SoVote

Jun/1/22 10:11:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we all know that NATO is by far not only the strongest defence alliance, it is also one of the most active political alliances in the world. Much can be done through deterrence measures because of the military strength that NATO possesses, and because of that it is able to come to the table as an organization and as a group of allies to talk about political realities, and it is able to bring about peace much more quickly than other international organizations.

85 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/1/22 10:12:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about supplying weapons. We know that these days weapons are more and more technologically complex and people need training to use them properly. I would like to comment on the need to provide as much predictability as possible when we send weapons, so that we can also link that to training for the people who will use them. Can my colleague provide clarification on this?

73 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan

Jun/1/22 10:12:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know we are sending sniper rifles that were bought by the Ukrainian military from Canada that are very advanced and require training. I agree that if we are going to send more technologically advanced weapons, it means we have to be able to move personnel who built the equipment to train individuals on it. Not all of the equipment takes weeks and months to train on. It is not like selling them new fighter jets that they have not flown before, which would take years to master. A lot of this stuff only takes a matter of days or weeks before it is in operation. That is why I would encourage the government, which has $500 million earmarked in the budget to go toward military equipment for Ukraine, to buy the equipment that Ukraine already uses from the world market and get it there as soon as possible, so that we do not have to train the troops and they can actually put it into use immediately.

170 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/1/22 10:14:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know that while we do not agree on everything on the response to Ukraine, my colleague and I both strongly believe that Canada needs to do everything it can for the people of Ukraine. As a co-vice-chair of the Ukraine Canada friendship association, I admire his commitment to the people of Ukraine. I would like to ask him a question. We know that there has been about $600 billion worth of damage done to infrastructure in Ukraine. What would the member like to see the Canadian government commit to, as a long-term strategy, to help Ukraine rebuild after this war?

106 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan

Jun/1/22 10:14:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's strong support for Ukraine as well. Canada needs to start planning ahead for a Marshall Plan to help rebuild all the infrastructure that has been destroyed by the Russian military in Ukraine. We know that there are a number of assets that have already been seized from Russian oligarchs and corrupt kleptocrats who have been hiding their wealth and own businesses here in Canada. Those assets need to be liquidated, and those are the first dollars that should be going into the rebuilding of Ukraine's hospitals, schools, roads and bridges.

98 words

All Topics

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

Jun/1/22 10:15:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is, as always, an honour to enter into debate in this place, especially when it comes to important issues such as the motion we are discussing tonight. Before I get into the substance of my defence for this motion, I would like to highlight a couple of things. The fact is that over the past number of months, we have seen the security situation of our world evolve dramatically. In the circumstances that I and many of the younger individuals in this place grew up in, I do not remember a time, other than on maps that maybe were not quite up to date that we had in our social studies classrooms, when there was a Soviet Union. I know from those who may have a little more grey hair than I do the stories and the geopolitical reality that existed prior to the dramatic changes that took place at the end of the eighties and the beginning of the nineties. Over the past number of months, we have seen a dramatic change. The peace and security of our world and the rules-based international order have truly been put at risk. When Russia invaded the sovereign country of Ukraine, I would suggest it sent a shock wave across the world that a red line had been crossed. Debate has taken place in this place, and in parliaments and legislatures around the world, including, I would note, the Parliament of Ukraine. It has continued to function under what are circumstances that I am sure many of us within Canada's House of Commons, Canada's Parliament and many western democracies could hardly imagine. It has continued to function and ensure that, in the midst of what seem like insurmountable odds, democracy matters. It has continued to show that the rules-based international order matters. As we are specifically discussing tonight a motion that supports the entrance of Finland and Sweden into NATO, the treaty alliance that has demonstrated over its history that it has played a key and pivotal role in ensuring peace and security around the world, that peace and security, as I mentioned before, have been threatened. I would note that my great uncle Ted gave something to me when I was 10 or 11 years old. He was a professor at the University of Toronto, who is now retired. He would visit us back home in east central Alberta. I would have a million questions when he would come during the summer, often spending a number of weeks. I would ask him questions about anything and everything. He happened to be a professor of Hebrew history, but was a very knowledgeable man on many subjects. In particular, one summer he brought a piece of the Berlin Wall and explained to me the significance of that piece of concrete, crumbling as it was. When I got elected in 2019, I went, as I am sure many of us do, to the box where many things from my childhood and my past were stored and I got that old piece of concrete that was wrapped in plastic. I took it out and was able to get it put into a display. On that, I got a plaque with President Reagan's famous words asking Mr. Gorbachev to bring down that wall. That piece of the Berlin Wall sits in my office today as a constant reminder that this rules-based international order is not something that we can take for granted and that we have to continually and earnestly defend the peace and security that makes up our national democratic institutions. However, it is also a reminder that the world has enjoyed an unprecedented period of peace over the past seven decades or so, and of the significance of the disruption that is possible in light of what the developing circumstances are with Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. I certainly did not imagine, when I was elected to Parliament in 2019, that within a number of years we would be debating a war in Europe. The dynamics have certainly changed when it comes to where we find ourselves today. That is why it is so fitting to be able to debate and discuss what I hope will be an expedient admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO. Only three months or so ago, even the talk of these two countries joining NATO would have been something that would have garnered international headlines and would have been called a provocation. We see how, in light of the circumstances our world finds itself in, that it appears to be, and I would suggest is, a necessity for the security of those two countries and the western world. To provide context, although Finland and Sweden are not currently NATO members, I would like to note in the House this evening that they are active participants in the upholding of, as I have referred to, the international rules-based order. They have been collaborators with NATO and many of our objectives throughout the course of NATO's history. It is those things that I would suggest build a perfect resumé for what should be a speedy admission. For other countries that are now tasked with evaluating whether or not they should support these two countries' admission, if we look at their history I would suggest that their record speaks very strongly in favour of their expedient admission. My speech up to this point has talked a lot about the impacts of this motion and the results it would have on the world, but it has specific relevance here at home as well. When it comes to domestic impacts, we think about northern sovereignty and how we share thousands of kilometres of our north, although not a land border, with our next-closest neighbour, Russia. Certainly since I have been elected, and as someone who has followed closely the situation in our north, there is without a shadow of a doubt threats that are current and present that we need to take as a country in terms of bolstering our military. The previous speaker from Manitoba spoke very eloquently about ensuring that we have the military requirements, about meeting our 2% target and about those sorts of things. However, we have to be able to respond in a way that will ensure our national sovereignty: not just the thousands of kilometres of Arctic tundra in our north, but the fact that our sovereign borders do border, although by sea, a nation that has shown itself unwilling to abide by the common precepts of what national sovereignty should look like. I would call as a challenge to all parties in the House, and especially the government and members of the cabinet, that I have heard a lot of tough talk over the course of the past number of months regarding the situation in Ukraine, but that has to be followed up by equally significant and tough action. Tough talk without action makes good headlines, but does not actually help the people of our nation, the people of Ukraine, the people of Finland or Sweden and it does not keep them any safer. As I come to the conclusion of my speech, I would simply appeal to this place and to members of NATO that we look toward an expedient admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO for the peace and security of both our nation and the alliance that has helped provide peace and security over the past seven decades in our world.

1263 words

All Topics

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Jun/1/22 10:25:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague was speaking, I was reflecting on the different views that we have in the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada providing a voice to this discussion on what is happening in the world and the value of the Parliament of Canada in this discussion to say that we need to have peace, order and good government in other countries. Even though we might not agree with each other within these walls, I think that outside these walls our voice can be heard. It is being heard among ourselves, but now it will go forward from here. Could the hon. member comment on the value of our combined voice on this issue?

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Jun/1/22 10:26:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is certainly significant that we are debating this motion and the opportunity for Canada's Parliament, the epicentre of Canadian democracy, in what I hope will be a strong, unified voice, to share with the world that this situation matters, that Finland's and Sweden's admission into NATO matters, and to continue to speak with a strong voice, united, and to share that although there are many political differences, we stand united with the people of Ukraine and for the rules-based international order.

88 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/1/22 10:26:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was very interesting. He talked about unity with the Ukrainians. I think everyone in the House agrees on that. He talked about territorial sovereignty and national sovereignty. I am always moved when I hear people talk about sovereignty. I dream of the day when Quebec will also be part of NATO, just like Canada. However I do not want to go there tonight, because I am on my last question of the day. As we know, Turkey is proving to be problematic. It is one thing to say we support Sweden and Finland joining NATO. However, how does my hon. colleague think the problem with Turkey should be addressed when the time comes to do so? I think it will have to be done fairly quickly. How should this be done?

141 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Jun/1/22 10:27:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member brings up a good point when it comes to the situation regarding Turkey. Certainly I would suggest that the statement that this place, Canada's House of Commons, can make in terms of support for Finland's and Sweden's memberships in NATO is significant and can show, with a unified voice, that this conversation does matter and that there could be very real consequences, not only for Turkey but for the peace and security of our world, if it were to interfere with what appears to be, from my reading of the situation across NATO, the admission of these two countries into the alliance.

109 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/1/22 10:28:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about unity and unity within this place. One of the things that I think is very important is that we show solidarity and unity with our colleagues within NATO and with colleagues within the Baltic states. I am wondering if he could tell me why the Conservative Party has blocked the foreign affairs committee from going to visit our partners in NATO in the Baltic states.

72 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Jun/1/22 10:28:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not a member of the foreign affairs committee, so I would urge that member to ask members of that committee. I think that there has been an unprecedented show of unity within this place in support of the people of Ukraine and in support of ensuring that the international rules-based order is preserved. I would suggest that although there are political differences on the role that Canada should have as a middle power, and I would suggest that Canada should be a stronger position as a middle power in our world, there are significant political differences, certainly, between the New Democrats and the Conservatives and other political entities. We have, I think, a unified voice, and I would hope we will continue to see a unified voice in ensuring that we can stand with the people of Ukraine, and with our allies within NATO and around the world, for that rules-based international order.

159 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/1/22 10:29:57 p.m.
Watch

It being 10:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 31, the question is deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Thursday, June 2, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

41 words

All Topics

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Jun/1/22 10:30:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, back in April, I asked the Minister of Transport when he would allow Canadians to fly again and end the mandates. I pointed out that Canada is virtually alone in the world with these anti-flying mandates. Iceland, Sweden, Ireland, France, the U.K., Argentina, Costa Rica, Denmark, Hungary, Jamaica, Thailand, Mexico, Norway and Poland are just a few of the countries that have made it possible for their citizens to fly, and they have ended the vaccine mandates. Even Cuba, a country that the Prime Minister has an interesting relationship with, has more freedom to fly than Canada. I know that the parliamentary secretary will talk about how everything is done to protect Canadians, and the Liberals say that it is all based on science, even though their obsession on the vaccine mandate for travel is a clear opposition to the science, and that stopped long ago. I find it appalling that this Liberal government seems to be intent on preventing over seven million law-abiding Canadians from travelling just because they do not have a vaccine passport. However, it is quite content to allow Canadians who are convicted of child sex offences to travel abroad. Under the government, convicted child predators have more freedom to travel than Canadians who have chosen not to be vaccinated. In 2015, the Conservative government amended the Passport Act to give the minister of foreign affairs the tools to refuse or cancel passports in order to prevent the commission of sexual offences against a child in Canada or abroad. Basically, it stops Canadian sex predators from travelling and exploiting youth, especially in underdeveloped countries. I have been keeping track of how many passports the Liberals have revoked or denied. From 2015 to 2018, in the first two years, there were only 13 cancellations or revocations and five refusals of passports to prevent sexual abuse of children abroad. Many of these were initiated, likely, under the Conservative government. Between 2018 and 2021, the government revoked zero passports to prevent child exploitation and refused only three passports. Canada has 60,000 registered sex offenders, and 72% of them are child sexual predators. That is over 42,000 convicted child sex offenders. This government has only cancelled 13 passports and zero in the last three years, and it has refused only eight passports. Based on the organizations I work with, we are aware of convicted child sex offenders who had been convicted of the horrific offences against children and who received passports in the past few years from this government. They have been travelling abroad. I ask members to think about that. The government is spending $30 million to implement a vaccine passport in this country to prevent law-abiding citizens from getting on planes solely because they do not have a vaccine, but if a person is a convicted sex offender, as long as they get a vaccine, they are given a passport and off they go. For example, Donald Bakker, one of Canada's most notorious sex offenders, after serving his jail time, travelled to southeast Asia to abuse young children as young as seven years old. Under this government, he got his passport back and was travelling abroad to impoverished countries over the past few years. This is unconscionable. With 42,000 convicted sex offenders over the past seven years, and only 13 passports cancelled or refused, my question to the parliamentary secretary is this: Why is the government so focused on keeping law-abiding Canadians grounded and prohibited from travelling while convicted sex offenders can get a passport and travel? Would the $30 million not be better spend on ensuring that the passports are not being given to these sexual offenders?

621 words

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Jun/1/22 10:34:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about our government's response to the pandemic. Vaccination is one of the most effective tools we have to combat the pandemic and keep Canadians safe. While the provinces and territories are responsible for establishing vaccination requirements within their jurisdictions, vaccine requirements and restrictions were introduced in the summer and fall of 2021 across a number of areas of federal jurisdiction, namely at the border, among federal public servants and within the federally regulated transportation sector. Vaccine-related policies, along with public health measures, have helped keep Canadians safe. They have supported safe working conditions and spaces for federal public service workers and travellers on federally regulated transport and have reduced the risk and impacts of absenteeism for businesses. At the time that federal vaccine-related requirements and restrictions were introduced, overall vaccination rates were significantly lower. There was strong scientific evidence from international and domestic sources demonstrating that vaccines were effective at preventing infection against specific COVID-19 variants such as alpha and delta. There was also evidence that showed vaccines protected against severe illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19. The benefits of vaccination continue to outweigh the risks. It is also important for us to take stock of where we are, and have a more flexible and responsive approach in managing COVID-19. Vaccines and therapeutics continue to be important cornerstones of our responses. We are fortunate that vaccination coverage rates in Canada are among the highest in the world, resulting in more lives saved in comparison with other countries, but there are still more opportunities to enhance our protection. As of May 22, 2022, over 84% of the total population had received at least one dose, 81% had received two doses and more than 18 million Canadians had received a third dose. We know that vaccination does not give us full immunity from infection, but it does prevent us from getting very sick and reduces the potential need for hospitalization. Our goal of minimizing serious illness and death is still the same; so too is our goal of minimizing societal disruption. We need to recognize that COVID-19 is not going to disappear. We have learned a great deal over the course of the pandemic, but there is still a great deal of uncertainty. Thanks to Canadians' adherence to public health measures and high rates of vaccination, including booster doses, our outlook continues to improve. Individual public health measures, along with vaccines and therapeutics, will remain key in protecting individuals should a virulent or highly transmissible variant of concern emerge.

434 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

Jun/1/22 10:37:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, under the government, a convicted child sex offender has more freedom to travel in Canada than an unvaccinated Canadian. There are four million Canadians who cannot fly. El Salvador, Cuba, France and the U.K. are all countries that have allowed their citizens to fly once again. We are the only G7 country that is not allowing its unvaccinated citizens to fly. If the government will not let unvaccinated people fly, will it at least start revoking the passports of child sex offenders? How many passports have been refused or revoked over the past seven years?

98 words

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/1/22 10:38:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as Canada emerges out of the acute phase of the pandemic, the focus will shift toward ongoing management of COVID-19. Individual public health measures, along with vaccines and therapeutics, will remain key in protecting individuals should a virulent and highly transmissible variant of concern emerge. The Public Health Agency of Canada is working with its provincial and territorial partners to address the ongoing presence of the COVID-19 virus. Given the uncertainty, nimble approaches will continue to be required as measures are lifted.

86 words

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

Jun/1/22 10:38:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I recently posed a question to the Prime Minister regarding abuse and non-compliance under the medical assistance and dying regime. Abuse and non-compliance are not hypotheticals. They are happening, and they are well documented. Vulnerable Canadians are falling through the cracks. Quebec's commission on end-of-life care, as well as the Ontario's chief coroner's office, identified multiple cases of Criminal Code non-compliance, which is hardly something that should be taken lightly. In April, a 51-year-old London, Ontario, woman accessed MAID after she could not find adequate housing. Her condition was not irremediable as required by law. Last month, the RCMP opened a criminal investigation into the questionable MAID death of an Abbotsford, B.C., woman who suffered from depression. Then there is the case of Roger Foley, someone who requires 24-hour care. He was pressured to get MAID not once, but on at least four occasions. In one case, he recorded a health practitioner pressuring him to access MAID because, as she said, his care was simply too extensive. These cases are alarming and should concern the government. They are drawing international review, including from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, who expressed serious concerns and called on the government to conduct full investigations to ensure there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect vulnerable Canadians. Recently in the U.K., an article was published in The Spectator entitled, “Why is Canada euthanising the poor?” In the face of all of that, I would have thought the Prime Minister would have expressed some level of concern and compassion in answer to my question. On the contrary. The Prime Minister engaged in the worst form of politics, claiming that anyone who would raise questions of abuse was “wrapped up in ideology”. How insensitive. How beneath the dignity of this place. After all, we are talking about vulnerable Canadians. We are talking about an active criminal investigation into the death of a B.C. woman as we speak. We are talking about grieving families who have lost loved ones because the law was not followed. We are talking about vulnerable Canadians who are at risk absent the enforcement of safeguards. Therefore, I ask the government again: Will it admit what everyone knows to be true, that there are serious abuses and instances of non-compliance, which put vulnerable Canadians at risk? What is it doing about it?

416 words

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Jun/1/22 10:42:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about Canada's medical assistance in dying, including the role played by federal, provincial and territorial governments in the MAID regime. As members know, Parliament is responsible for enacting criminal law and the provinces and territories are responsible for its enforcement. The federal government has always recognized that MAID is a complex and deeply personal issue. Parliament has enacted a MAID regime that reflects Canada's evolving needs and supports autonomy and freedom of choice while also protecting those who may be vulnerable. This is why the MAID law includes stringent eligibility criteria and safeguards within the Criminal Code. For instance, a person may only receive MAID if their request was made voluntarily and without external pressure. Additionally, MAID providers must ensure that, one, the request for MAID was made in writing and was signed by an independent witness; two, that the person was informed that they may withdraw their request at any time; three, that a second independent physician or nurse practitioner provided a written opinion confirming that the person meets the eligibility criteria; four, that the person was given the opportunity to withdraw their request, and that if the request is not withdrawn, the person gives their express consent immediately before MAID is provided. The Criminal Code also contains additional safeguards for persons whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. For example, at least one physician or nurse practitioner assessing eligibility must have expertise in the condition causing the person's suffering. As well, there must be 90 days between the time the eligibility is assessed and the day MAID is provided, and the person must be informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care. As I mentioned, the provinces and territories are responsible for enforcing criminal law, including the MAID provisions. They are also responsible for the provision of health care and for the regulated medical professionals in their jurisdictions. The Criminal Code provides the needed safeguards to protect the vulnerable. However, it is up to the provinces and territories to investigate and enforce situations in which practitioners may not have followed the safeguards. Finally, the Criminal Code regulations for the monitoring of MAID are being updated to ensure that information is collected regarding race, indigenous identity and disability. Once available, this information will provide better insights into how certain groups may be impacted by our MAID regime, thus supporting the provinces and territories in the implementation of MAID and its enforcement.

430 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Jun/1/22 10:45:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, despite empty words of concern, the government has simply washed its hands clean of issues of noncompliance with the so-called safeguards that were brought in by the government. These are matters under the Criminal Code. They fall within the jurisdiction of the government, and the government has a responsibility to ensure that safeguards are adequate and that vulnerable Canadians are not falling through the cracks under the MAID regime. Instead, the government has ploughed full steam ahead, seeking to rapidly expand MAID as vulnerable Canadians fall through the cracks. I would submit that if anyone is wrapped up in ideology, it is the government, at the expense of vulnerable Canadians. I listed a series of cases of noncompliance, and I would ask the parliamentary secretary to acknowledge that there are instances of noncompliance and to provide a better answer than—

144 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 79