44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 7, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/7/22 11:27:17 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, every time we ask government members about problems with the temporary foreign worker program, they subject us to sermons about the importance of immigration.
Obviously immigration is important. That is why we need to deal with it. It is important for companies that lose contracts because they cannot get enough workers, but it is just as important—perhaps more so—for the foreign workers who just want to earn a living but cannot while Ottawa takes its sweet time with their applications. These people do not want sermons; they want to work.
When is the government going to process their applications in a timely manner instead of constantly shattering their dreams?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/7/22 11:28:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberals say that they know what they are doing, but yesterday we read stories in Le Journal de Montréal about businesses that have been waiting for their foreign workers for a year. That is a year of lost contracts for the businesses, a year of lost income for the workers and a year of lost growth for our economy. Everyone loses while this government fails to realize that the immigration programs are intended to serve people, not showcase noble values.
Today the federal government has two choices. When will it finally truly take care of the backlogs? If it cannot do that, when will it hand over the program to Quebec?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. She said that, even though the dental insurance program is not perfect, it is better to send money to people than not send it at all.
With all due respect, I disagree. For example, under this program, families that have insurance cannot collect the benefit even if their insurance does not cover everything, whereas families that pay just a small amount collect the full benefit.
Would it not be more effective to just transfer the money to the provinces, which are in a better position to meet people's dental care needs and can therefore make better use of this money? That would be better than the federal government's misguided approach.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South for his speech and for his bill.
I wonder if he could comment on the issue of cluster munitions. We know that the United States is not a signatory to the Dublin convention and that it manufactures this type of weapon.
Bill C‑281 seeks to expand the list of people who would be targeted by the Canadian restrictions. I wonder whether, as members of Parliament, we are not running the risk of being lobbied by American weapons retailers to ensure that shareholders or people involved in these companies, for example, are not targeted by the bill.
Does my colleague share my concern?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C‑281 introduced by the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. This bill has a relatively long, but rather clear title and, as the member mentioned, it is a good exercise in diction. It is the act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky Law, the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.
In this first hour of second reading of the bill, I will end the suspense right away and say that my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and I are voting in favour of Bill C‑281. The underlying principle of Bill C‑281 is quite commendable because its provisions seek to better combat human rights violations in the world. I think that Bill C‑281 should definitely be debated, discussed and perhaps improved. I commend the member's openness to the idea of improving this bill in committee. I will even make one or two suggestions in the House that I hope will fuel the work of the committee.
Bill C‑281 proposes changes to four current pieces of legislation and I propose to go over them one by one.
The first act to be amended is the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, more specifically section 10, which lists the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Bill C‑281 would add two obligations for the minister to fulfill every year, that is publishing a report outlining measures that Canada has taken to advance human rights internationally and a list that sets out the names and circumstances of prisoners of conscience detained worldwide for whose release the Government of Canada is actively working. In our opinion, the first obligation represents a way of ensuring that when the minister makes an announcement, it is followed by concrete action.
Recently, the Department of Foreign Affairs has not had a shining record of walking the talk. For example, after announcing a freeze on the assets of Russian oligarchs in the spring, it was impossible to subsequently ascertain if they had actually been frozen or who was responsible for the file.
Then, after it was announced that these assets could be liquidated in order to help Ukraine financially, we learned that the bill probably could not be implemented. Simply put, for sanctions to work, just announcing them is not enough; they have to be implemented. The same goes for measures to advance human rights internationally.
As for the list of names of prisoners of conscience, I think it would be worthwhile to ask some experts whether exceptions should be made in terms of making that list public, for instance in the case of political prisoners whose safety could be compromised if their names were published. It might also be worth thinking about a way to allow a group of parliamentarians, for example, to determine whether a name should indeed be excluded. This could be examined by a committee working in camera.
The second act amended by Bill C‑281 is the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, as known as the Magnitsky act.
Bill C‑281 states that the minister must respond to committee recommendations regarding the application of Magnitsky sanctions against an individual and that the minister must table that response within 40 days after the adoption of a report recommending such sanctions or within the time limit specified by the committee. The minister's response must include a response to the committee's recommendations. The minister must indicate whether an order or regulation is to be made and set out the reasons for the decision to impose or not impose sanctions.
This new legislation would ensure a diligent response on the government's part to alleged human rights abuses. It will allow for faster follow-up on committee recommendations than the current standard, which gives the government 150 days to respond and states that the committee can request a response, but there is no obligation. Furthermore, under normal circumstances, the response to a committee report can be “comprehensive”, a term that Speakers of the House have always declined to define. The requirement to set out reasons for a decision is more precise and more in line with the principles of natural justice.
The third act that Bill C‑281 seeks to amend is the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Cluster munitions are weapons made up of a number of submunitions. They scatter a large number of explosive devices over a wide area.
These weapons are notorious for leading to many deaths and serious injuries each year. The victims are often children, since the small, brightly coloured, baseball-sized bombs do not always explode on contact with the ground. They can remain there for many years, even decades, before being handled by children.
This type of weapon is not prohibited under international law, with the exception of using them in built-up civilian areas. However, there is the 2008 Dublin convention, to which 110 countries are party, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, but which countries such as China, India, Brazil, Russia and the United States have neither signed nor ratified. Canada signed the agreement in 2008, but the legislation allowing for its ratification did not come into force until 2015, and it is precisely this legislation that the current bill, Bill C‑281, seeks to amend.
As currently written, the legislation prohibits all persons from using, manufacturing, acquiring, possessing, moving or importing cluster munitions. The amendment broadens the group covered by these prohibitions to include any person or corporation that has a financial interest in a group or person that has committed, aided or abetted a third party in committing the wrongdoing that I have just listed.
We believe that Bill C‑281 is a step in the right direction towards a safer world, especially for children in the long term, but we are aware that the bill may be met with resistance from the American arms lobby, given that many companies still manufacture this type of weapon. We hope that our parliamentary colleagues will not give in to this pressure when it comes time to discuss amendments to the bill and vote on it.
Finally, Bill C‑281 will amend the Broadcasting Act to facilitate the revocation of licences for television or radio broadcasts in Canada when they are influenced by a foreign national or entity that has committed acts that the Senate or the House of Commons has recognized as genocide, or if these broadcasts are influenced by officials subject to sanctions under the Sergei Magnitsky Law. This bill would give the House the power to use simple motions to block foreign media, if those media are vulnerable to being influenced by entities that have committed crimes. Whether or not the content of these media is neutral or the fact that the content is beyond reproach would not be the basis for the assessment. State media are used to spread ideas, information about a culture, a viewpoint of the country in question, in short to promote a country directly or indirectly. We can think of the example of China and its vaccine diplomacy. China widely publicized the fact that it distributed massive amounts of vaccines in Africa. The purpose was to bolster its image by making people forget about its dubious management at the outset of the pandemic, and also to make people overlook the crimes committed against the Uighurs within its borders.
As for non-neutral content, unfortunately there is no shortage of examples of that, too. The war in Ukraine brought to light the full arsenal deployed by Russia to destabilize Ukraine and NATO through a hybrid war effort, which includes using the media to sow doubt or to destabilize the government by creating internal tensions among citizens. For example, Russian media gave a huge platform to anti-vaccine and anti-health measure conspiracy theorists, especially those who criticized government policies, giving them greater exposure to criticize local governments and whip up public discontent. We have also seen this kind of tactic used on another scale elsewhere in the world. Russian media specifically targeted Canadian soldiers on a mission in Latvia with the aim of discrediting them and stirring up mistrust among locals. This kind of disinformation campaign can go on for years.
Both in cases of neutral content and in the case of content that is explicitly not, banning such a broadcast through a motion does not seem excessive when the country in question is recognized by Parliament as having committed an act of genocide.
For all these reasons, my colleagues and I support the bill at second reading. We hope to have the opportunity to follow its progress through committee, which I am sure will be very interesting.
1502 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
