44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 19, 2022 10:00AM
- May/19/22 10:35:41 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I regret this opposition day motion has been overshadowed by recent events within the Conservative Party, but I did find it very interesting that the member used words like Liberals do not understand the “diversity of thought”. She also said the government likes to “punish those who do not agree” with it. I find that very interesting, given the news that the member for Abbotsford was removed from his critic portfolio as a result of his diversity of thought and that diversity of thought being counter to that of the member for Carleton.
I am wondering if the member would like to comment on the fact that diversity of thought and punishing those who do not agree with them is alive and well within the Conservative Party, as we witnessed just last night with the member for Abbotsford being removed from his critic position for disagreeing with the Conservative leadership.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 11:39:01 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would have loved to hear the member for Thornhill answer the question the member concluded her speech with, which was about whether or not the Conservatives are open to the idea of gradually phasing in some kind of plan.
I am wondering if my colleague from the Bloc can comment on that. If such a plan were to be developed, would she expect it to be done in close consultation with public health officials so that it comes from a place of science and proper data and they inform the concept she is recommending?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 11:45:35 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I very much enjoy the speech that is being given, so I regret to interrupt, but the member did refer to a term that, at least in English, you have ruled to be out of order, and that is using the Prime Minister's name in conjunction with the word “inflation”. At least, through the translation, it came across in the way it is regularly used.
Perhaps the member could rephrase that.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 12:23:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the member hit the nail on the head. It is pretty clear that he was getting under the skin of the Conservatives, because they could not stop heckling him.
He raises a really interesting point in his discussion, and I was thinking about it. When it comes to the Conservatives' approach to vaccines, they have always taken the approach that the vaccine only has to do with them: It is their choice because it only has to do with them. In reality, the science behind vaccines is really about not just the individual, but how a community is affected by individuals making a choice.
I am wondering if the member could comment on the importance of vaccines as it relates to communities as a whole and protecting an entire population, as opposed to this just being about an individual.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 1:16:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as the expression is known, the expression “we own you on this” does not mean that we literally own—
24 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 1:39:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if members listened to that speech, they would think that this motion today was about providing sources of information to make decisions. It is not.
I do not know if the member is aware of what is in the motion, but I will skip right to the resolve clause, which says: “the House call on the government to immediately revert to prepandemic rules and service levels for travel.” That is it.
The motion is not asking about providing information that made us make the decision, but that is what the member spent his entire speech talking about. The motion is about pretending that the pandemic never happened, and going back, or in the Conservatives' words, “reverting” back to the way that life used to be.
Did the member read the motion before he decided to stand up and speak today?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 1:43:00 p.m.
- Watch
Where is your science for the motion, then?
8 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 1:55:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will bite. If the member wants to talk about tabling scientific information to support certain policies, could he please indicate to the House what scientific evidence the Conservative Party has to bring forward this motion that life return immediately to prepandemic rules and service levels for travel? Can the member tell us what scientific proof he has and table the information that led to this motion being introduced?
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 3:53:54 p.m.
- Watch
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 4:03:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when the member was speaking, in particular earlier on in his comments, at the beginning of his speech, he was focusing on and telling his stories about going through an airport and the various screening and security measures that were there. Then he seemed to suggest that one way to fix the problems that have been associated with the increase in travelling, in particular with some of the rules around COVID, was to drop some of those screening requirements that are there for security purposes. I do not understand where he is going with this. Is he saying to drop the security in favour of trying to move things faster because of the protocols that are there for COVID?
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 4:22:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge today.
I found that last comment about a leadership crisis to be quite amusing coming from Conservatives, given what is going on in their party right now. When the member for Abbotsford tried to speak his truth to power yesterday, he was silenced by the individual who is not even the leader yet.
The member for Carleton has not even been anointed formally yet, because that is not going to happen for three months, but he is already pulling the strings, in terms of who is allowed to say what and who is allowed and not allowed to be critical of him. If there is a leadership crisis, I think it is very clear to Canadians where it exists right now.
I have been listening to this debate throughout the day, and I have found a number of comments to be quite interesting. The member for Dufferin—Caledon had an exchange I found very interesting. He went on about listening to science and making sure we listen to science, because listening to the science will point us in a certain direction. Then, I asked him where the science was in the Conservatives' motion. They introduced this motion today that asks the government to change a particular policy. Where is the science in that? Do members know what his response to that was? It was that the Conservatives are not the government.
Apparently, according to the member for Dufferin—Caledon, people can try to influence policy if they are Conservatives, because they happen to be in opposition. It does not require any science to do it. When people are in the government, they need to be taking the Conservatives' version of science, which they do not even have. It is one of the most ridiculous and ludicrous exchanges I have had in the House today.
The member for Regina—Lewvan, who I believe is heckling me right now, was a few moments ago asking why he needs to wear a mask in the House, when he does not need to wear it when he walks outside the House. It is a rule that the House made. BOIE, the Board of Internal Economy, made that rule. He has membership on that board—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
394 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 4:25:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Regina—Lewvan has a member on the BOIE committee. As a matter of fact, that member answered a question today in question period. It was completely unorthodox, but nonetheless it happened anyway. Why was the question not to the member from BOIE, his very own member, about this issue?
A rule was made that until this session was complete, masks were required to be worn in the House unless members were standing in the House speaking. If the member for Regina—Lewvan has a problem with that, I suggest he take it up with his leadership on BOIE who helped to make that decision.
The member for Prince Albert recently said, about wearing masks, that he forgot his mask and had to go back to his truck and get a mask for the airport. He said it as if we are the only place on earth that requires people to wear a mask in an airport.
What about the United States? On April 30, it extended the mask mandate in airports. It just happened. We have to do the same thing in the United States, but the member for Prince Albert would make us believe, as a number of Conservatives have today, that somehow Canada is taking a completely foreign approach when it comes to dealing with this on an international basis, with people coming and going in and out of the country in particular.
The member for Winnipeg North listed a number of countries that still have various mandates in place to keep protection for their citizens. I will not repeat those, because they are already on the record.
I also found something very interesting that the member for Prince Albert said a few moments ago. When he was asked a question from the Bloc about listening to advice from the experts, he referred to Dr. Tam's recommendations, her professional medical advice, as her “suggestions”. Those are Dr. Tam's “suggestions”. Those were his words.
This goes to a key point about how Conservatives treat science. They are ready to wrap themselves in the science, provided that it is science that backs up what they already believe. That is the problem. For the member for Prince Albert to say those were Dr. Tam's “suggestions” basically passes her off as though she makes suggestions just like anybody else can. She is the Chief Medical Officer of Health for the country. She makes recommendations. She provides advice to the Government of Canada so it can inform itself on how to implement policy.
There has been criticism after criticism, and I will pre-empt the question by answering it now from members from the opposite side who are saying, “Table it, table it.” Can they tell me one time that Stephen Harper tabled recommendations to cabinet or the Privy Council? Can they tell me one time that Stephen Harper did that? The suggestion is that the government is taking advice from its professionals. The Conservatives want to frame this like it is being hidden from the public. It is very normal to receive advice and then make decisions based on that advice.
I am sorry if the Conservatives are not privy to that. Guess what? I am not privy to it either. I am not in cabinet, so I have not seen the advice. I do have faith in those who are providing the advice, and that they will give their professional advice. We hire individuals in this country in many different forms, whether at the federal, provincial or municipal level, to advise policy makers based on their professional advice. It has been no secret from day one that the Conservatives have been willing to trample all over that advice, time after time. If they believe that they will get the slightest political gain out of it, they will walk over anybody. That is what they are trying to do here. That is exactly what they are trying to do here.
From my perspective, the best speech today was actually given by the Bloc member for Jonquière. His entire speech was on populism and the manner in which the member for Carleton is using populism for his own personal political gain, full stop. It does not matter what happens in the process.
I really encourage those who were not able to listen to the speech by the member for Jonquière earlier today to go back and listen to it. He hit the nail on the head with respect to what is happening in this country right now as it relates to the populist movement and those, like the member for Carleton, who are literally walking over top of the freedoms that they somehow want to make Canadians believe do not exist and that they are the only ones who will be able to provide those freedoms once again to Canadians.
It was actually a really good speech. It was extremely germane to the discussion. The reason is because this discussion today, in my opinion, is about why the Conservatives have continually used the same tactics day after day, trying to sow this idea of the government being the enemy and the only individuals in this country who can save Canadians and give them back their freedoms are Conservatives. It is so incredibly dangerous when we allow that kind of politics to dominate the discussion, and when we allow politics like that to shape the manner in which discussions are being had in public that are based on conspiracy theory and people peddling misinformation. That is exactly what is going on here.
I have no problem with voting against this motion today because I have faith in those who we have employed to provide advice to the government in order to make the best decisions possible on our behalf. I have no doubt that at times there is conflicting advice. It is the government's job, whatever government that may be, to receive that advice and make the best decision on behalf of people, and I have faith that is exactly what has been happening in Canada.
1035 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 4:32:50 p.m.
- Watch
This is the problem, Madam Speaker. The Conservatives want to treat a pandemic as though it is a static problem: as though we can determine really early on what the various stages will be based on different things that are happening. We did not know the omicron virus was going to come along in January, did we? No, we did not. It really did not pop up in Canada until December. Things are changing. A pandemic is a dynamic and fluid situation to deal with. Conservatives clearly do not recognize that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 4:34:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the challenges always has been about how to nail down a plan on something that is continually evolving, shifting and changing.
I share the member's great concern about the tourism industry. The third-biggest economic driver in my riding is tourism. That is why the government was there for tourism operators specifically when the pandemic started. It was there before the last wave and will continue to be there for tourism operators moving into the future. We cannot predict the exact moves of the pandemic, but we can be there to support small businesses and tourism operators specifically through the pandemic. That is exactly what we have been doing and continue to do.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 4:36:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a really good question and it is a valid question. I am listening to that question being asked continually by the opposition, and I am hearing what the minister has been saying about increasing the number of staff.
The member for Prince Albert earlier alluded to the idea that for a Liberal MP, an application might go through a little faster. I can assure him that I have a lot of constituents facing the exact same situation, and there is no favouritism played by a government department toward individual MPs' offices.
To the member's question, there will be an opportunity to reflect on this later, figure out why it happened and improve upon it in the future.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 5:02:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what the member is saying is just untrue. The reality is that he wants to make it seem as though Canada is the only country that has travel restrictions. The update today is that, of all the countries in the world, 21% are considered fully open, 64% are considered open with restrictions and 14% are considered closed.
Why would this member get up in the House and suggest that every other country in the world is fully open when it is just not true?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 5:24:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. so that we can start Private Members' Business.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at the outset of listening to the debate in this House and reading the text of this bill, I cannot help but wonder if the Conservatives have lost faith in the Bank of Canada. I know they are going to say they just want accountability and they just want to have proper oversight. However, as pointed out, not just by Liberals but by members from the Bloc and the NDP, this goes a lot further than just looking for accountability and oversight. This plays into that narrative that, quite honestly, the member for Carleton, who is the perceived next leader of the Conservative Party, is feeding. He is feeding that narrative, and it is the narrative that they do not have faith in one of the most important institutions in our country. Have the members across the way lost faith in the Bank of Canada?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, we just heard a yes. I heard a yes that was heckled across the way. I did not realize the answer was going to be that easy. I thought I was going to have to fight for it.
Madam Speaker, it goes to the heart of the issue, and the heart of the issue here is that this idea and this politicization of the Bank of Canada, which is being led by the member for Carleton and those who support him, for nothing more than the gains that they can make out of this populist movement, is exactly what we are seeing.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was asked a question earlier: Will all Conservatives support this? He stood up and said that yes, they would. I am really interested to see the vote from the member for Abbotsford, because he was extremely critical, and he agreed that the politicization of the Bank of Canada “undermines the party's credibility on economic issues”. That is the member for Abbotsford, the same member who was ousted for making a comment like this, just last night.
An hon. member: He resigned.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I am sorry. I am corrected, Madam Speaker. He resigned. He was given the opportunity to resign. I thank the Conservative member across the way for correcting that.
This is about populism. That has been well documented, and not just by the member from the Liberal Party who spoke earlier but indeed by other political parties in here. I am very glad to see that it is extremely clear what is going on here, and I look forward to my seven minutes that remain the next time this comes up for debate.
444 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 9:53:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to address committee on an extremely important and long-standing issue.
Our government is committed to eradicating forced labour from our supply chains. As we all know, these horrendous practices are as prevalent today as they have ever been. We have all heard the numbers.
The International Labour Organization estimates that some 25 million people are subject to forced labour around the world every day. That is every single day that the most vulnerable citizens of the world, young and old, are subject to what amounts to modern-day slavery, and we have all heard the reasons.
Forced labour spreads in countries where institutions are corrupt, where governments do not provide oversight, where workers lack the protection of labour laws, and where journalists are persecuted for reporting on it. We should be nothing less than completely outraged by this, and I know that we all agree that there is no place in the world for these human rights abuses.
However, the fact is that these practices are inextricably linked to global supply chains. We cannot participate in these supply chains without doing our part to ensure their integrity. We have a duty to act with a whole-of-government approach and in collaboration with our international partners to truly make an impact.
Of course, the pandemic has made us all too aware of hyper-competitive markets, and a stretched global supply chain can foster forced labour. At the beginning of the pandemic, we knew that we had to act quickly in a highly competitive global market to literally save lives, and we did just that, but we must acknowledge that a strained global supply chain increases the risk of goods having been produced using forced labour. We all know that this is completely unacceptable, and there is no doubt that the pandemic has had a devastating, disproportionate impact on the world's most vulnerable citizens. That very much includes those who are already victims of forced labour.
If we come up with any solutions, Canada must be part of a concerted global effort, and that is why this government is strongly committed to co-operation at the international level as a means of eliminating forced labour from our supply chains. I will give a few examples of how Canada continues to work diligently with our international partners.
We have been working with the United States and Mexico to prohibit the import of goods produced with forced labour. Canada is working with the European Union as well, to combat the forced labour of workers at sea. We have been working with our allies in multilateral institutions to use all means available to protect individuals from forced labour and remove it from supply chains. We are also sharing information and best practices with other countries that are just as committed to this fight against forced labour. The government is taking a whole-of-government approach through the national strategy to combat human trafficking to eliminate this scourge.
Additionally, the customs tariff has banned the import of goods that are mined, manufactured or produced by forced labour into Canada since 2020. To enforce that tariff, the Canada Border Service Agency is in charge of intercepting goods suspected of being produced using forced labour. The agency, Employment and Social Development Canada and other departments are working collaboratively to advance the effective operationalization of the ban. Of course, Public Services and Procurement Canada has an important role to play at the forefront of this, as the minister has outlined in her opening remarks today.
We know that all of these activities may prevent the products of forced labour from coming into our country, but they cannot stop forced labour from happening in the first place. The workers have already been exploited; the bottom lines of those businesses are not permanently affected, and the cycle of abuse continues. We need to do more, and we know that our actions must be concrete. That is why the government is taking more substantive measures to ensure that we are not doing business with suppliers or subcontractors that use forced labour. To that end, Public Services and Procurement Canada has taken the lead in maintaining the highest ethical standards for government procurement.
As part of the national strategy to combat human trafficking, the department updated the code of conduct for procurement to clearly outline Canada's expectations for suppliers when it comes to human rights and labour rights. The department is also working with its network of suppliers to ensure that they comply with international labour and human rights laws. It is doing so by engaging with suppliers of higher-risk goods and encouraging them to take action against companies in their supply chains that break these international laws. As Canada's central purchaser, the department has made information available to government suppliers about the 2020 amendments to the customs tariffs that ban the import of goods that are mined, manufactured or produced by forced labour.
In addition, as of November of last year, all goods-related contracts awarded by Public Services and Procurement Canada now contain anti-forced labour clauses. That means that the department can terminate contracts where there is credible information that goods have been produced in whole or in part by forced labour or human trafficking.
I will note that, in some cases, companies may not know that there may be forced labour in their supply chains, so before terminating a contract, procurement officers will try to work with a company to correct the situation. This is intended to protect the individuals subject to forced labour, who may become even more vulnerable from these actions.
These are concrete actions that will help in the fight against forced labour around the world, but the issue is a complex one, and the injustices and horrors of forced labour are not always immediately seen, often being well hidden by design and actively overlooked. The fact is it is still extremely difficult to prove that forced labour or child labour were used in the production of products, particularly because they tend to occur in parts of the supply chains that are not always open to scrutiny. That is why the government is implementing a number of additional measures to improve the integrity of our procurement system.
We want to shine the light on forced labour and its many victims so that it cannot be ignored. As part of this sustained effort, we have conducted a risk assessment of forced labour in goods procured by the government. This risk assessment is an important step to help determine where supply chains may be vulnerable to forced labour, and the results are providing us with the evidence we need to adjust our approach to tackle the problem into the future. This includes the work to explore and map human rights due diligence obligations and compliance monitoring used internationally. This will inform us as we develop policies in the future to safeguard federal procurement supply chains.
We are taking action, but we know there is so much more to do. The mandate letters to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement demonstrate that combatting forced labour is a major priority for our government. I am certain that my colleagues agree that we cannot stand on the sidelines, nor can we tolerate forced labour in any form, anywhere in the world. We must act, and I know that Canadians expect no less from us.
Our government is wholeheartedly committed to upholding human rights and international labour standards. We will continue to make sure that goods produced by forced labour do not enter Canada, bring integrity to our supply chains, and maintain the highest ethical standards for government procurement. For all of the victims and survivors of forced labour around the world, Canada is working to be a leader in efforts to eradicate labour exploitation. I can assure the committee that our government will continue to work with partners across the globe to rid our supply chains of the tragedy and anguish caused by forced labour.
If it is permissible, I will now move into asking questions of the minister.
Child labour, forced labour, and even slavery, as hard as it is to believe, are scourges that still exist in today's world. While Canada and the Canadian government do not condone or support the use of these in any way, products made under these conditions are sold on the international market, and it is not always clear or easy to distinguish which ones are made using ethical procurement and which ones are not. While the government does look to Canadian suppliers and manufacturers first when procuring necessary products on behalf of the Canadian people, there are some products that are available only from overseas suppliers. Canada believes in open markets and trades with countries across the globe for an assortment of goods. Although not all labour standards are equal to those in Canada, and not all workers' rights are the same as those in Canada, that will not stop the Canadian government from doing its utmost to avoid supporting in any way the overseas suppliers and manufacturers that exploit workers and children in order to produce their products.
I would like to emphasize again that this government realizes that in order to have ethical procurement, it needs to be proactive in determining whether the suppliers it enters into contracts with are abiding by the codes of conduct set out not only by this government, but by a number of international human rights and labour organizations. Price and quality control cannot and will not be the only determinant by which this government does business with overseas suppliers. We respect human rights and labour rights at home and will do our best to support them abroad also in our procurement practices.
Can the minister please detail the measures that this government has taken with regard to the issues of labour exploitation and forced labour when dealing with procurement of goods, especially from overseas suppliers and manufacturers?
1698 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 10:06:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, a number of questions have been raised regarding Nuctech and whether contracts were awarded to the company. There may be questions regarding contracts awarded through Public Services and Procurement Canada as a department and as a common service provider. Can the minister clarify if contracts were awarded to this company?
52 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
