44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 10, 2022 10:00AM
- May/10/22 10:13:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition that I am tabling highlights the ongoing detention of Huseyin Celil in China. Petitioners note that, as a result of various efforts undertaken, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were released after 1,000 days of unjust detention and are very pleased about the release of the two Michaels, but note the continuing detention in China of Canadians, including Mr. Celil, who has been there for well over a decade and a half. The Government of China has refused, in violation of its own law and constitution, to recognize Mr. Celil's Canadian citizenship.
Petitioners want to see the Government of Canada demand the release of Huseyin Celil, and to formally state that the release of Mr. Celil from Chinese detention and his return to Canada are a priority of the government of equal concern to the unjust detention of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. They want to see the government appoint a special envoy to work on securing Mr. Celil's release, and they want to ask the government to seek the assistance of the Biden administration and allies around the world in obtaining Mr. Celil's release, just as we saw with respect to the two Michaels.
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 10:13:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling is with respect to the political neutrality of charitable status. Petitioners are concerned that the Liberal platform actually talked, in the last election, about politicizing charitable status and applying a values test in association with charitable status, whereby the government would deny charitable status to organizations with which they have particular disagreements. This is a concern not just to those organizations that might be affected but to the whole charitable sector, to see what the impact would be if the government started to go down this road of politicizing charitable status.
Petitioners want to see the House of Commons protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of those values and to affirm the right of all Canadians to free expression.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 10:13:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on a similar issue. The second petition is specifically to highlight Bill S-223, which is a bill that would combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking. It recognizes that this is a practice that happens in certain places around the world and it would seek to make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without consent. It would also create a mechanism by which someone could be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they were involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 10:13:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today Falun Gong practitioners are gathering on the Hill in advance of May 13, which is Falun Dafa Day.
The first petition I am presenting highlights the horrific persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. This has been going on for decades. Various resolutions have been passed in other parliaments, such as the U.S. House of Representatives and the European Parliament.
Action is urgently required to address human rights abuses impacting all of the people living in China. Falun Gong practitioners, in particular, have been victims, in spite of the fact that their simple activity is a spiritual practice seeking to advance the principles of truthfulness, compassion and forbearance.
Petitioners call on Parliament and on the government to work to end the targeting of Falun Gong practitioners, in particular taking measures to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking, to publicly call for an end to persecution and to use appropriate sanction mechanisms targeting the perpetrators of this violence.
I am pleased, especially today, to be able to highlight this issue.
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 10:13:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling is about the situation in Ukraine, in particular the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is an invasion that, in a sense, started in 2014. Of course, we have a further invasion in recent months. This is obviously an issue that the House has been seized with at various times, and there are a number of specific asks in here. Some of them involve sanctions and measures that have already been undertaken and the petitioners support those measures, but are calling for more to be done.
I particularly want to highlight the asks for a boycott on Russian oil and gas imports into Canada and Europe, and for securing energy agreements with western partners, increasing the supply of military equipment and lethal defensive weapons to protect the territory and human rights of the people of Ukraine, providing urgent humanitarian assistance to the people of Ukraine, providing vital assistance to refugees impacted by the conflict and allowing Canadians with family members in Ukraine to urgently bring family members to Canada for as long as the conflict persists.
These are a number of the asks, along with other measures involving sanctions targeting perpetrators of this violence.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 10:13:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition that I want to table highlights the human rights abuses targeting the Hazara community in Afghanistan. Petitioners note that various genocides have impacted the Hazara community over a century and a half, and the situation of the Hazaras was very challenging even prior to the Taliban takeover. Of course, it has gotten much worse.
The petitioners want to see the government take action to support Hazaras. In particular, this petition calls for the recognition of past genocides against the Hazara community and the designation of September 25 as Hazara genocide memorial day.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 10:20:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition that I am tabling is on the issue of vitamin D and its benefits, as well as the data that exists with respect to its beneficial effects in the context of COVID.
It highlights a number of detailed studies that have shown that higher levels of vitamin D are associated with more favourable outcomes for individuals who get COVID-19. It cites those studies and notes that people get vitamin D from sunlight exposure, so during the wintertime especially it is important for people to get vitamin D exposure by being outside or through supplementation.
It calls on the Government of Canada to recognize the emerging scientific evidence that low levels of vitamin D are associated with worse outcomes from COVID-19, and to work to increase public awareness about the importance of individuals maintaining recommended vitamin D levels.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 10:35:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to focus my question on the issue of freedom of conscience. The member spoke as if a member listening to somebody else deliver a prayer would be an attack on their freedom of conscience, if they did not agree with the prayer. Respectfully, it is an absurd understanding of freedom of conscience to say that my conscience is violated by listening to somebody else pray. I have attended many religious services for faiths that I am not a part of and I respectfully listen, but I do not participate if I do not agree with what is going on.
I wish the member was more concerned about freedom of conscience. I wish he would take a stand, for instance, for people who do not want to be forced, as a condition of their profession, to participate in things or not do things that contravene their conscience. Surely, I think the member would agree that it is more of a violation of an individual's conscience when they are, as a condition of membership in a professional association or in wanting to work in a particular area, compelled to do something or not do something rather than simply being asked to listen to somebody else saying a prayer.
211 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 10:48:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do think it is important to note, in response to the member's speech, that the traditions of this place do not emanate from the horrific orgy of violence that was the French Revolution. They emanate from the British tradition of pluralism, of accommodation, and especially here in North America, of the combination of different linguistic, faith and other communities.
I am proud of our pluralistic tradition, instead of violently seeking to eradicate religious belief, as happened in the French Revolution. That is the history of that revolution, which was the attempted violent eradication of religious believers. Instead, we have a tradition of saying, “Can we accommodate difference? Can we listen, and can we accommodate different perspectives?”
Now, the reality of the way the opening program of the House works is that we have a monotheistic prayer, and then we have a period of reflection. Therefore, if one is a non-believer, one can listen respectively during the first part and then engage in one's own reflection. I think that reflects pluralism. There is space for all of those traditions.
Our Canadian model has worked far better than the effort to violently eradicate other perspectives. I hope the member would at least acknowledge that in the context of her discussion of the history.
219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 5:34:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know why the member would object to praying for the Queen. He might want to use the prayer from Fiddler on the Roof: “May God bless and keep the czar far away from us.” That might be the kind of prayer the member would prefer.
In seriousness, he made a general argument against tradition, saying that some things have changed and other things can change too. Of course things can change and some changes have been good changes. However, that does not absolve us of the responsibility to critically evaluate the reasons that a tradition might have been in place previously and if there are downsides to removing that tradition.
In this case, we have a brief prayer followed by an opportunity for reflection, and that seems to be an inclusive formula. People have an opportunity to engage in secular reflection as they may wish, and there is also a very open-ended monotheistic prayer that really anybody from a monotheistic religious tradition can buy into.
Does the member at least accept that making this dramatic change to tradition in one opposition day is not the best way to proceed?
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 5:56:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it certainly has been an interesting day in the House of Commons, with the Bloc Québécois defending the idea of freedom of religion and conscience. I never thought I would see the day. Members were saying it was an offence that they had to spend 30 seconds listening to something they did not agree with. Imagine all the time I spend in this House hearing things I do not agree with.
Nonetheless, we are now on to debating something else, which is Motion No. 44. Just as, rhetorically at least, Bloc members were adopting the idea of freedom of religion or conscience, which is normally something we hear championed by Conservatives, we have a motion from a Liberal member that borrows considerably from the Conservative platform in the last election. On that basis, I am pleased to support it.
I would generally like to encourage members of the government, when they have private members' bills, to consider putting forward legislation that fixes the problems that are in place. Motions are a good way for the House to express itself on general issues. Implicit in this motion is an acknowledgement by the member of the government of the failure of the Liberal cabinet to actually move forward on addressing these issues in the seven years the Liberals have had up until now. There are significant problems that persist in our immigration system that have not been resolved.
Nonetheless, the ideas behind this motion are good ideas and ones that Conservatives are pleased to support. My understanding is that this motion will have the support of all members in the House, and I hope that it will then light a fire under the government to really confront some of the big and persistent challenges in the immigration system.
In particular, this motion calls on the government to put forward a plan that seeks to support a pathway to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers, recognizing, first of all, that people who come as temporary foreign workers often establish attachments here in Canada and develop Canadian connections and experience. Often, those who come here in temporary work positions are filling jobs that are not temporary jobs; they are filling jobs that are permanent. It does not make much sense, even from the perspective of the interest of Canadian employers or the Canadian economy, to have people come here temporarily to fill jobs that are in reality permanent jobs, and then perhaps get the benefit of Canadian connections and training, but then be forced to go back and be replaced in an ongoing way.
I mentioned the synergy, so to speak, between this motion and things that Conservatives put forward in the last platform. I want to note that our platform said we would:
...create pathways to permanence for those already living and working in Canada, so long as they are prepared to work hard, contribute to the growth and productivity of Canada, and strengthen our democracy. It does not make sense to attract the best and brightest, provide them training and knowledge, and then force these people—with all their potential—to leave.
I am very pleased that we were able to put that forward. I want to add as well that when Conservative parties put forward ideas in a general election, very often those ideas do not just come through the platform development process but come from our member-driven policy declaration, and our Conservative policy declaration calls on the party in government to “examine ways to facilitate the transition of foreign workers from temporary to permanent status”.
These are ideas that really came from the membership of the Conservative Party in terms of supporting these pathways to permanence. They were supported in our platform, and now they are in a private member's motion proposed by a Liberal member. Clearly, there is no monopoly on good ideas.
More broadly, we need to recognize that there are some significant challenges in our immigration system. The biggest challenges I hear about in my office are the challenges around backlogs and the significant delays that people have to deal with in making applications for things that are so fundamental for themselves, their lives and their families. The delays cause increased hardship, increased cost and all kinds of different challenges.
I want to use this opportunity as well today to call on the government to do more and to work with us to address the issue of backlogs in our immigration system. One example is that those seeking to privately sponsor vulnerable refugees must often wait up to three years. I know of community groups, faith groups and others that are looking to sponsor vulnerable refugees and are stuck providing financial support to people who are in another country, perhaps in a refugee camp or in a vulnerable situation. They are providing financial support to them overseas while they are in that vulnerable situation for three years, until they are able to come to Canada and begin the transition to a permanent life here in Canada.
It is only because of the backlog. It is only because of bureaucratic delays. If only they could come here right away, begin a life here in Canada and begin that transition, it would actually be less costly for those involved in private sponsorship, and it would be so much more beneficial, from a safety and security perspective, for the family. We have people waiting very long periods of time to be reunited with family members. It is hard for me to imagine needing to be away from my spouse for months and months on end simply because of bureaucratic delays.
We also have delays, by the way, in people's access to citizenship. This is important because it impacts people's ability to participate in our democratic life. Someone might have been in Canada for long enough to be eligible for citizenship. One of the Liberals' first acts with respect to immigration was reducing the amount of time that a person has to be in Canada before they apply for citizenship, yet they have extended the amount of time, in the form of this backlog, that it takes for people to actually get that citizenship.
We have an election campaign here in Ontario right now, and a motion was put forward on this issue at the immigration committee by the member for Dufferin—Caledon, recognizing that the significant delays in citizenship processing applications are effectively disenfranchising people. These are people who might want to vote in this election and might have applied. They are in a queue waiting for the processing of their application.
Given the significant impacts of delays and backlogs, we put forward some ideas in the last election on how to address these. One of them, for instance, was to allow people to pay money for expedited processing, effectively allowing the process to speed up by increasing capacity. We need to see an expansion of capacity in processing, and people who are waiting a long time for a spouse or family member to come might be willing to invest in that system of processing. It is one possible solution that we had put forward. We also proposed other solutions to make the system more efficient, such as doing efficiency reviews of how that process happens.
Here is another way we could address the problem of backlogs: Let the people who are on unpaid leave because of their personal vaccination choices come back to work. It does not seem that difficult. If the government says it is putting people on unpaid leave because of their personal vaccination status, even if they are working from home, it would be absurd to assume that this does not have some effect on government services. Unless some of these folks were doing absolutely nothing, putting them on leave has an impact on the government services that are available.
That will have an impact across the board. It will impact the various services that Canadians receive, and one of them is immigration. We have this huge demand for passports. We also have this huge demand from people who want applications for family sponsorship, refugee sponsorship and other things processed. However, it is so important, for an ideological reason, for the government to put people on unpaid leave, take them out of the workforce when they are working on those issues and force them not to participate in this work even if they are at home. This is another issue of the backlog.
We need an immigration system that works well and works efficiently. I know in general that the Liberals have this philosophy of big government. They want government to be doing more and more things and to be involved in more and more areas of our economy. However, even in areas that are core to government responsibility, they do not do very well. Immigration is a core government responsibility. No one is suggesting that anyone but government should do the processing part of immigration applications, yet it is not able to do this well. As we have seen in many cases, such as the situation in Afghanistan and in some of the other aspects of immigration, the government is not able to deliver.
One of the other issues that we have taken up at the immigration committee is the situation in Ukraine. The Conservatives have been united with the other opposition parties in calling for the government to have visa-free travel for people coming from Ukraine. We put forward a motion on that and it passed at committee and passed in the House. The government opposed it and has not acted on it.
I commend the member for Surrey Centre for having adopted one Conservative idea in this motion. I want to encourage him to adopt more Conservative ideas on immigration. Members of this party have put forward so many good ideas.
Motion No. 44 is a great start. I am proud to support it, and I would invite other members of the Liberal caucus to take up more of these great Conservative solutions that we are putting forward.
1701 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
