Debates of March 23rd, 2021

The House resumed consideration from March 22 of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Long-Term Care

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:09 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the hon. member for Burnaby South relating to Business of Supply.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the motion. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #73

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion defeated.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 17 minutes.

Elections Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on March 10, 2021, by the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon concerning a discrepancy between the English and French version of Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response).

In his intervention, the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon informed the House of the discrepancy between the two versions of a section of the bill. Indeed, at the end of subsection 239(2) on page 12 of the English version, the bill stipulates that ballots should be sent to the “special voting rules administrator in the National Capital Region no later than 6:00 p.‍m. on the Tuesday”.

The French version, conversely, indicates that the ballot

“parvienne au bureau du directeur du scrutin au plus tard à 18 heures le mardi”.

According to the member, the two texts have very different meanings, which created confusion during the debate at second reading. This discrepancy, he added, suggests that the bill is incomplete. The member cited an extract of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, at page 734 to the effect that when such situations occurred in the past, the order for second reading was discharged. He thus asked the Chair to review the matter and rule on the admissibility of Bill C-19 in its current form.

The member for Saint-Jean also stressed the importance of participating effectively in the deliberations of the House, while the member for Elmwood—Transcona enjoined the parties to find a solution so as not to unduly delay the study of the bill.

In response, the member for Kingston and the Islands clarified that the French wording of subsection 239(2) is, in fact, the right one. He explained that the government intended to correct the inconsistency during clause-by-clause consideration at committee. While an error did occur during the drafting, the member stressed that that in no way means that Bill C-19 is incomplete and that it was indeed in its definitive form when it was tabled in the House. Referring to a Speaker's ruling of January 1987, he added that the error did not make the bill inadmissible because it did not contain blank passages or reach the threshold required to render it incomplete set out in Standing Order 68(3).

In order to clarify the issue of a bill's form, it is important to review the existing precedents. A careful reading of the Speaker's rulings reveals that when the order for second reading of a bill was discharged, it was either because it did not comply with an order of the House or because the drafting of the bill was not done or not completed. The following passage must be added to the extract cited by the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon at page 734 of Bosc Gagnon: “A bill in blank or in imperfect shape is a bill which has only a title, or the drafting of which has not been completed.”

In my opinion, that is not the case with Bill C-19 as submitted to the House. Furthermore, the debate at the second reading concerns the principle of the bill and not its specific provisions. In the words of Speaker Fraser in a ruling rendered on January 26, 1987, at page 2,667 of debates, I feel that this difference “did not affect 'the essence, the principles, the objects, the purpose or the conditions' of the bill.”

In this instance, the error can be corrected by the committee studying the bill. Although it does not happen often, such corrections are sometimes made during the detailed study in committee to ensure that the English and French versions of a bill say the same thing. In the meantime, the government has clarified its intent, and the debate can thus continue on the motion for second reading.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his vigilance. Let me also also take this opportunity to reiterate the importance of paying particular attention to both versions of bills, so that members have the same understanding of proposed texts, so they can participate fully in parliamentary business and can perform their duties as legislators.

Thank you for your attention.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Can you please inform the House if the English version is correct or the French version? My main point of contention, whether ballots would be counted within the riding or counted within the national capital region, has not been answered.

Can you please confirm if the English or French version is correct?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I can appreciate the member's concern. I was there when he spoke. It is the French version that is correct.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I was about to say the understanding is that the French version is correct, but it will be up to the committee to decide, along with the members of the committee, on which one will apply.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Plan for Reopening the Economy

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, at the point where I left off prior to question period, I was discussing other jurisdictions around the world that are also increasing or continuing lockdowns or restrictions. I was raising this point to bring up the fact that while the Conservatives ignore the science and ignore the evidence, we are still in the midst of a global pandemic in which lives are being lost and people are remaining sick, and we need to understand the transmission of the variants. While everybody wants to resume normal life again, we cannot do so until Canadians are safe.

I was speaking about jurisdictions because the Conservatives talked about the U.S. and the U.K., but I was talking about other jurisdictions. Germany is in lockdowns; France is entering new lockdowns; Italy is showing lockdowns over Easter; Greece is closing schools; the Czech Republic has lockdowns; Spain is issuing curfews; Belgium is in lockdowns until April; Portugal is in a state of emergency; the Netherlands has curfews. The member for Carleton brought up Ireland; Ireland is still in the highest level of restrictions.

Of course, again members, even throughout question period today, raised the U.S. as an example. However, let me point out that in the U.S., places like Miami are entering into new restrictions. I do not think the members opposite really want Canadians to believe that we should be following the examples of Miami or Texas, where they have got rid of mask regulations and restrictions. At every step in this pandemic, our government has been committed to following the best science and evidence, and as that science and evidence has evolved, we have as well.

We also must point out the fact that the Conservatives continue to ignore that lockdown restrictions or any sorts of restrictions are being decided by local jurisdictions and that there is not a one-size-fits-all. Some areas might require more restrictions and other areas might not. This is the Conservative notion that they know best and that they are going to tell provinces, territories and regions across this country what to do and ignore the science.

We saw over the weekend that Conservatives cannot even come to terms with the fact that climate change is real, so I have absolutely no faith in their ability to manage a health crisis or rely on scientists. When it comes to Canadians' health, we must rely on the best evidence and those who are in a position to guide provinces and territories with that evidence, and allow them to make the decisions based on local requirements.

Once again, the Conservatives think that they know best and that they should tell provinces and territories what to do, but we need to continue to protect Canadians so that we can come out of this crisis stronger together and get back to normal.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important topic.

We are not saying, in any way, shape or form, that lockdowns do not have an important health responsibility and consequence. What we are saying is that there can be no economic recovery without opening up the country at some point, when it is safe to do so. What Canadians need to understand is what those conditions are and when that opening can begin.

This motion is asking the government for a plan. It asks under what conditions, and when, we will be able to open the economy, because our businesses, large and small, need to know what those conditions are.

Is my hon. colleague against there being a plan for when we might be able to reopen the economy?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is what I think Canadians just absolutely cannot stand from Conservative members, which is that they talk out of both sides of their mouths.

If we read the motion, we see that it is not asking for a simple plan or conditions; the motion speaks to providing the conditions within 20 days for opening restrictions. As well, the member who asked the question comes from the same province I do, Ontario, and the provincial government has said it is the Ontario government that is going to determine the lifting of restrictions, based on the regional and local dynamics.

The member opposite can say whatever she wants in the House, but the motion speaks for itself. The Conservatives continue to ignore science and evidence, and this is why Canadians do not have any faith in them.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the context of managing COVID‑19, I am curious to know what the parliamentary secretary thinks of today's motion in greater detail.

From a democratic point of view and in this context, we agree that we have wasted at least four or five months waiting for the federal government to act. The government put all its eggs in one basket with the deal for the Chinese vaccine. Basically, we might not be debating this motion today if the Liberal government had made concrete proposals for economic recovery and had acted quickly to produce vaccines in Quebec, in Canada. Canada is the only G7 country that did not do so.

Can everything that is happening today be attributed to the federal government's inaction?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, wow, the Bloc and the Conservatives now just blame everything on the federal government. Meanwhile, it was actually the federal government that had been working with provinces and territories to supply them with vaccines, with the supplies they need and with PPE.

In fact, we have more supports available to provinces and territories and small businesses in Bill C-14, so why will opposition members not work with us to actually make these supports available to provinces and territories? If they are so concerned with ensuring that we have the best plans in place and the funding in place to support local jurisdictions, then why do they not vote in support of Bill C-14 so we can deliver on just that?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member's statement about how federal COVID guidance must be based on the best available evidence and best available science, but the federal government should also be providing Canadians with a clear path forward, a comprehensive plan and process for recovery. The government cannot wait until the pandemic is over to begin acting on and learning these critical lessons. One of those lessons has to be about paid sick leave for every Canadian worker. The government must fix the flawed Canada recovery sickness benefit to make it easier for workers to access that program. Does the member agree that all Canadian workers should have permanent access to 10 days of paid sick leave?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been there for workers and businesses every step of the way. Through various COVID response measures like the caregiver response benefit, CERB, and the changes to EI, our government has made transformational changes in the shortest amount of time to make sure that we are there to support workers, businesses and Canadians, so that they do not have to choose between going to work or staying home because they might have been exposed to COVID-19.

We have been there every step of the way. We will continue to make investments, and I encourage all members to support Bill C-14, so that we can further those supports for Canadians.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this important debate today on our party's motion that calls for greater clarity from the federal government on a path forward as we recover from COVID. As a New Brunswicker, I can say that circumstances in Atlantic Canada are unique compared with those in much of Canada, but one thing remains consistent: a lack of certainty from the federal government on what the path forward will look like.

As a member of Parliament for the riding of Fundy Royal, I want to speak for a few minutes on the situation facing tourism operators. Fundy Royal is home to some major tourism attractions, like the Fundy Trail, the Hopewell Rocks and Fundy National Park. Most tourism operators in my riding are small, independent businesses that have managed to build a successful business over their years in the communities. These are small entrepreneurial businesses that rely on tourism. In many cases, this has allowed families to stay in the same communities they grew up in, or it offers newcomers an opportunity to build on their dreams, often in rural communities that they have always wanted to move to.

In some cases, these businesses are operated by New Brunswickers who are getting older, but they keep on working because it is what they have always done. It keeps them young and it keeps them busy. In other cases, these tourism businesses are operated by young parents who rely on the income to help keep food on the table and build a life in New Brunswick for their children.

All of this to say that the past year has been especially devastating for those who operate in the tourism industry. Many operators used their life savings to survive last summer in the hope that they would have a path back to full recovery in the summer of 2021. Unfortunately, while U.S. President Joe Biden has said he is eying July 4 as a sort of independence day from the virus, that is highly unlikely to be the case here in Canada because of the Liberal government's mismanagement in acquiring vaccines early enough.

The provincial government in New Brunswick established a program to try to help tourism operators with a financial incentive to encourage travel across the province by New Brunswickers. I have heard from many business owners in my riding that this has been very helpful, but of course it does not replace the amount of business they would normally receive. They were counting on increased income from this year to make up for the very difficult summer of 2020.

What these business operators are looking for is some degree of certainty from the federal government on what the path forward will be. I am very concerned that we will see a number of tourism operators close because they are unable to get through this upcoming season. The reason for that is the fact there is such significant uncertainty for the path forward. They have no expectation of when things may return to normal. The messaging from the federal government has been mixed at best. These business owners need to make life-altering decisions on ever-changing scenarios. The uncertainty of the path forward, and even what next year will look like, is daunting to many of these business owners.

I met recently with Carole Alderdice, the president and CEO of the Tourism Industry Association of New Brunswick. She noted the impact of the lack of cruise ships on the Port Saint John and all of our local tourism operators. This includes every business, from restaurants to small shops to bus tour operators. Of course, most did not expect cruise ships to enter Canada this past summer or even this summer, but with the rapid rollout of vaccines in the U.S. and the Prime Minister's stating that Canadians would be vaccinated by September, some in the tourism industry were dismayed that the cruise ship ban will be in effect all the way until February 28, 2022.

Even more concerning is this: What if those cruise ships do not even come back in the summer of 2022? On the east coast, this would have a detrimental impact on many of our communities. For example, in 2019, Halifax saw 320,000 passengers arrive in the city. This had significant economic benefits for businesses, restaurants and regional tourism operators. The Port of Charlottetown, the Port of Sydney, the Port of St. John's, the Port of Saint John and many more in Atlantic Canada are all hoping that 2022 will see a return of those ships that local businesses rely on.

I also want to touch on the suspension of flights throughout much of Atlantic Canada. The president of the Atlantic Canada Airports Association said late last year that their industry cannot survive and operate in these conditions and that they are seeing the worst case scenario playing out today. In New Brunswick we have seen a significant reduction in flights, in particular into Saint John and Fredericton. There is also concern that these cuts may be permanent and that the airports will not see a return to travel once the pandemic is over. This would mean permanently lost jobs and significant impacts on local residents.

There are other communities that are feeling the impact and concern about the future, including Charlottetown, Gander and Sydney. The elimination of these flights will have a significant impact on communities in the long term if they are not restored. For example, these flight closures can have a significant effect on rotational workers. A rotational worker flying into Halifax who lives in North Sydney in Cape Breton would need to drive over four hours after landing, often after a very long flight. There are legitimate safety concerns about such a long drive, but it also raises the question of whether individuals will simply move out of their home communities to eliminate that long commute. The Atlantic Canadians I hear from are concerned that these flight cancellations will be permanent and, of course, the impacts permanent as well.

Conservatives have called for a plan from the federal government that would include the restoration of Canada's regional routes. We need confirmation from the Liberal government members that they will do everything necessary to ensure that these regional flights return. Without them, our communities are at risk.

I want to touch for a moment on the government's policy regarding the quarantine hotels and the absolute failure these have been. We have heard about the truly horrific conditions some Canadians have found themselves in as a result of this terrible policy. Not only that, but there have also been issues with accessing the phone line to book rooms at these overcrowded hotels. Despite my colleagues calling for data from the federal government on why it feels these quarantine hotels are more effective at preventing the spread of COVID, the government has been unable to present any data.

I had a constituent reach out to my office recently who is very concerned about his family's return to Canada at the start of May. The constituent, Brodie, is a professional hockey player who has worked in Denmark and is accompanied by his wife, his five-year-old, a three-year-old and a baby just born in February. He said that when the quarantine hotel measure was announced in late January, it was too late for his wife to fly back to Canada before the measure came into effect. Brodie had previously self-isolated with his family in New Brunswick and followed all the rules. They would gladly do so again if allowed by the federal government, but now, as his work visa comes to an end, Brodie and his family face being stuck in a hotel room. If anyone has young kids, they should be able to understand how ridiculous it is to cram a couple, two toddlers and a baby into a hotel room.

Further, we all know that there has been widespread reports of Canadians not receiving adequate supplies of basic necessities while in these hotel rooms. Having a baby obviously makes this situation even more difficult, as far more resources are needed. I ask that common sense be applied and that Canadians be given the opportunity to simply conduct their quarantine at home, as Brodie and his family had previously done. The government's quarantine hotel program has been nothing short of an absolute failure and should be scrapped.

As the Conservative shadow minister for justice and the Attorney General, I want to touch briefly on the impacts of COVID-19 on the justice system. Quite early in the pandemic last year, I asked for clarity from the government on how the courts could respond to the increased delays due to COVID. I particular, I am concerned with the backlog in the courts and how they relate to the Jordan decision by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Minister of Justice had said that this is something he and his provincial and territorial justice counterparts are closely monitoring. While he referred to a sort of safety valve mechanism for exceptional circumstances, it is unclear how long that will be valid, as Canada hopefully recovers from COVID and the backlog in the courts remain. As the minister would know, the courts were already struggling with the backlog before the pandemic.

In conclusion, Canadians need a plan from the federal government on how our country will proceed going forward, which is what this motion we are debating today is asking for. For many Canadians, both 2020 and 2021 have been difficult years, but we need to do our part. Canadians are looking for leadership on the path forward and I call on the federal government to prioritize plotting a path forward for all Canadians.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fourth clause of the motion states:

(iv) the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom have both released public plans for economic reopening, while Canadian officials have not yet given Canadians clarity on when regular economic and social life will be able to resume...

Does my esteemed colleague know that as of March 23, the United Kingdom has vaccinated 42% of its population and that the United States has vaccinated 25%?

The government cannot seem to keep up. Would my colleague agree, however, that it is premature to ask the government to table within 20 days a clear plan to support gradually and permanently lifting the restrictions?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as I laid out in my remarks, Canadians need to see nothing less in areas clearly in federal jurisdiction, like airlines, rules around cruise ships, the quarantine hotels and delays in the justice system. We are asking that Canada put forward something that it has not yet, that the federal government put forward a plan for recovery. Canadians need to see that. My constituents and New Brunswickers need to see that as we plan forward. The only way for them to plan and for the tourism businesses to plan is to see the federal government's plan for reopening.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is well known in the COVID crisis that one of the main vectors of disease transmission was part-time workers moving between long-term care centres and workers who could not afford to stay home when they were sick.

Dr. Caroline Colijn of the Simon Fraser University has said, “Even before COVID happened, workers were going to work sick because they had no other choice...Now more than ever, it’s so obvious that what we need are real legislated, paid sick days for every worker across Canada.”

I know my hon. colleagues gets paid when he is sick and stays home from work as do I. Does he agree that part of a plan should include that every worker in Canada has the ability to stay home when he or she is sick and not be docked pay because of it by amending the Canada Labour Code to give workers 10 paid days a year?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, what we saw over the course of the COVID crisis in the last year was that many of the safeguards that were in place were inadequate. We saw that the response from the federal government was inadequate. For example, when CERB first came out, my constituents were struggling. If people earned even one dollar, they lost $2,000. If people were trying to keep their businesses going, they were ineligible. If people were self-employed, they could not access this benefit.

As members of Parliament and the government, we have to look at ensuring those safeguards are in place. That is why I advocated for all of those changes that ultimately were made by the government so we could better help people who were struggling through this crisis.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and ask a question of a Conservative MP. I agree with something he raised in his speech, and that the situation for cruise ships. I have been approached by many in the tourism industy along the B.C. coast who are simply flabbergasted that the Minister of Transport has made a decision, that we know for certain, to close the season to the end of 2022.

I have been trying to get a meeting with the Minister of Transport to pursue this matter. I wonder if the hon. member has had any luck in determining why such a date so far removed from today has been selected.