Debates of March 24th, 2022

Government Response to Petitions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Constitution Act

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Aeronautics Act

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-259, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act (collision avoidance system).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an important bill to Parliament. This legislation would increase aviation safety for all Canadians by mandating operational collision avoidance systems for gliding clubs across Canada. I would like to thank the member for Calgary Confederation for seconding this bill and for his support on this issue.

This bill is tabled in the memory of Adam Leinweber, who was killed in a 2019 crash because the tow plane's anti-collision system was not functional. It is important to note that some of the 30 incidents and near misses related to gliders in the last 12 years have involved commercial aircraft.

This is an issue of safety for all of us, and I hope all parliamentarians will support this important initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canada Post-Secondary Education Act

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-260, An Act relating to cash contributions by Canada and to criteria and conditions in respect of post-secondary education.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to table this bill on behalf of residents of Edmonton Strathcona and on behalf of all Canadians who recognize the value and importance of quality, accessible post-secondary education in this country. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Edmonton Griesbach, for seconding my bill today.

Post-secondary education is key to growing our economy and to positioning Canada as a knowledge leader in the 21st century. However, successive governments over the past two decades have failed to make post-secondary education a priority.

Over that time, federal support for post-secondary education has declined over 40% and, not surprisingly, student debt has risen 40%. Declining federal and provincial funding for post-secondary education means higher tuition costs, the corporatization of universities and colleges, the outsourcing of academic and support labour and lower-quality education, and it is putting academic institutions in our country at risk of failure.

It is time for the federal government to be a real partner in post-secondary education again. This bill, the Canada post-secondary education act, would create a financial transfer for post-secondary education and would impose qualifying criteria that provinces must meet in order to receive federal funding, including limiting the use of short-term contracts and casual labour and ensuring affordability for students.

Students, faculty and staff deserve better from our government. I urge my fellow parliamentarians to support the Canada post-secondary education act for all Canadians.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Vaccine Mandates

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.

The first petition calls on the government to lift all federal mandates against public servants, the military and contractors for federal organizations, as well as lift all restrictions and requirements relating to mandates at the borders.

Platinum Jubilee Medal

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition relates to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It calls for the striking of a platinum jubilee medal to honour Canadians who deserve such recognition. I hope the government recognizes there is still time, even though it has now become a socialist government and may dispense with the monarchy altogether.

Seniors

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition from constituents of Winnipeg North who passionately believe that parliamentarians need to be strong advocates for seniors. The petition highlights issues related to long-term care and mental health and the importance of support programs like the GIS and OAS. They are calling on the Prime Minister, cabinet and all members of the House to be constant and steady advocates for seniors in Canada.

Ukraine

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I have a petition from Canadians who are rightly appalled by the unlawful and unwarranted invasion of Ukraine by Putin. They call upon the government to lift the visa requirement for Ukrainians seeking sanctuary in Canada from this terrible invasion in furtherance of free travel to Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it really is an honour to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are, as we all are in this place, deeply affected, horrified and outraged by the Russian aggression and attack on the people of Ukraine. We know there are now verified war crimes being committed against the people of Ukraine, and that the Russian invasion is illegal, immoral and devastating to the people of Ukraine.

Canada wants to continue, with the very large and important diaspora of Ukrainians within Canada, to open our arms, our hearts and our homes to Ukrainians seeking refuge. The petitioners ask that the government immediately waive all visa requirements and grant visa-free travel to Ukrainians seeking refuge here in Canada.

B.C. Wildfires

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

Mr. Speaker, each year, British Columbia faces numerous wildfires that devastate communities and wildlife. With every wildfire, lumber prices, job availability, the risk of mill closures, mudslides, home insurance increases and damage to critical habitat are all affected.

During the Lytton fire, residents were told to stay away and not try to put out fires as water bombers were coming. In many cases, those water bombers never arrived. In Ontario, there is an all-hazards agency that manages fires, floods and slides. This type of agency is desperately needed in B.C.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of constituents in Lillooet, spearheaded by Councillor Laurie Hopfl, calling on the federal and provincial governments to work together on better forest management and fire prevention policies. We need to empower local residents, indigenous communities, ranchers, industry, firefighters and forestry workers who have the knowledge of the land to manage their forests and prevent future disasters. My riding has probably faced more natural disasters than any riding in the entire country, and my constituents, in good faith, are looking for more assistance and innovative policies to address these critical challenges we face.

The Environment

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour of presenting petition 11619443. This petition was initiated by For Our Kids, a group of parents on the Sunshine Coast in my riding who are concerned about the future we are leaving future generations as a result of human-induced climate change.

The petitioners are calling on the government to significantly reduce emissions with transparent accounting each year, make contributions to emission reductions in the global south, wind down the use of fossil fuel subsidies and transition to a decarbonized economy, uphold and implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, create good, green jobs and drive inclusive workforce development, expand the social safety net, decarbonize public housing and provide accessible public transit.

Age Verification Software

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition signed by Canadians from across our country who share their concerns about the widespread availability of sexually explicit material online that includes demeaning material and material that depicts sexual violence. Although it is a very lengthy petition that has a number of asks, these petitioners simply ask that the House adopt Bill S-203, a bill coming from the Senate that I believe was known in the last Parliament as the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act. It is a simple act that would have meaningful age verification to protect Canada's young people.

Vaccine Mandates

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of Canadians from across the country who want an end to all COVID-19 mandates. The petitioners state that throughout the pandemic, truckers have served Canada and are heroes but are now impacted by a vaccine mandate that is impacting the supply chain. They say that the Prime Minister has politicized vaccines and insulted Canadians who have disagreed with him. Moreover, the petitioners comment that it is the sacred duty of the government to guard against discrimination and guarantee the freedoms of all Canadians.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons to immediately end all COVID-19 mandates implemented by the federal government that regulate areas that include federal employees, truckers and travellers. They also call for the end of all vaccine mandates and restrictions.

The Environment

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise virtually today to present a petition on behalf of Prince Edward Islanders who are concerned about the climate emergency and who were inspired by Seth Klein's book A Good War. These petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to enact just transition legislation that would reduce emissions by at least 60% below 2005 levels by 2030, to make significant contributions to emission reductions in countries in the global south, to create good, green jobs and drive an inclusive workforce and to expand the social safety net through new income supports, decarbonized public housing and operational funding, among other things.

I am thankful for the opportunity to present this petition.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Status of Opposition Party

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise briefly in the House today to comment on the point of order raised by the member for Barrie—Innisfil earlier this week. The point of order was raised again—unfortunately, in my opinion—by the member for La Prairie. I am sure all members are aware of the subject of these points of order, which I consider frivolous. Nevertheless, I will address some of the points that were raised.

My Conservative and Bloc Québécois colleagues have clearly—perhaps even deliberately—misunderstood the nature of the historic agreement that will enable us to deliver exceptional results for all Canadians. The Conservatives' and Bloc's entire argument rests on an erroneous depiction of this confidence and supply agreement, which they are incorrectly calling a “coalition agreement”.

I would like to remind those members that confidence and supply agreements are not coalition governments, and the U.K.'s Institute for Government distinguishes very clearly between coalitions and mere confidence and supply agreements, as follows:

Confidence and supply agreements, made publicly available, can provide for stable government that can operate without fear of defeat on key votes in exchange for specific policy and procedural concessions, and on the basis that support parties are consulted and kept informed of government plans. They do not, of course, guarantee majority support for the entirety of a government’s legislative programme, so ongoing negotiations are needed to enable the government to get its business through. But they do allow the main party to hold all the ministerial posts...and to control the policy agenda more extensively than when power is shared in coalition.

For smaller parties, such agreements offer the opportunity to achieve certain cherished policy objectives and earn political credit for that. They must commit to backing the government on [certain] votes, including on often politically difficult budget plans, but they do not have to make the more extensive across-the-board compromises of coalition, allowing them to preserve their distinct identity.

One need only look at the details of the agreement, which was made public, to see that it is a confidence and supply agreement, not a coalition. Under the terms of the agreement, the NDP agrees to support the government on confidence and budgetary matters in exchange for concrete progress in various policy areas.

The NPD remains as an independent party and an independent caucus, and continues to approach individual legislative items on a case-by-case basis and hold the government to account.

There are no cabinet posts for the NDP.

Several examples of such agreements can be found at the provincial level, and each of these legislatures has recognized the parties' right to maintain their own structure and the processes to which they are entitled in opposition.

In British Columbia, the Green Party was actually given more committee seats and status as a consequence of the confidence and supply agreement, which stated:

Both caucuses recognize that, in order to promote greater stability, the government must be able to negotiate with the three BC Green Party MLAs as a single, recognized caucus. Similarly, to be a credible partner and fulfill the responsibilities that will be required of them, the BC Green MLAs require access to legislative tools that are only available to recognized political parties and sufficient support staff.

In Yukon, the Yukon NDP sits as its own caucus and is afforded all the rights and privileges accorded to opposition caucuses.

Several examples also exist in other countries, and I would specifically point to the confidence and supply agreements that have been negotiated in countries that use the Westminster parliamentary system.

In the United Kingdom, in 1977, the Labour Party was able to stay in power thanks to a confidence and supply agreement with the Liberal Party. In return, the Labour Party agreed to make political concessions to the Liberal Party. In 2017, the Conservative Party won a minority government and entered into a confidence and supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party.

In Australia, in 2010, the Australian Labor Party formed a minority government and entered into a confidence and supply agreement with three independent MPs and one Green MP.

In all of these examples, the opposition parties retained their full rights and powers to hold the government to account.

In New Zealand, as noted previously by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the confidence and supply agreement saw Green Party members enter cabinet and still treated as an opposition party within Parliament. Confidence and supply arrangements are common in New Zealand due to the mixed member proportional representation system that is used there.

Conservative and Bloc House leaders are wondering what is in the agreement. It is freely available online and I, of course, would be more than pleased to offer them a copy of the agreement.

What is in the agreement? There is a historic expansion of our health care system to include dental care right across the country, which is important for more than 10 million Canadians. It includes the passing of the Canada pharmacare act, finally, for 10 million Canadians who cannot afford their medication. It includes historic investments in affordable housing for the first time since the ending of the national housing program decades ago. It includes significant investments for indigenous-led affordable housing. It includes just transition legislation to combat climate change, anti-scab legislation to protect workers and much more.

In conclusion, I hope the Speaker will rapidly rule on this and remind the Conservative and Bloc House leaders that a confidence and supply agreement is not a coalition government. This agreement is clearly in the interest of Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for his intervention.

Opposition Motion—Federal Vaccine Mandates

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

moved:

That, given that Canada has one of the world's highest vaccination rates and every province across Canada has lifted or has a plan to lift vaccine mandates, the House call on the government to immediately lift all federal vaccine mandates in order to:

(a) protect the jobs of federally regulated employees;

(b) enable Canadians to travel unimpeded;

(c) ensure Canada's tourism industry recovery; and

(d) allow for the free flow of goods across the Canadian border.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 2022, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bills. In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House on this important issue.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who will also speak to the importance of today's motion.

The Conservatives have brought forward this motion calling on the government to end all federal vaccine mandates now. After two years of Canadians doing all that was asked of them, including following the rules and being in lockdown, unable to visit their family or travel, the effects of these restrictions exacerbated the mental health challenges of many Canadians and was incredibly difficult for those who are on the margins of our society. These restrictions also caused delays and the postponement or cancellation of diagnostic screening appointments and treatments, leaving patients lacking for care. Canadians did everything that was asked of them, even boasting some of the highest vaccination rates in the world, but we cannot live under these restrictions indefinitely.

When we look to countries around the world, our allies, and provinces across this federation, they are ending the mandates. Every province in this country, following the advice of their chief medical officer of health, has either lifted the mandates or has publicly released their plan to lift the mandates. However, Ottawa, which is governed by this NDP-Liberal coalition, is not following medical science; rather, it is looking to the political science it has used to divide Canadians and communities at a time when we have needed real leadership.

I want to take members back to the beginning of this pandemic, when members on this side of the House, without wavering and without hesitation, were prepared to support reasonable efforts to make sure we could get Canada in a position to manage the great unknown at the time, which we now know to have been COVID‑19. Co-operation and collaboration were the name of the game.

However, as we moved through the pandemic, we saw many examples of the Prime Minister taking every opportunity as a political opportunity. Even in those early days, when we looked to offer unwavering support to Canadians, the Prime Minister looked to undertake a historic power grab that would have given the government the ability to tax and spend without parliamentary oversight for two years.

We then heard unbelievable language from the Prime Minister in the intervening period, calling people misogynists or racists if they did not agree with his policies on COVID‑19. Recently, we heard condemnation, not just from across Canada, but from around the world, for this type of divisive language. In all of these examples, he was not making decisions based on science. Therefore, when we are having this discussion today, I encourage all hon. members to ask the government which federal agencies and which doctors called for these mandates, these lockdowns, and the vaccine and mask mandates that the federal government is responsible for.

Now, we know that 10 out of 10 doctors in the provinces agree, and all provincial chief medical officers of health agree, on the medical science that says it is safe to lift these requirements.

Canadians are rightly confused. People can go into a sporting venue in this country and sit shoulder to shoulder with neighbours and members of their community, people who they have been hoping to see for two years, wearing the same jerseys and cheering on a sports team without proof of vaccination or a mask required, because the top doctors in all of the provinces have said it is safe to do that.

The Prime Minister is saying that while people can sit together in a theatre with their families, neighbours and members of the community to enjoy an experience they have not had in a long time, and watch a movie together without proof of vaccination and without wearing a mask because it is safe to do, they cannot get on a VIA train or a plane for 30 minutes or 10 minutes unless they show both of those things.

Today, I hope members in this place ask members of the government what the federal government knows. What science is the federal government withholding from the chief medical officers of health for all of the provinces? What science does the federal government have access to that it is not sharing with our international allies that shows that it is unsafe? We know that the government will not give an answer. It may reply and it may try to scare Canadians, but that is more of that fear and division that it is trying to sow on this issue.

Again, we are one of the most vaccinated countries in the world. Canadians did their part. They did what was asked of them, but that was not enough. Instead, the government looks to turn the screws on members of the federal public service, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and federally regulated employees.

Even today, in every provincial jurisdiction where they all work, the chief medical officers of health, following the science, have said that it is safe to gather and work without those vax mandates and mask mandates. The government has not said it is going to offer those folks their jobs back. It has not given them a path to re-entry, and to what end? What is the benefit to Canadian society when these people are unable to provide for their families? After offering themselves in service to this country in the federal public service, and members of the Canadian Armed Forces and members of our Royal Canadian Mounted Police putting on a uniform, they were unceremoniously booted from their jobs and told they did not have a right to provide for their families anymore because the Prime Minister saw a great political opportunity.

Let us take a new opportunity today to follow the medical science, to listen to those chief medical officers of health across the country, including in the province where this place is located. People can gather at an arena with friends and family unmasked and without that vax passport. Why is the government saying that it knows better than the experts and the physicians: the top physicians in our province?

Canada's Conservatives are going to stand up for Canadians. We are going to stand up for the science. We are going to stand up for what is right. It is time to end the mandates.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have a difficult time with the motion that has been proposed by the Conservative Party. What I have found is that this is a party that has been absolutely inconsistent on this issue. It depends on which member of the Conservative caucus one actually talks to. That will determine whether they are progressive or conservative in their approach. The only party that has been consistent from day one is the Liberals: the Prime Minister and the government of Canada have said that we are going to listen to science, listen to health experts and follow the advice that we are being given by professionals. The Conservatives would not even listen to former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who suggested that the Conservative caucus should all be vaccinated. They are still not all vaccinated.

I wonder this. Could the member inform the House what percentage of the Conservative caucus today is actually vaccinated?