SoVote

May/16/22 4:21:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am just trying, in a friendly fashion, to give some advice and thoughts on ways in which we can be more effective inside the House. I know that opposition members appreciate that I am afforded the opportunity to talk on this important issue, by them bringing in the concurrence motion. In that sense, I thank them for that because I do have a great deal of passion for Asian nations. I often talk, for example, about Philippines and how important Philippines is to me personally, let alone other nations in that region. Therefore, I am very sensitive to it. I very much would like to see Taiwan be a part of the World Health Organization for many of the reasons the member for Sherwood Park—St. Albert mentioned. At times, the member says some pretty good stuff, including his comments concerning the role that Taiwan played in advising and providing information and support to Canada. Taiwan has contributed in a very positive way. I suspect that the member for Sherwood Park—St. Albert is not alone in his thinking— An hon. member: He is the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I should know that he is the member for St. Albert—Edmonton because I was actually posted in Edmonton when I was in the forces. St. Albert is a beautiful community. The point is that there are many members of Parliament, no doubt, who would realize and see the value of Taiwan's contributions. With respect to the World Health Organization, on the other hand, we know that members from the government caucus and, I suspect, maybe even members from the Conservative caucus, have a full appreciation of the World Health Organization and the work that it did in the pandemic. The World Health Organization, much like Health Canada, has very strict enforcement and respect for science and health experts. In regard to the pandemic, Taiwan did have a lot to offer. I am not sure, but one member made mention that it was the first country in the world to say that COVID-19 can be passed person to person. That was already part of the debate on the issue. I do not know for a fact that it is the case, but I do know that Taiwan did lead in many ways, as did Health Canada. Through Health Canada, we have an independent agency that has served Canadians well over the years. During the pandemic, civil servants have played such an incredible role in ensuring that Canada is in a great position to provide the advice that was absolutely necessary for the general public as a whole. I am thinking of individuals who did the science, looked at the World Health Organization, worked with health experts from coast to coast to coast and came up with the recommendations that were necessary, as a country and as a nation. The Prime Minister had daily briefings for Canadians, talking about the importance of, for example, washing our hands, wearing a mask and making sure that people were in protective zones, as we went through a very difficult process at the very beginning. The World Health Organization took a global approach in ensuring that all countries around the world recognize how important it is to step up to the plate. I think that the World Health Organization was able to benefit from some of the policy initiatives that Health Canada advanced. I do believe that Canada, the European Union, the United States, Taiwan and many other countries, the over 150 countries that participate in the World Health Organization, all have had contributions to make note only at the beginning of the pandemic in 2019, but even today. We still are not out of the pandemic. It is easy to think we are, but that is not the case. When we listen to Conservative members, we can think of the issue of misinformation. There are members of the Conservative Party who believe that mandates are no longer required, and yet your home province, Madam Speaker, the province of the Conservatives' deputy leader, had a mandatory mask mandate that has just been lifted. That is fairly recent. If we take a look even back to December, people were starting to think that things were turning around, but curfews were being put in place. Manitoba had additional measures. The demand for rapid testing went through the roof. We understood as a government the types of things we needed to do. The World Health Organization was a great resource for some countries more than other countries. For developing nations that do not have organizations like Health Canada, it played a critical role as it does today. My suggestion to members opposite is that they spend less time on the political gamesmanship that we see day in and day out and more time on serving Canadians. Today, there is no reason why, before five o'clock, we could not have passed Bill C-14. There is no reason at all. Yes, the Conservatives will talk and talk about this and that and debate times and so forth, but there is absolutely no reason why. Elections Canada is independent and every member in the chamber is supporting Bill C-14, so there is no reason why it should not be passed. However, the Conservatives, as with this particular concurrence report, are more interested in playing political games and using up government debate time on the legislative agenda. It was not that long ago when Canadians said that we, as the Liberal Party, were going to be given a new mandate, but part of that mandate meant that it was going to be a minority—

961 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan

May/16/22 4:30:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Winnipeg North has been droning on for almost 20 minutes now and he has not been relevant to the motion at hand, which is a concurrence motion talking about health. The last five minutes—

45 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/16/22 4:30:44 p.m.
Watch

He has been very relevant to the motion at hand. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

14 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/16/22 4:30:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the point is that there are other mechanisms, especially when we talk about this particular motion. I would encourage members of the official opposition to heed the advice of what the Speaker said after question period. Let us do a little more working together. That is what Canadians want. They want the government to work with opposition parties, and they want the opposition parties to work with the government. This could have been a good example of that. If we take anything away from the debate today, let us recognize the fine work that the standing committee has done, and let us see if we can do some more work together for the betterment of all Canadians.

119 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/16/22 4:31:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if I could, I would certainly want to use a unanimous consent motion to give the member more time to speak to this because he was so riveting. I know that you, Madam Speaker, were paying great attention. We want to ensure that the committee's work is recognized in this House on an important issue, especially with all of the geopolitical issues going on around the world, not the least of which is what is happening in Ukraine, but also the sabre-rattling that is going on in the South China Sea basin as it relates to Taiwan, recognizing the importance of Taiwan and its inclusion in the World Health Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization. That is what the committee came back with and that is what we are concurring on today. If that is not important, I do not know what is. Also, we are hearing a lot from the Liberals about the issue of obstruction. The House hours were extended until midnight tonight. As it stands right now, there are zero Liberal members scheduled to speak tonight to the government legislation. So far on Bill C-14, there have only been three. The prediction that I made in this House on Motion No. 11 is that, in effect, we could have opposition members solely speaking to government legislation and the government not trying to convince Canadians why it is important for these pieces of legislation to pass. I am wondering if the hon. member has comments as to why there are no scheduled Liberal speakers tonight on an important piece of legislation like Bill C-14.

273 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/16/22 4:33:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree that it is important legislation. That is why, from the government's perspective, we do not need to put up speakers. We have already put our position on the record. We are supporting the legislation and want it to go to committee. This is important legislation. We do not have to debate every piece of legislation at great length. Everyone in this chamber supports it. The opposition House leader says that this is an important issue, being the report we have before us today. If it is so important, why not have it on an opposition day motion? The Conservatives have this Thursday as an opposition day. Has the Conservative Party ever brought forward a concurrence motion on an opposition day? The answer is no. The Conservatives will not do that because they are not going to filibuster on their opposition days. They only do it on government days.

153 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/16/22 4:34:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of words spoken and I will let Canadians judge the substance of those words. The member for Winnipeg North inferred something that brings forward an interesting contradiction in the Liberals' messaging. Often the Prime Minister, members of the Liberal cabinet and the member himself will say that committees are in charge of their own destiny. This motion, passed by a committee of this place, was supported by the Liberals unanimously. I am curious as to why the member is so opposed to that support. He has previously suggested that committees are masters of their own destiny, although I sometimes question the independence of them, but that is for another conversation. As members in this place, there are tools and mechanisms, and moving concurrence motions is one of them, and an important one. The House spoke very strongly to re-engage the Canada-China committee that was cancelled. The committee passed a motion. Why does it not deserve fair hearing in this place?

168 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/16/22 4:36:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, standing committees pass all sorts of motions. I would argue there is an endless number of wonderful debates that we could be having, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is that the Conservative Party continues to focus its attention on doing whatever it can to prevent the government from being able to debate its legislation or budgetary measures. The Conservatives could have worked with the government on this particular motion. We could have had a group hug and see if we could pass this with unanimous consent. At the end of day, let us be very clear. This has nothing to do with Taiwan. This has everything to do with Conservatives playing games and filibustering. That is what this is all about. They do not want to debate Bill C-14. Let us vote on Bill C-14 and get it passed.

148 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/16/22 4:37:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, whenever I hear the hon. parliamentary secretary in high dudgeon because there are political games being played in this place, it is so very Casablanca: “What? I'm shocked. There's gambling going on here?” We have to recall there are political games on all sides. We can all do better. This an important issue. This is a concurrence debate that attaches some significance, but I join the hon. parliamentary secretary in lamenting that we are not debating Bill C-14. This is less a question than a comment.

93 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/16/22 4:37:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Bill C-14 is the bill that we were supposed to be debating today. We started it this morning. In essence, Elections Canada is an independent organization. We are bringing forward legislation to ensure that the province of Quebec, a province I am very, very proud of, especially that French factor, gets the minimum 78 seats. In fact, I understand that every member of this chamber wants to make sure that Quebec gets that, but there is one political party that just wants to debate it. Members of that party do not want it to pass it. They just want to filibuster until I do not know when. Sometimes they need to be shamed into doing the right thing. Hopefully a little shaming here will cause them to allow Bill C-14 to pass. It would be wonderful to see it pass before 5 p.m.

148 words

All Topics

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

May/16/22 4:38:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am encouraged by the parliamentary secretary's words of support for Taiwan's participation at the WHO and the WHA. The Chinese Communist regime, in addition to trying to block Taiwan's meaningful participation in international fora like the WHO and WHA, has also insisted upon the mislabelling of Taiwan in which certain Canadian government institutions are currently actively participating in such mislabelling. One is the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which is the leading federal government health agency. The minister has been aware of this issue for some time. I wrote to the minister some six months ago. The member for Humber River—Black Creek has brought this issue forward and yet, this mislabelling continues. Why?

121 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/16/22 4:39:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, over the years one of the things that I have learned, whether it was with Stephen Harper when he was prime minister all the way to today, there are some significant tensions between China and Taiwan and it does have an impact around the world, including Canada. I have full confidence that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is working with the different departments to ensure that first and foremost Canadian interests are met and our Canadian values are espoused around the world. That is something which we in the Liberal caucus take very seriously.

96 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/16/22 4:40:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would simply ask a question that was asked a previous Conservative speaker on this. It is not only important to acknowledge the reality of Taiwan's exclusion from the WHA and WHO, but also other international entities, such as Interpol, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization. The member said that this has nothing to do with Taiwan. With respect, I would fundamentally disagree. This has a lot to do with Taiwan and the ability for this place, the centre of Canada's democratic infrastructure, to make a clear statement to say that Taiwan does matter. I would ask the member to comment specifically on Taiwan's exclusion from other international organizations.

115 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/16/22 4:41:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the motion before us today has everything to do with Taiwan. What I was referring to was the games that are being played by the Conservatives, which is something that I have very little tolerance for. I hope that the Conservative Party will bring this issue back on Thursday when it has an official opposition day.

58 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/16/22 4:41:59 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, International Development; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Natural Resources; and the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Climate Change.

59 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/16/22 4:42:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, although we were supposed to be debating Bill C‑14 today, we nevertheless had to consider the tabling of the committee report. Last week I attended Taiwan Night with some colleagues, where we were able to discuss the Taiwanese government's concerns on this matter. After the event I invited our Taiwanese friends to come observe this afternoon, but I am disappointed, because I have been hearing members over the past hour asking why we are not talking about something else. I obviously care a lot about Bill C‑14, but it is also important that this report be tabled. We must examine its findings and how it calls on us, as parliamentarians, to do something about this situation. We have all witnessed the situation in Ukraine and Russia over the past few months, and the expression that comes to mind when I think of that situation is “the thorn in the lion's paw”. NATO has said that it is no one's fault but, at the same time, it is everyone's fault. That same expression comes to mind when I think of relations between Taiwan and China. I think we need a little flexibility in order to make an informed decision under the circumstances. That is what we need to discuss this afternoon: What can we do to speed up Taiwan's admission to the World Health Organization, or WHO, and the World Health Assembly? In a community or a group, the first thing to do if we want to be in society is to appreciate the true value of the “other”. The failure to contribute to the admission of entities—or, in this case, independent countries—to associations such as the WHO or the World Health Assembly amounts in some way to denying their existence. Why do we do this? Generally, we do it strictly on the basis of conviction. We all have convictions, whether it is the Speaker, myself or even the member for Winnipeg North. That is what keeps us standing, what we value, and it is often an imperative. However, societies also have convictions. Unfortunately, a conviction is something that we hold very dear, but with little regard for its predictable consequences. Following a conviction is often done at all costs, which is evident in the delay of Taiwan's admission to the bodies I mentioned. However, when it comes to a conviction, we cannot deny that there are no consequences to our actions. Every action has its consequences. In fact, the consequences are part of the action. For Russia and Ukraine, the consequences are dire. We had good intentions, but good intentions do not count if they are not carried through. We can hope, but if we do not act on that hope, it does not count. We must justify our conviction about whether we are for or against admitting Taiwan into these organizations. This is what I personally call the ethics of responsibility, the ethics of a form of decision-making that involves considering the foreseeable consequences of a given action. What are the foreseeable consequences of admitting or not admitting Taiwan to these organizations? We can predict that, if Taiwan is denied admittance, the decision will be postponed, and there will be petitions, more lobbying and, most importantly, people who will not be able to contribute to or benefit from science. I believe we are heading for the inevitable and that admittance is the best way to go. If we agree to admit Taiwan, I think we will reduce the risk of confrontation in a part of the world that, frankly, is prone to confrontation. I do not have a crystal ball, but when I look at Russia, Ukraine, Finland and Sweden, I see Taiwan on the other side of the crystal ball. The consequences of denying Taiwan admittance should not be underestimated. We all have our own convictions, and that is fine. When we look at the consequences of having or not having convictions on this issue, we reach the stage that I call the ethics of discussion. I mention this because it is what we do here in Parliament. The ethics of discussion is the ability to discuss objectively in order to reconcile what we want to do with what we end up doing. This is about reconciling what we want to do with what we end up doing. It is about aligning word with deed. I believe that we should be able make a decision without having unnecessary barriers thrown up, without getting bogged down. We may decide to take action or we may decide not to. Yes, we might make a mistake, but we are not God. The worst mistake is not deciding. The biggest mistake is looking the other way. I often say that the greatest lack of ethics is turning a blind eye. Certainly, in this case, we are not being asked to make a decision. We are not the WHO. We are being asked to receive the conclusions of a committee that is established under the rules of the House of Commons, one that operates independently and has tabled its report. Too often in the past, we have seen reports that were not received by the House of Commons, which comes back to haunt us after a while. It makes for even more procedures than necessary. This afternoon, what are my Taiwanese friends seeing when they are watching us? In the last hour, they have seen people disagreeing about how to move forward. No one has been stubborn about moving forward, but we disagree about the method. Meanwhile, time is passing and people are waiting, yet no decisions are being made. I believe the report should be presented because I believe Taiwan should be part of the WHO. Why do I believe that? I think it is about social values. Values are things that we find to be good, noble or desirable, but the value we are talking about here is solidarity. Solidarity means unity for common cause. In this case, that common cause is health. Taiwan made a significant contribution with respect to COVID‑19. Taiwan is willing and able to contribute. What may be preventing this report from being presented today is fear, misplaced fear of the Chinese bear. We are a legally constituted Parliament. I believe we should make this decision. This is not a life or death decision; this is about concurring in a report. We should concur in it so we can move forward. This is about solidarity. This is no time to pretend the problem does not exist. This is no time to be stubborn about our convictions just for the sake of being stubborn. In answer to the concerns raised by my colleague from Winnipeg North, I would like us to adopt this motion quickly so we can move on to Bill C‑14. Bill C‑14 is extremely important to me. What I would suggest today is an entente cordiale among the parties so we can move forward and do our parliamentary work without obstacles of our own making.

1201 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/16/22 4:50:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are many different reports that will never come before the House. I would ultimately argue that concurrence, in this particular case, is not necessarily to send a strong message. The message has already been sent through the standing committee, and this is one of many reports that will be tabled over the coming weeks and months. Does the member believe all committee reports should have a concurrence here on the floor of the House? If so, does he also believe, then, that it should not happen just on government business days? Should it also be on opposition days, or should it be restricted to only government days?

110 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/16/22 4:51:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North. I should be a little candid here, because as a newly elected member, I do not know all the rules. However, to answer both points, I believe that all committee reports should have a life. Now, is this the only time they can have a life? I do not have the answer to that, being new to Parliament. I do not think there is any committee work that should remain in the shadows, and I believe that everything is better in the light, frankly. Should it be during government orders or on an opposition day? I think there is probably strategy on both sides, but I cannot assume bad faith. One thing is for sure: I am on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, and we work very hard. Until recently, we have had unanimity on just about every decision we have made, with the Liberal Party and everyone. Honestly, I think it is nice that we can all work for the common good together. I think the outcome of the work should at least be heard.

200 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/16/22 4:52:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that was a very thoughtful speech by the member for Trois-Rivières. I think he touched on some of the important reasons we need to take this seriously. My question is similar to a question I asked the parliamentary secretary and that another Conservative colleague asked earlier in this debate. On the substance of what we are discussing, we can see that Taiwan, for geopolitical reasons, I suggest, is being excluded from some of these international organizations. That certainly is problematic in terms of Taiwan's being a democracy. Further to that, I would suggest in this place today that it is to the detriment of the ability of the world, in the case of the WHO and the WHA, to combat COVID-19. I would ask for the member's further thoughts on that, as well as on Taiwan's being excluded from ICAO and Interpol, among a number of other international agencies. It has a significant voice that should be heard. What does the member think about the tactics being used by certain regimes around the world to try to exclude Taiwan, for geopolitical gain, from what are very meaningful and important organizations, whether it be about COVID-19 or other issues that our world faces?

212 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure

May/16/22 4:54:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot. Taiwan is a democracy and a free country, just as Quebec will be one day. At that time, I hope that we will also be recognized, and that we will become formal participants in international organizations. Now, my colleagues know full well where the red light on the decision to include Taiwan came from. I think we need to be very careful. Denying an established democracy's right to exist is a bad idea. Whether we are talking about Interpol or the international aviation organization, in all cases, this seems to needlessly kick the legs out from under an established democracy and, once again, as a member of a party that supports the creation of a country, our failure to show our support would concern me deeply.

139 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 72