Debates of March 22nd, 2021

(Return tabled)

Question No.371

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

With regard to Visa Facilitation Services Global (VFS Global) processing visa applications for the government: (a) what is the list of countries in which VFS Global currently processes visas for the Canadian government; (b) what guarantees, if any, does the government have with VFS Global to ensure that any information collected from visa applicants is not shared with the company’s Chinese state-owned investment funds or the Chinese government; (c) does the government have any way of monitoring whether personal information provided to VFS Global is being shared or disclosed to any third party or state-owned organization; (d) how is the government notified and what processes are in place for when a data breach occurs with information in the possession of VFS Global; and (e) is the government aware of any such data breaches occurring and, if so, what are the details, including how individuals’ whose information was compromised were informed?

(Return tabled)

Question No.379

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

With regard to the government’s decision to grant a travel exemption to family members of Meng Wanzhou: (a) on what date was the exemption granted; (b) which minister signed off on the exemption; (c) why was the exemption granted; (d) did the family members also receive an exemption from the 14-day quarantine requirement and, if so, why was such an exemption granted; and (e) has the government provided any other travel exemptions since April 1, 2020, for family members of individuals awaiting extradition and, if so, how many were granted, broken down by month?

(Return tabled)

Question No.386

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

With regard to the announcement by the Prime Minister on April 7, 2020, that the government would team up with manufacturers to domestically produce up to 30,000 ventilators: (a) how many of those ventilators have been produced to date, broken down by manufacturer; and (b) how many of those ventilators are currently in Canadian hospitals, or similar types of facilities, broken down by (i) province, (ii) municipality, (iii) hospital?

(Return tabled)

Question No.387

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

With regard to the renovations and upgrades at the Prime Minister's country residence and surrounding area at Harrington Lake: (a) what was the total amount spent on renovations and upgrades in 2020; (b) what is the itemized breakdown of the expenditures in (a); (c) what is the description of all work conducted at Harrington Lake in 2020; (d) what is the budget or projected costs for renovations and upgrades in 2021; and (e) what renovations and upgrades are planned for 2021?

(Return tabled)

Question No.388

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

With regard to the government’s decision to require airline travellers arriving from outside of Canada to quarantine at a designated airport hotel: (a) what specific evidence or facts did the government use as a basis for the decision; (b) what is the detailed breakdown of how the more than $2,000 collected from each traveller is spent, including what amounts went for (i) transportation to the hotel, (ii) security, (iii) the hotel room rate, (iv) testing, (v) other type of expenditure, broken down by type; (c) is the government operating on a strictly cost-recovery basis or will the government be making a profit from the funds collected from the travellers; (d) how were the hotels chosen; (e) is the government paying a premium for the hotels over the regular government room rate and, if so, why; (f) were the hotels chosen through an open tender process or were they sole-sourced contracts; (g) if the contracts were solesourced, what specific measures were taken to ensure that the contracts were awarded fairly and without political bias; and (h) what are the details of each contract with the hotels, including (i) the name of hotel, (ii) the location, (iii) the amount of the contract, (iv) the contract start and end date, (v) the number of rooms provided?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Request for Emergency Debate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am asking, under Standing Order 52(2), that we have an emergency debate in the House of Commons with regard to the takeover of Shaw Communications by Rogers Communications.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, it became obvious that online Internet and cellphone services are paramount to Canadian society, business and even to this chamber. We pay some of the highest prices among the OECD, and have some of the most challenging environments among ourselves, to be connected. There is no doubt that the elimination of Shaw by Rogers would reduce services. We have four major providers and that would reduce them to three.

I am calling for this debate because this was the first opportunity to bring this into the chamber. This takeover was announced during our break week, or our constituency week, and members did not have a chance to raise it at that time. That started the gears in motion of the process that is now in play.

This will be the only opportunity for all members to participate in this debate because the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and other factors independent of this chamber are all starting their reviews. This is something that affects every Canadian, especially during the pandemic. Before this, New Democrats had declared the connection of Canadians to be an essential service. It is critical at this time that the expense, the connection and the type of connection are debated thoroughly, especially because telecommunications are a regulated industry. It has affected all Canadians as we continue to go through this pandemic. It will also affect the rollout of the spectrum auction that is taking place. This is definitely an essential service.

I would also argue that there has been a democracy change with regard to this issue. Our chamber will even vote this night with our own cell phones and devices. Mr. Speaker, you have been around almost as long as I have with regard to this. We can remember the old days with the BlackBerry and the track that we would get as part of our things. Today, it is different. Our cell phones, our Internet connectivity and the competition for it are crucial and paramount, and we have transitioned to them even in this chamber for the inclusion of society.

The reality is that some people still cannot follow Parliament right now either because they cannot afford the service or they do not have it in their community. The elimination of the fourth major service provider would reduce competition, and significant changes would take place out of this chamber. This will be the only opportunity for members to get on the record about that. There will be other vehicles to have some comment and discussion, but it will be after all those things. Those different agencies will be looking to Parliament for direction.

As a quick example, and I will not go on too much longer, Freedom Mobile would be affected. Two million people would be directly affected by that. Freedom Mobile has been known to reduce prices and provide additional services. The government and Canadian Parliament set the rules of how we connect Canadians. Whether using access rights through our ground communications or through selling our spectrum, those auctions to allow companies to do so are part of public policy.

Debating this is urgent, because this will be the only opportunity to do so for members of Parliament whose constituents are connected not just for social information or entertainment purposes, but for school, business and inclusion in society, as simple meetings have now moved to Zoom and other online platforms. It has been well documented that Canada has some of the highest prices for online services and some of the most difficult outreach problems. This affects all of us.

The fact that we would go from four players to three would set in motion a series of manoeuvres from other companies. We have even witnessed public policy, which was supposed to expand competition, result in previous takeovers. At that time, there were no voices raising this in Parliament. We did not deal with it at that point, but here is an opportunity for us to do so.

With that, I am calling for this section to be observed and for us to have this debate today. If we do not have it, it will be a missed opportunity. Canada has a closed market: We do not allow foreign competition to come into our telcos to own and operate with a dominance of shares. This is our only opportunity to have a public voice for the public policy that we set, including an investment of tens of millions of dollars into expanding broadband to rural and remote communities.

Again, this affects every member of Parliament. Even in urban settings, there is a lack of competition and service for some people. On top of that, there are the prices and costs, and our movement and democracy under COVID-19 have intensified things more than ever before.

I believe this chamber would do well to give members the chance to express the concerns of their individual ridings as this is debated among the structures we have and the minister starts to review the situation.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member for Windsor West for his intervention. However, I am not satisfied that his request meets the requirements of the standing order at this time.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Long-Term Care

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

COVID-19 has been a tragic time for many, especially for the people working and living in for-profit long-term care homes. In fact, during the first wave, 82% of COVID deaths in Canada happened in long-term care. Over 12,000 long-term care residents and workers have died in Canada since the start of the pandemic. We know that residents and workers in for-profit long-term care homes have a higher risk of infection and death than those in non-profit homes, and the unacceptable and poor living conditions for individuals living in for-profit long-term care have been further highlighted during the pandemic.

Elders and many disabled adults have been denied the right to live in dignity as a result of cuts, underfunding and privatization. Profits should never be gained from the violation of an individual's dignity.

It is beyond time that we take profit out of care. It is beyond time that individuals residing in long-term care are provided with a care guarantee that ensures a safe and dignified life. It is beyond time that young disabled persons are provided with a choice about whether they wish to reside within residential care. As Dr. Abraham Snaiderman, director of the neuropsychiatry clinic at the University Health Network's rehabilitation institute, noted, “Essentially it’s a default scenario because there is nowhere that a young person can go for long-term care, except a nursing home”.

We must do better, and the pandemic has highlighted the issues. Lives have been lost, and loved ones, friends and family members are lacking the safety, care and resources to stay safe. They find themselves in the most dire of circumstances, some just trying survive.

We know, through what we have seen in long-term care, that we cannot leave it up to companies whose purpose is to make profit over individuals to determine who is worthy and who is not. All beings are sacred and worthy of care, but unfortunately for-profit care homes have not demonstrated this, as witnessed in Parkview Place, a Revera care home in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, where too many lives were lost. One life is too many. Friends, family, loved ones and workers were lost. I extend my condolences to all those who have been impacted in my community and across the country.

All of this is alarming because while for-profit care homes have only one-quarter of nursing home beds in Manitoba, they account for 44% of deaths that have occurred so far during COVID-19. We have heard stories about poor quality food and individuals with COVID left in rooms without care. So many lives have been lost. This is a crisis. Life is precious.

I want to be very clear: This is not the fault of workers. Many lost their lives as a result of the poor working conditions in long-term care. We certainly knew it before the pandemic, but we know even more now that care work in this country is not nearly valued enough.

We also know that some groups are more predominantly impacted, such as women, and in particular poor, BIPOC and immigrant women, who are often in precarious work situations and face exploitative working conditions. This is unacceptable and needs to end now. In fact, there are numerous reports indicating that many personal support workers were not even provided with adequate PPE during the pandemic. They had to supply their own protective gear from home. This is totally wrong and totally unacceptable. It is a total disrespect to workers and residents.

Care workers who are entrusted to care for residents in long-term care at the very least deserve a living wage, benefits, safe working conditions and security. That is why I am proud that today the NDP is proposing to take profit out of long-term care and put an end to public subsidies going to for-profit operators, which have paid out millions in dividends to shareholders. That money needs to be invested in caring for people, loved ones, friends and family members, and in ensuring safe working conditions for care workers.

The NDP understands this. It is why we have called for the development of a regulated system of long-term care, with national care standards that would include accountability mechanisms supported by federal funding. We need to improve working conditions for front-line workers in the long-term care sector. It is time for a living wage and for the proper training and resources required to improve working conditions, which in turn support better quality care for residents of long-term care. The way forward is to immediately work toward putting an end to for-profit long-term care.

Seniors and elders have inherent value in society, and in indigenous cultures globally, they are the backbone of our societies. They guide and direct decisions, and even today they are key decision-makers in our nations. Seniors did not just build this country; they continue to be leaders in our communities. Their knowledge and wisdom are essential for learning how to understand the world around us and how to live and thrive, not just survive. They are the ones who give us guidance about how we must move forward.

When I think about my ancestors and the many elders I look to for guidance even today, I have to acknowledge, as I think we must all acknowledge, their profound wisdom. For this reason, it is so disturbing that elders and seniors in our communities in long-term care are almost treated as though they are disposable. They are locked away in institutions where they are not even afforded basic human dignity. This needs to end now. I wanted to share that because we often speak about the vulnerability and weakness of our elders, but rarely do we look at their strength, resilience, wisdom and leadership, which make up an essential part of our communities. Elders are critical.

I want to end by taking a bit of time to talk about the culture of ableism, because I think, with everything we have been debating in the House, it is important to talk about it.

For far too long ableism has shaped long-term care, and this is seen through how we fund and organize institutions from—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry, but we are out of time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I posed a question to the leader of the New Democratic Party, and it is a very important question that needs to be answered directly.

We recognize that the need for national standards for long-term care is there. It is very real. It is tangible. It is something on which this government has committed to move forward, but we also need to recognize that the provinces, as the administrators of health care, have an absolutely critical role. If we were to automatically do what the NDP wants us to do at the national level, that would then have additional costs and impacts on all the provinces.

Does the NDP have any provincial support for this particular initiative?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it seems that the Liberal government moves swiftly on things like pipelines, but when we are talking about life-and-death matters related to seniors, there is nothing stopping the federal government right now from putting in place national standards and ending for-profit care for seniors across the country.

As for the money aspect, when we are talking about people who have perished in for-profit long-term care, certainly our seniors and disabled persons—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could pick up on where she was at the end of her speech in talking about issues of ableism and the implications of that. Many in our caucus have been very concerned about provisions in Bill C-7, and we have joined with people in the disability community in highlighting the ways in which the mechanics of that bill could really perpetuate the kind of ableism that people with disabilities experience when interacting with our health care system.

I know the NDP members supported Bill C-7 at third reading, but then they opposed the message to the Senate. I wonder if that was in response to hearing feedback from all the disability groups that were speaking out about the bill.

What does the member think we can do in this context to fight ableism in our health care system?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree. Disability organizations from across the country have been very clear. They are denied their basic human rights every day, such as the right to adequate housing and health support.

When we are talking about long-term care, we must first of all take profit out of long-term care, but that also needs to be coupled with an expansion of community-based care, such as home care to support those who wish to live at home in their community—particularly young disabled persons who are often not given a choice between living with home care or in nursing homes. That is why I am proud to stand in support of my—