SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

Apr/15/24 5:52:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to this important motion. The motion we are dealing with is a concurrence motion that calls for a number of things, but the one I mainly want to talk about today is the first part of the motion, which calls on Canada to designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code and expel the estimated 700 Iranian agents operating in Canada. I wish I could say that to do this was obvious and that it had been done already. Many people watching this debate tonight may not realize that Parliament actually voted to do this exact thing six years ago. Sometimes I wonder what we are doing in this place. We are elected. We are spending billions of dollars renovating Centre Block. These places are supposed to mean something. They represent the will of the common people. When we vote as a Parliament to do something, it should be done. If there is a good reason for it not to be done, I am all ears. I keep asking myself this: What will it take for the Prime Minister to actually list the IRGC as a terrorist entity? The Liberals are now using Liberal speak. They are saying they have to responsibly list. I have never heard those two words put together in my life, responsibly list, unless one is making a grocery list or something. What do they mean by that? What will it take for the Prime Minister to act responsibly? The IRGC has been a bad actor in the region and throughout the world for decades. It is not a secret. The IRGC does not hide it either. We know that there are 700 agents wreaking havoc on Persian and Jewish communities. Who knows what else they have gotten into? What if, for instance, the IRGC shot down an aircraft and killed Canadian citizens? If that were to happen, would the government register the IRGC as a terrorist entity? The answer is no, because it happened. That was done. It pains me to have to say it again. PS752 was shot down, killing 55 Canadians and 20 permanent residents. The call came after Parliament already voted and the democratic will of the Canadian people had been expressed. The call came again from the House to please ban the IRGC and list it as a terrorist entity. Apparently, it fell on deaf ears. Would it take the IRGC murdering “woman, life, freedom” activists, such as Mahsa Amini, to finally bring in a ban on the IRGC? I always thought, because I heard the Prime Minister say this back in 2015, that the government had a feminist foreign policy. Where is it? The IRGC murdered activists in cold blood. The calls came out again from this democratic institution to ban the IRGC and do the right thing. The government said we have to responsibly list, whatever that means. What will it take for the Prime Minister to act responsibly? Would it take Iran and the IRGC orchestrating a terror attack in Israel in which 1,200 innocent Israeli civilians were killed and 250 others were kidnapped? Our friend, democratic ally Israel, gets attacked and its people slaughtered in their own homes. I know this because I walked among those homes. When I was in Israel in November, I walked through the burned, shot-up and blackened homes of Kibbutz Kfar Aza and saw the devastation that Hamas, the Iranian IRGC proxy, wrought on the innocent civilians of Israel. Would it take something such as that for the Liberal government to finally decide to ban the IRGC? Apparently, it would not. How about 700 IRGC agents across the country harassing Persian and Jewish communities? Mr. Speaker, imagine a circumstance in which Iran decided to send 170 armed drones from its territory directly to Israel. Such a scenario seems unimaginable. Would it make the government finally realize that it is time to ban the IRGC? What if Iran sent 30 cruise missiles or 120 ballistic missiles? What if such an eventuality took place? What if it did something so heinous to our friend and ally Israel? However, Iran did do it. It did it on Saturday night, on Shabbat in Israel, because it wants to kill Jews. It wants to do that directly and indirectly, through proxies such as Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas. That is Iran's goal, and Canada, as an ally of the only democratic state in the Middle East, has a moral obligation to stand up and do the right thing. Again, what is this “responsibly list” business? Some will say there are some low-level IRGC conscripts who are living in Canada now; surely we should not do anything that would hurt them. What about the fact that our own citizens and our allies are being hurt? I have my doubts that this is the issue, because all they have really said in the last six years is that we need to look out for these poor conscripts who really had nothing to do with the conflict other than the fact they spent a year in the IRGC. However, if this is actually the reason, then let us find a solution to that problem, but not doing anything at this point is simply not an option. I also want to briefly talk about the horrendous motion the Liberals and the NDP in the House gave a standing ovation to themselves for a couple of weeks ago. It did not punish the IRGC. We can imagine punishing the IRGC, which would make sense. It did not punish Hamas. The motion punished Israel. There was a motion passed by the House that actually punished Israel and rewarded Hamas. It punished Israel by reinstating funding to UNRWA, which is a subject of a whole other debate, but UNRWA employees were complicit and acted directly in the slaughter of Israeli citizens on that day. We should not be funding organizations that fund terror. What else did the motion do? It banned arms sales. What foresight. What a brilliant move that the House of Commons would vote to ban arms sales to our friend and ally Israel. We ban arms sales to Israel and now Iran shoots cruise missiles, drones and ballistic missiles at Israel. The Prime Minister says that we stand with Israel and that it has a right to defend itself, but we are not going to sell it any arms. What a hypocrite. Such a level of hypocrisy has never before been seen in the House, and it cannot stand. I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: “That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practices of the House, the motion to concur— Some hon. members: No.

1144 words

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

Apr/15/24 6:02:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the G7 leaders' statement on Iran's attack against Israel: We, the Leaders of the G7, unequivocally condemn in the strongest terms Iran's direct and unprecedented attack against Israel. Iran fired hundreds of drones and missiles towards Israel. Israel, with the help of its partners, defeated the attack. We express our full solidarity and support to Israel and its people and reaffirm our commitment towards its security. With its actions, Iran has further stepped toward the destabilization of the region and risks provoking an uncontrollable regional escalation. This must be avoided. We will continue to work to stabilize the situation and avoid further escalation. In this spirit, we demand that Iran and its proxies cease their attacks, and we stand ready to take further measures now and in response to further destabilizing initiatives. We will also strengthen our cooperation to end the crisis in Gaza, including by continuing to work towards an immediate and sustainable ceasefire and the release of hostages by Hamas, and deliver increased humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in need. Does the member support what the G7 leaders have said?

196 words

Mr. Marty Morantz

Apr/15/24 6:03:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to say one thing that I did not have the chance to say in my main speech. It was published today that the foreign affairs minister was speaking with her counterpart in Israel. She said to him, “take the win”. Can members imagine? I wonder what my friend from Winnipeg North would say if this happened in Canada, around Winnipeg. Should we de-escalate? Should we just take the win? We happen to have the technology to knock them down. With friends like these Liberals, who needs enemies?

98 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Apr/15/24 6:04:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley for that great speech and for his unwavering commitment to stand with Israel. The Jewish community here in Canada has unfortunately been feeling a lot of anti-Semitism coming from some members of the House. We are seeing anti-Semitic and anti-Israel motions being presented. We are witnessing it manifest on the streets across Canada. Would my colleague and friend comment on how the arms embargo that the Liberals have now put upon selling Canadian-made weapons into the hands of Israel to defend its own citizens and its own borders is hurting not only Israel, but also Canadian businesses, in being able to push back against the terrorist regime in Tehran, the IRGC, and Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, which are hell bent on destroying Israel?

147 words

Mr. Marty Morantz

Apr/15/24 6:05:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the first words that come to mind when I think about what my colleague just expressed are Neville Chamberlain's level appeasement. We cannot say that we stand with Israel or that Israel has a right to defend itself with credibility when we then say that we are not going to sell Israel weapons, after it was attacked by Iran's proxy, Hamas, and after it got attacked directly by Iran. That decision cannot stand. It has to be reversed. It has to be reversed right now.

89 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Apr/15/24 6:06:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for the better part of the afternoon, we have been talking about what has gone on over the last six years, and the fact that the House expressed its view in banning the IRGC as a terrorist organization six years ago. We have not seen any action by the government at all. I am just wondering if my hon. colleague wants to speculate on or perhaps provide the real reason the Liberals are not deeming the IRGC a terrorist entity.

82 words

Mr. Marty Morantz

Apr/15/24 6:07:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is because they are a bunch of weak appeasers. The Liberals want to make friends with our enemies and treat our friends as enemies. It is shameful. This is a time for moral clarity. We need to be standing with Israel, one hundred per cent.

48 words

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Apr/15/24 6:07:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to support concurrence of the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, a report that touches on the human rights abuses in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is a report that draws attention of these abuses to the government in the hope that the government would act. We are having this debate here in the House on this very issue in the aftermath of the Iranian regime's attack on the State of Israel this past weekend. I think it is a timely debate for us to have. I hope members of the House will support concurrence of this report. It also allows us to draw attention to the gross human rights abuses and the violations of international law that the Iranian regime has been perpetrating in recent years. In particular, we need to draw attention to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is a key part of the state apparatus of the leaders in Tehran. It permeates its security apparatus internally in Iran and its military. It is an entity that we believe should be listed as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code of Canada. Six years ago, in June 2018, the House adopted a motion calling on the Government of Canada to immediately list the IRGC as a terrorist entity. It has been six long years since the House adopted that motion, since members of the ministry of the government, including the Prime Minister, voted for that motion. However, here we are, six years later, and in the intervening years, the IRGC has continued to promulgate its ruthless and vicious campaign persecuting Iranians in Iran, including people such Nasrin Sotoudeh, an esteemed human rights advocate in Iran, and its campaign of destabilizing the region by attacking liberal democracies, such as the State of Israel. It also continues to attack Canadian interests here at home. It was in January 2020, some four years ago, when the IRGC fired a missile at Ukrainian International Airlines flight 752, which killed dozens and dozens of Canadian citizens. Those families continue to mourn the loss of their loved ones to this day. They were people who held such promise in their future contributions to this country, whose lives will never be known and who will never be able to make a contribution to this country. We have had these things happen over the last six years, yet the government continues to stubbornly refuse to take the leadership to list the organization as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code, despite the fact that the Prime Minister himself has called the IRGC a terrorist organization. Despite the fact that the government has labelled it as such, it still refuses to take the ministerial authority they are entrusted with under the Criminal Code to list the entity as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code. The reason this is so very important is that it would allow FINTRAC and our other investigative bodies, such as the RCMP, our provincial police forces of jurisdiction, our CSIS intelligence analysts and operatives, who all work so hard to keep our country safe each and every day, to have another tool to prosecute the flows of money that are so often associated with the threats the IRGC presents, both to the people of Iran in that region and to Canadians here at home. Iran is subject to vast sanctions regimes. That makes it very difficult for the Islamic Republic of Iran to get the cash it needs to operate. The flows of money that so often accompany the threats that we see, both here and in the region, are essential in cutting off the ability of the IRGC to function. However, our security forces here in Canada, our intelligence agencies here in Canada and our police forces of jurisdiction have one hand tied behind their backs because they are not allowed to go after people in Canada who are helping the IRGC with flows of money, whether it is helping them clandestinely sell oil on the black market to fund the projects they want to fund or whether it is going to proxy agents of the IRGC who are operating here on Canadian soil and threatening Canadian citizens, doing so with resources they have clandestinely been provided with. These are the reasons we need to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity. We are calling on the government to do exactly that in the context of the shooting down of Ukrainian International Airlines flight 752, in the context of the attack this past weekend by the IRGC on the State of Israel and in light of its gross human rights abuses and imprisonment of people such as Nasrin Sotoudeh and so many other people in Iran. We have a government that says it supports the motion that was adopted in the House some six years ago, a government that calls the IRGC a terrorist entity, and a government that still refuses to list the entity as a terrorist organization under the Criminal Code of Canada. In response to the government's reasons for not listing the IRGC, which is that it is worried about capturing innocent individuals who are compelled to join the IRGC while they are in Iran, its members forget the fact that there is prosecutorial discretion here in Canada. Crown prosecutors have the discretion about whether or not to pursue charges under a terrorist entity listing under the Criminal Code of Canada. Their explanations for why they continue to refuse to list this entity does not make any sense, and we are calling on them to support this concurrence motion and list the IRGC as a terrorist entity.

954 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/15/24 6:15:20 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.

26 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/15/24 6:16:52 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

Mr. Chris Warkentin

Apr/15/24 6:16:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives would ask for a recorded division.

9 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/15/24 6:16:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, December 4, 2023, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third stage of Bill C-50, and of the amendment. The question is on the amendment. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

89 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/15/24 7:00:19 p.m.
Watch

I declare the amendment defeated. The next question is on the main motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

58 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Apr/15/24 7:01:04 p.m.
Watch

I would like a recorded division, Mr. Speaker.

8 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/15/24 7:12:46 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Apr/15/24 7:16:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, it is somewhat ironic that it is a Liberal member who wants us to be remembering what happened during the pandemic. Frankly, I would expect Liberal members to want us to forget what they did during the pandemic. I would not have expected this, but the Liberals should be offering a grovelling apology to the Canadian people for their disastrous record over the course of the pandemic and should be hoping that people forget afterward. The reality of the government's approach to the pandemic was that it showed capricious disregard for the basic civil liberties of Canadians. It showed disregard for the law. It sought to demonize people who disagreed. It saw the pandemic as an opportunity to spend outrageous sums of money, and in many cases, it was on things completely unrelated to the pandemic. It aggressively demonized people who would disagreed with it. That is the government's pandemic record. It shows a lack of respect for taxpayers' dollars and a lack of respect for constitutionally protected fundamental human rights. Let us go back to the very beginning. Then finance minister Bill Morneau, of course with the full encouragement and co-operation of the Prime Minister, tried to use the pandemic as an excuse to bring in legislation that would have given the government the power to raise taxes without the permission of Parliament. That group of Canadians, when the pandemic hit, was immediately thinking how they could use it as an opportunity to raise taxes. The Liberals have a one-track mind over there. There was a global health crisis, and they saw it as their opportunity to raise taxes, to take over more control from Canadians and to undermine fundamental rights. They did that during the pandemic. They wanted to be able to assume, within the executive, all the powers of Parliament. That was the government's attitude to the pandemic. It is unbelievable. I do not support this legislation. I wish Liberal members of Parliament would have more ambition with their private member's bills than to just have more days for this and days for that. Actually, I do not. I am glad they do not have more ambition because I can only imagine what kind of terrible ideas they would come up with. While we are talking about remembering what happened during the pandemic, I hope government members will take an opportunity to apologize for how they tried to abuse the circumstances of the pandemic to undermine the rights of Canadians, to attack taxpayers and to demonize people who disagreed with them. The pandemic is behind us, but we should never forget what it revealed about the kind of Prime Minister and the kind of government we have.

460 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Apr/15/24 7:16:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-209

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to inform you that I may not use all of my time to speak to this bill because it has been a while since it was introduced. The bill is landing here about three years later and, as I like to say in speeches where I am not the first to speak, I feel that everything has already been said, although I would not repeat what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan said. On the contrary, I will offer my colleagues a much more conciliatory tone that is far more focused on those who have suffered as a result of the pandemic. The purpose of Bill S‑209, which we are currently studying, is to commemorate the pandemic and remind everyone that many people suffered during that period. This bill was introduced by Quebec senator Dr. Marie-Françoise Mégie, and it seeks to make March 11 a day of observance but not a statutory holiday. Perhaps it is a way to remember a time that took the entire world by surprise. It was the first time in history that such a surprising event took place, and it was something that everyone experienced both together and on their own. I think that the important thing about this bill is that we remember the people who suffered and the people who helped us during the pandemic. We remember the good things taken away from us during the pandemic, which we too often took for granted. I like to compare it to the ice storm. I grew up in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. In 1998, we got caught in the triangle of darkness. Someone commented on the strong sense of unity that took hold at the time, which unfortunately vanished as soon as the power came back and the lights were turned on. If March 11 can serve as an occasional reminder of the sacrifices made by many, or keep alive a few reminders of that sense of unity, then it will have not have been for nothing, at least in that regard. Among those we wish to remember are, of course, all those who died from COVID-19. Sadly, I imagine everyone in the House knows someone who has succumbed to COVID-19, either directly or as a result of a comorbidity. One person in particular comes to mind, someone I have already paid tribute to in the House and who passed away as a result of COVID-19. This individual was really well liked among Bloc, PQ and separatist supporters across Quebec. Just think of seniors, for example, who were the first to be confined and the last to come out of lockdown. These individuals, who unfortunately often struggle with isolation, were even more isolated during the pandemic. Just think of women, especially those who were self-employed in areas that were rapidly closing down. Think of women who worked as aestheticians, for example, and in other rather precarious jobs usually done by women. They lost significant sources of income and suffered disproportionately from the pandemic. Take, for example, the guardian angels, all the people who saved our skins during the pandemic. If they had not been there, the situation would have been even worse in many health care facilities, such as hospitals, long-term care homes and so on. I am also thinking about frontline workers in general, all those who could not work from home during the pandemic because the nature of their job would not allow it and who had to go to work day after day in difficult conditions. We needed them and they were there for us. We can think of the young people, a generation sacrificed at a pivotal moment in their lives. We can think of all those who had to attend their prom remotely or who simply did not have one. That may seem a bit childish, but it is certainly a milestone in a person's life. High school prom is often a turning point before post-secondary studies. We can also think of the scientific community, the scientists who were unfortunately treated badly by disinformation agents, but who nevertheless tried to some insight and information to support our collective well-being during this rather dark chapter in history. March 11 will be the day we remember the sacrifices made by some, the work accomplished by others, everything we lost during this period that we had taken for granted and that this period helped us realize was important. March 11 will be the day we reflect on how lucky we are to finally have gotten through it and, for the most part, to have regained the same quality of life we had before the pandemic but have only now learned to appreciate. If it can serve that purpose, then it will be worth celebrating, in spite of everything. I hope we can celebrate it with a positive attitude, contrary to what I heard in some speeches earlier. With that, I will conclude my remarks. As I said at the beginning, I do not intend to use all of my time, because others have spoken more eloquently than I have.

871 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Apr/15/24 7:22:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-209

Uqaqtittiji, I rise to speak in support of Bill S-209. I thank my colleague from Vancouver Centre for sponsoring this bill. A pandemic observance day, if passed, would honour the loved ones we lost to COVID-19. It would recognize the countless sacrifices made by frontline workers in Canada and abroad. It would provide us with a chance to reflect on the ongoing impacts COVID-19 continues to have. On behalf of Nunavut, I will reflect on our experiences during the pandemic. I thank Dr. Michael Patterson, who was the chief public health officer for Nunavut during the COVID-19 pandemic. While I was apprehensive at first, I gained great respect for him and his role. Because of his great leadership, it took much longer for COVID-19 to reach Nunavut compared with other provinces and territories. I remind the House that all 25 of the communities I represent in Nunavut are fly-in only. That was part of the reason it was easier to isolate, quarantine and screen for infections. Starting on March 25, 2020, the territorial government restricted all travel into Nunavut. Only residents and essential medical workers were allowed to enter, and they were first required to quarantine for 14 days. The territory was essentially on a complete lockdown. While cases surged in Canada and abroad, Nunavut remained without cases of COVID-19. For once, our isolated communities were protected. I thank the decisiveness of members of the territorial government, whose fast and aggressive actions kept Nunavummiut safe. I thank the former premier, Joe Savikataaq; the current premier, P.J. Akeeagok; the minister of health, John Main; and the chief medical officer, Dr. Michael Patterson, for their leadership in these difficult times. For many months, Nunavut’s pandemic measures were controversial. Many Nunavummiut struggled with being isolated in hotels, waiting to go home. Mental health supports were needed as people struggled in their journey home. The following June, many restrictions were lifted. First, parks and day cares were reopened, and outdoor gatherings were allowed. By the end of the month, even bars and restaurants reopened, subject to social distancing. Nunavut would not see a positive case until eight months after the pandemic officially began in Canada. On November 6, 2020, Nunavut’s first case of COVID-19 was confirmed in Sanikiluaq. In a week, this increased to eight confirmed cases. A week after that, cases exploded to 84. I am positive that this huge spike in cases is 100% related to the overcrowded housing situation that Nunavummiut are forced to endure. While new lockdowns and social distancing measures sought to keep COVID-19 under control, the bubble had burst. Overall, Nunavut recorded 3,531 cases of COVID-19. I am very sad to say that 10 of my constituents died. These were people I knew, who were mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, parents, grandparents and friends. Extended family is important in my riding, and more than 10 families changed forever because of the pandemic. In a territory as small and tight-knit as Nunavut, these losses are amplified. While the pandemic may be considered over, its effects persist. Many have spoken about the impacts of social isolation on mental health. The profound impacts on Nunavummiut of increased loneliness and two years without socialization remain; these include worsening anxiety and depression. With colonial policies, the mental health needs of Nunavummiut continue to be ignored. There are more completed suicides there than in any other jurisdiction, especially among youth, and this is extremely concerning. While I have complete faith in Nunavummiut to support each other, they are given hurdles that make healing beyond their reach. The Liberals must invest in Nunavut. We need better access to culturally relevant and trauma-informed mental health care. The health care system in Nunavut is already extremely strained. COVID-19 highlighted many of the issues that my constituents must live with every day. Just last year, health services had to be reduced in six communities because of the lack of staff. More than two dozen key positions were unstaffed. Some are still operating on an emergency-only basis, meaning people cannot access primary health care. The life expectancy in Nunavut is 71 years, while in Canada overall it is 82 years. Even when a doctor or nurse is available, for most basic and specialized services people must fly thousands of kilometres south to hospitals in Iqaluit, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Yellowknife or Edmonton. The federal government must do more to support, train, recruit and retain qualified health care workers in Nunavut. More must be invested in health infrastructure so that families are not separated just to get the care they need. COVID-19 is not the only respiratory disease that people in Nunavut endure. The Nunavut Department of Health announced tuberculosis outbreaks in Pond Inlet last March, in Naujaat last May and, more than two years ago, in Pangnirtung. Tuberculosis has been practically eradicated in the rest of Canada, but it persists in my communities. According to a 2018 report by the Public Health Agency of Canada, the average annual rate of TB among Inuit is 290 times higher than in Canadian-born, non-Indigenous people. This number is Canada’s shame. It is evidence that the government does not meet its obligations to Inuit. Hopes were high in 2018 when the Liberals announced a plan to end tuberculosis in Inuit communities by 2030. Six years have passed, and infection rates remain high as federal funding continues not to be enough. Five people in Inuit communities have died by TB since 2021. I should not have to call on the federal government to recommit funding to address tuberculosis and save lives in Nunavut, yet here I am, practically begging the government to please invest in Nunavut. This includes investing in housing so that respiratory diseases are prevented from spreading based on overcrowding. To conclude, the NDP supports the intent of Bill S-209. COVID-19 had immeasurable impacts on Canada and abroad. My thoughts are especially with the 10 Nunavummiut who died from COVID-19, and their families. We must do better. We must be better prepared if there is ever another pandemic. I hope that the Liberals will address the persistent health issues that I outlined. I hope that the budget tomorrow will include major investments in Nunavut.

1059 words

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

Apr/15/24 7:31:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-209

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and add a few thoughts in regard to the pandemic observance day that is being proposed. I would first like to acknowledge both my colleague and the Senate of Canada for coming up with the initiative and the idea of designating March 11 as pandemic observance day. We have so many days, weeks and months that are recognized for all sorts of different reasons. When I think of March 11 being pandemic observance day, I see that as a positive thing. We all went through a great deal during a very difficult time. We are talking about a worldwide pandemic during which so many people died, because the pandemic did not discriminate. There is a lot to be learned from the last pandemic. Seeing that designation here in Canada would allow individuals, whatever their background, their career choice or understanding of the issue, the opportunity to have that day as a day on which to highlight the concerns and issues that maybe they encountered during the pandemic, and to briefly provide comment in regard to what actually took place. We all know about the worldwide pandemic and the individuals, non-profits and governments here in Canada, with a team Canada approach, that took on the pandemic. I am very proud of many of the things we were able to do here in Ottawa to support and have the backs of Canadians. It is something that we will no doubt continue to talk about into the future, about the government's role and how the national government worked with provincial entities, how the Prime Minister, for example, originally on a daily basis, provided a briefing for Canadians, and the financial supports that were put into place, whether it was for small businesses through the wage subsidy programs and loans, or the CERB program, which literally helped millions of Canadians to have an income. There was a great deal of co-operation that took place with different levels of government and different political entities. We had Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats, and governments at all levels working together, recognizing the needs. We often hear about mandates. Some of the mandates were at the federal level, and others were at the provincial level. There was everything from curfews to the wearing of masks to restrictions of businesses and so forth. There was the creation of programs that were put into place to have the backs of Canadians in all regions of the country. That is one aspect that could be reflected on, on a future March 11. Then there is the whole idea of heroes, individuals who really stepped up to the plate. I am thinking of first responders and our health care workers. I think about other individuals. We often think about our health care workers and recognize the amazing work they did, but I also think about public transit drivers and taxi drivers. People were going into those vehicles, and those drivers continued to provide a public service. I think about the long haul truck drivers who continued to provide the essential groceries to our stores, as well other types of consumer products, whether it was toilet paper, which was a challenge at the very beginning of the pandemic, or other supplies. There were so many individuals, non-profits and governments whose actions made a huge difference for Canadians as a whole. We had our military step up. We had organizations like Red Cross that stepped up. After mentioning those two, I think about our seniors in care facilities, where there were huge concerns about the outbreaks and the number of deaths, and so forth. It was an all-encompassing, holistic approach for the different sectors of society. We had private companies that managed to keep people employed, even when it was challenging in terms of the type of work they might be able to do. They did not want to let people go or fire people, recognizing the impact that would have on the economy. We had some businesses retool and start production of some materials needed during the pandemic. In hindsight today, there was a great deal of effort by so many people in every capacity of society that enabled us, ultimately, to get out of the pandemic in a relatively positive fashion. In comparison to other countries around the world, like the United States or many of the European countries, Canada did reasonably well. That was, in most part, because people recognized what we needed to do, came to many different tables in many forms and ultimately made a difference. As a direct result, lives were saved. Not as many hospital expenses were incurred. The family unit, in good part, was protected as much as possible. We were able to get some sort of normalcy back in a quicker fashion, depending on the area of the nation. Some provinces had more quarantine types of issues than others. I think recognizing March 11 as the pandemic observance day would be a positive thing where many people in many ways could reflect upon the pandemic. I think of all the different types of special days, weeks or months that we, as the House of Commons, have taken a position on and have said that we support. We have done quite a bit of that. I suggest that recognizing a day to observe the pandemic would be of great value to Canadians. For school systems, professional organizations, working environments and governments to have that day would provide an opportunity to talk about it in the hope of ultimately moving forward. It would keep Canadians better informed, going into the future, about some of the very basic issues of medical attention and making sure things like vaccinations are done when necessary. In fact, I just recently had a constituent talk about shingles and the vaccines for shingles. The level of heightened awareness about a series of different medical issues is a direct result of the pandemic. I think there is a lot to be learned. I would encourage all members to get behind this and to give their support to Bill S-209.

1032 words

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

Apr/15/24 7:40:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-209

Mr. Speaker, as always it is an honour to rise in this place to talk about the issues that are so important to my constituents and all Canadians. Particularly, on Bill S-209, I find it interesting that we are debating the creation of a day, which happened approximately four years ago, for when COVID-19 became a big thing. I remember that four years ago well. I was in this place as a newly elected member of Parliament, and it was a chaotic time. Many people did not know what was going on. We had differing intelligence and news. In fact, it was not even called COVID at that time. However, then it was declared a pandemic, and then this place and basically the country was shut down. Now, four years later, we have an attempt to memorialize this in the context of a day of recognition. What I think is interesting, and I would suggest very troubling, is that we have an effort by a member of the Liberal Party to sponsor and bring forward this pandemic day act in the House of Commons, which was put forward by a senator. However, what I think needs to be said very clearly is how impactful COVID was, and not just the virus, which had an unquestionably significant impact on so many lives. As I have reflected back, and because the debate of the bill was bumped back a couple of weeks I have had additional time to consider it, what I find very troubling is the mismanagement and the efforts of the Liberals, in particular, to squash and disregard the rights and freedoms of Canadians and the division that took place. I think of the 2021 election. In fact, I was reflecting the other day on how unbelievably divisive that election was. Literally, in this place two months before the Prime Minister went to Rideau Hall to call an election, he promised that he would not do that. However, he used vaccinations. Again, he promised that he would never force Canadians to get vaccinated, and then he used that as a political weapon to divide Canadians against each other, splitting families apart, churches, organizations and communities, and for what? The purpose was in pursuit of power. I reflect back on the early days of the pandemic when the actions of this place were shut down and there was, I would suggest, cross-partisan collaboration and a willingness to say, “Okay, we do not know what's going on.” We certainly could not trust what was coming out of China. There were questions about what the WHO was saying, and we had to figure things out. However, what did the Liberals do instead of being willing to work together? They would claim on television that a team Canada approach was needed, which is simply code for “they failed” as we have learned time and time again since that point. What we saw was that there was not a willingness to collaborate. They wanted unlimited taxation and spending authority for a year and a half, which is something that would have defied 800 years of Westminster democratic tradition. We look time and time again at the tumult of COVID-19 and the pandemic, and there were certainly significant challenges. We saw our health care system put under tremendous strain. It was unfortunate that the result of that was not a realistic conversation about the fact that we had a virus that brought our health care system to its knees, even though we invest hundreds of billions of dollars a year into that health care system. We have not had those realistic conversations in the follow up to that. I was speaking to someone earlier today who talked about the trauma to him and his family. They talked about how a member of their family committed suicide because of the isolation they faced during COVID. We see tragic stories like that, and we still have concerns, whether they are concerns around vaccine injuries, which the Liberals seem quick to suggest are simply conspiratorial, or concerns related to long COVID, where there are individuals who still cannot get access to the care that they need to deal with some of the consequences of a virus that we still do not necessarily have a good understanding of. I would just note a practical impact of the mismanagement. There used to be a pretty significant consensus, and I have been very vocal in my support for the use of vaccines, dating to long before COVID. However, because of the Liberals' intentional dividing of Canadians, today we see greater vaccine hesitancy than there was only a few years ago. I happened to be on the ethics committee, on which I have the opportunity to serve during this Parliament as well. We saw that, when Liberals spend money, along with that money, comes scandal. Whether it was the WE Charity, ventilators or arrive scam, on and on the scandal train goes. We see how things that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago have been normalized because of the willingness of the government to take advantage, and the members even use language like this. They used it in trying to reshape the economy to some utopian vision that is certainly not leaving Canadians better off, so it is the furthest thing from a utopia, but that is the language the Liberals use. I would simply suggest this: There are still many Canadians who want answers about the spending, the actions and why things were allowed to devolve. So often, still today, we hear how COVID is still being used as an excuse, whether that be for the debt or deficits, yet we learned that, of the COVID spending, 35% of that money expended during COVID was not even related to the pandemic. We see mismanagement. When it comes to the national response, especially in the early days of the pandemic, the economic inefficiencies with which the government managed its programs are astounding. The government was unwilling to work with industry, but encouraged sectors of the economy to lay people off, subsidized their being laid off, and then subsidized those businesses to continue to keep their doors open. Talk about inefficiencies. No wonder we have such a productivity gap existing today. Four years ago, on March 11, I remember that briefing that took place, and the irony. It was interesting because there were a couple of hundred people packed into a committee room that had been set up in a theatre style in the Wellington Building. There were health officials there who were basically saying that they did not know what was going on. We see how, in times of crisis, the virtue of leadership shows up, and in that regard, Canada was left lacking. We saw, instead of bringing the country together, the Prime Minister attempted to enrich himself and his friends. We saw a government that, instead of trying to collaborate, tried to consolidate and bring forward more authority upon itself. Do we need a day to acknowledge the trauma that so many faced? I still hear from people who have broken relationships, broken family members and have lost loved ones, and they are on all sides of each debate, whether that is for vaccines or against vaccines, for lockdowns or against lockdowns. They are on both sides of the debate whether to support action on COVID, taking it seriously, or to not support that. The trauma that was unleashed upon our country because we had a government that was more worried about self-preservation than working in the best interest of Canadians is a legacy that certainly bears reflection. However, I do not think the way to do that is through a day of recognition because, on the division, I think Canadians would far rather see accountability.

1318 words