long-term competitiveness of Canada's arts, culture and heritage sectors. The arts and culture are vital to our economy and to the quality of our lives. We will continue to support artists, cultural workers and their sectors through the challenges they currently face.

569 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong

Mar/1/22 6:52:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague said that I am late to the game. The province is starting to open up. When is this national convening going to happen? The inaction by the government has led to us losing Canada's most successful musical, Come From Away. In our hometown of Toronto, it has closed. I want to localize the impact this has had due to inaction. Come From Away attracted more than a million patrons to Toronto. Box office sales surpassed $115 million with $15 million in HST. The show created jobs over 9,000 employee weeks. This was for the cast, stage managers, musicians, crew members and front of the house team members. When will the national convening happen?

120 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Mar/1/22 6:53:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member sounds like what we hear from the Conservative Party saying that he wills COVID to be over and we should pick a date. That is not how this pandemic is happening. I know he attended a couple of heritage committee meetings and believes that he is an expert on the subject, but the reality of the situation is that COVID is real and COVID is there. We have been there at every step of the way to support our cultural workers. We will continue to do so. There is no need to set a date. We know it is pressing. As soon as it is possible to do so, we will host the summit. It is a priority for this government.

126 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/1/22 6:53:58 p.m.
Watch

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.)

39 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 38