Debates of March 29th, 2022

Status of Opposition Party—Speaker's Ruling

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

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on March 22, 2022, by the House leader of the official opposition concerning the status of the New Democratic Party as an opposition party. While I would have preferred for the Speaker himself to rule on this important matter upon his return, there is an immediate issue that needs to be addressed.

In his observations, the member alleged that the confidence and supply agreement between the New Democratic Party and the Liberal government is a coalition and that by supporting the government, the New Democratic members have ceased to form an opposition party. He argued that, as a result, the New Democratic Party should no longer have the same rights as the other opposition parties with regard to the proceedings of the House and its committees or to the related procedural and administrative rules.

In response, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby argued that there have already been supply and confidence agreements in a number of legislative assemblies in Canada, as well as in other countries. This type of agreement is very different from a coalition government, in which the members from two or more parties hold ministerial posts. Rather, it means that an opposition party agrees to support the government on certain issues in exchange for the implementation of that party’s main priorities. He also added, as did the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, that when such agreements occurred, these parties remained in opposition, with all the privileges attached to that status.

As for the member for La Prairie, he said that he was primarily concerned about the agreement to have public servants share information with the New Democratic Party and a possible imbalance between the powers of government and the opposition’s role to hold it accountable.

As members know, the Chair deals with procedural issues, not political ones. Fundamentally, the agreement in question is a political one. It is not the Chair’s role to interpret or give meaning to such agreements between parties.

The procedural issue therefore rests on the rights exercised in our proceedings by members of the opposition and those of the government.

Let us first look back at the basis of our political system. Members are elected to the House under the banner of a political party or as independents. The party that can obtain the confidence of the House forms the government. As such, it is the governing party and it consists of ministers, parliamentary secretaries and backbenchers who, without being members of the executive, are all part of the same political group. The other parties in the House and independent members constitute the opposition since they are not members of the governing party.

In a ruling of September 24, 2001, Speaker Milliken, dealing with the question of the identification of parties, specified at page 5491 of Debates:

…these are matters that the House has always left entirely to the discretion of MPs. They identify themselves as individuals and are free to identify themselves as a group. Their spokespersons are theirs to select. Neither the Speaker nor other members has a say in such matters.

It is clear to the Chair that there is no change in the status or designation of the members of the New Democratic Party, nor in that of their officers, as a result of this agreement.

The Chair wishes to point out that it is not unusual for opposition parties to form certain agreements with a minority government without thereby becoming members of that same government. As was mentioned, this has happened in a number of provincial and international legislatures. The House has also seen formal and informal agreements between the government and an opposition party, such as during the 29th Parliament from 1972 to 1974, among other examples. We also saw an example of a formal coalition in 1917, the only example in our federal Parliament’s history.

In the current case, it is not for the Chair to determine if this agreement between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party is a coalition.

However, this agreement does not equate to the creation of a new government party or a new political caucus. No NDP member is holding a ministerial post. There has been no change in the representation of the parties in the House.

As a result, it seems obvious to the Chair that the NDP still forms a recognized opposition party, just like the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois.

The Chair is confident that the specific provisions of the agreement between the two parties, including those relating to the sharing of and access to information from public servants, will respect the rights and privileges of the House and all parliamentarians.

I thank all members for their attention.

The Environment

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and subsection 18(1) of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government of Canada's emissions reduction plan entitled “2030 Emissions Reduction Plan: Canada’s Next Steps for Clean Air and a Strong Economy”.

Foreign Affairs

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and consistent with the current policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaties entitled “Acts of the Second Extraordinary Congress of the Universal Postal Union”, done at Addis Ababa on September 7, 2018; “Acts of the Third Extraordinary Congress of the Universal Postal Union”, done at Geneva on September 26, 2019; and “Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the French Republic Concerning the Deployment of In-Flight Security Officers”, done at Paris on January 19, 2022.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, a report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the first part of the 2022 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, or PACE, by video conference from January 24 to 28, 2022.

Industry and Technology

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology entitled “The Neo Lithium Acquisition: Canada's National Security Review Process in Action”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs entitled “Main Estimates 2022-23: Vote 1 under Canadian High Arctic Research Station, Votes 1, 5, 10 and L15 under Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and Votes 1, 5 and 10 under Department of Indigenous Services”.

Corporate Responsibility to Protect Human Rights Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-262, An Act respecting the corporate responsibility to prevent, address and remedy adverse impacts on human rights occurring in relation to business activities conducted abroad.

Mr. Speaker, with slavery, torture, murder and systemic sexual violence, Canadian corporations overseas have sometimes been involved in the most egregious violations of human rights. Up until now, there has been utter and complete impunity for these appalling acts.

That is why today I am tabling the corporate responsibility to protect human rights act. I thank my seconder, the terrific member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona. This bill would oblige Canadian companies abroad to maintain due diligence on human rights at all times and would provide for the ability of victims to sue these companies for human rights violations abroad.

Corporate responsibility is everyone's responsibility. I hope all members of the House will support this important bill.

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

Responsible Business Conduct Abroad Act

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-263, An Act to establish the Office of the Commissioner for Responsible Business Conduct Abroad and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to stand here today and table my private member's legislation, the responsible business conduct abroad bill. I want to thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for both agreeing to second my bill and being such a champion of human rights in Canada and around the world.

As elected representatives, we have an awesome responsibility. We have a responsibility to represent our constituents, and it is the honour of my life to represent the constituents of Edmonton Strathcona. However, we also have a responsibility to the greater good, to humanity as a whole and to our shared ambition of a healthy planet and prosperity and opportunity for all people around the world.

I am proud to be a Canadian because I believe Canada can and should be a leader in protecting human rights and promoting democratic values around the world. However, sadly, there is a stain on our reputation that we must both acknowledge and correct. For too long, companies headquartered in Canada, many mining and oil and gas companies, have undertaken business operations in developing countries, either directly or through subsidiaries, and in many countries with weak human rights protections, workers and communities are violated and abused.

The CORE ombudsperson has been operational for nearly three years, yet the Government of Canada failed to give it powers that were promised. This bill aims to fix what the government failed to provide. This bill aims to repair Canada's reputation in the world. This bill aims to protect indigenous people, women and girls, human rights defenders, activists and all those fighting for human rights and environmental sustainability in their communities and around the world.

I hope everyone in the House will support this legislation.

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

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-264, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (pension plans and group insurance plans).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and proud to introduce this bill in the House. I feel compelled to say that I am reintroducing it, since I introduced a similar version in terms of the spirit and the letter in 2017, and again in 2020. This bill is just as necessary today to protect the pension funds of our retirees and our workers.

Of course, I would like to thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, whom I greatly admire, for seconding this bill.

I mentioned that I tabled a similar bill five years ago. We have had a few elections since then, but we have come a long way. We discussed the bill at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology until all members reached a consensus in June 2021. Since committee members unanimously supported the bill, it was able to proceed through the legislative process.

I hope the bill will go even further this time, since it will affect several organizations in Quebec. It was inspired by what happened to Cliffs Natural Resources pensioners in my riding. We had 3.5 million supporters across Canada in the previous Parliament.

I would really love to see the bill go even further this time. I cannot stress enough how important it is to protect retirees' pension funds. The reality is that large multinationals have stolen their deferred wages. Pensions need to be protected once and for all.

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

Citizenship and Immigration

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

moved that the third report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration presented on Thursday, March 3, 2022, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, today we are asking the House to agree to the report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration recommending that Canada implement visa-free travel from Ukraine to Canada, including by the rapid issuance of electronic travel authorization and by increasing staff so that the existing immigration backlog is not further impacted by this crisis.

This motion was passed at committee with the support of all opposition members. I hope the government will support this necessary step, as it voted against it when we brought it up at committee.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

We are all horrified at the events unfolding in Ukraine. The unprovoked Russian invasion of a sovereign country and a friend of Canada is disgusting. In this time of need, Canadians across the country have organized to provide aid. They offer their homes to Ukrainians who come to Canada and they raise money to support people in refugee centres in Europe and those who arrive here with almost nothing. That is the generosity of Canadians. Ukrainians fleeing war are looking for safety and a place to work and live where their kids can be kids.

Countries next to Ukraine, such as Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Moldova, have taken in millions of refugees. UNHCR estimates that the total number of refugees is now over 3.8 million, and over 6.5 million people are internally displaced in their own country. Poland is at a point where its infrastructure cannot take much more, yet these countries continue to open their homes and communities. They provide aid and military assistance to Ukraine, all while standing up for freedom against Russian aggression.

This refugee crisis is on a scale that the world has not seen since World War II. The gravity of the situation is not lost on anyone. We see the images of bombed-out cities, bodies of women and children lying on the street and the war crimes committed by a regime wanting to recreate the Soviet Union. Back in January, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and I wrote to the Minister of Immigration, asking him to prepare for the invasion and the refugee crisis. We reiterated the Conservatives' call for visa-free travel for Ukrainians and their families. I will note that the Bloc and the NDP support this measure and have been calling for it as well.

With all of the pain and suffering that Ukrainians are going through and the pressure building in neighbouring countries, the current immigration system and the pathway need to change. The Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel has not improved the situation for Ukrainians. It is no secret that people applying for a temporary resident visa through this program are still stuck in IRCC's historic Liberal-made backlog of almost two million applications. I am hearing stories from Ukrainians and their families who are completely frustrated by the red tape and bureaucracy affecting people hoping to come to Canada. The new program is based on the existing temporary resident visa program. That means people still need biometrics and need to apply for a visa online. In their time of need, the current government asks Ukrainians to meet the same standards as an immigrant coming to Canada from a country without war. People who do not have computers or access to the Internet or who have limited access to those things are not in a position to have to deal with IRCC and its bureaucracy.

Look at what happened in Afghanistan. When the government opened up special measures, people had to submit everything electronically. In the middle of the Taliban taking over, refugees had to go to an Internet café, pay, print out documents, fill them out, scan them and email them. After Kabul fell, NGOs such as Ark Salus set up safe houses for people to do this paperwork, but to date, thousands of Afghans who worked for the Government of Canada in Afghanistan or as interpreters with the Canadian Forces are still stranded and in harm's way.

The government's lack of foresight, planning and coordination was on full display in Afghanistan. In the letter to the minister, we asked him and the government to develop a response to Ukraine that coordinated with national defence and public safety. The government failed to plan for the fall of Kabul, and Ukrainians cannot afford to have the Liberals make the same mistake Canada made in Afghanistan. When the government finally released its new program for Ukrainians, I knew the minister did not listen. He did not listen to the official opposition, the Bloc, the NDP or even Ukrainians who are here in Canada.

Visa-free travel is a simple ask that we are all making. We knew that if IRCC left a bureaucratic process in place, it would be like watching August 2021 all over again.

Canada is home to over 1.4 million people with Ukrainian heritage. Thousands of Canadians have family who are or were living in Ukraine. Our country is home to the second-largest diaspora of Ukrainians in the world. That means many people who are escaping the war and want to come to Canada are friends and family of people already here.

When I moved the motion calling for visa-free travel from Ukraine, the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration said no, giving security as the reason, but if Russian sympathizers or spies were trying to come to Canada, our biometric system would not catch them anyway. The minister said so himself at committee on March 3, 2022. The minister said that about 80% of applicants caught for criminality are caught because of biometrics. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean asked the minister if that means that 80% of pro-Russian Ukrainians are detected through biometrics, and the minister said, “No.”

If biometrics are not as useful as the government wants everyone to believe, why force Ukrainians to go through the bureaucratic mess that the government created? Anyone coming into Canada who is not already a permanent resident or citizen still has their name checked against international and criminal databases. In addition, they still have to submit their passport to get an electronic travel authorization, and everyone entering Canada has to go through customs. That is not to mention that the vast majority of Ukrainians who have left the country are women, children and seniors who cannot stay and fight.

Then the story changed. The minister said he did not do visa-free travel because it would take too long. He said:

I realized that certain regulatory changes would need to be made. ...The timeline to implement that would take 12 to 14 weeks, and I didn't think we had 12 to 14 weeks. We'll be able to stand up a new system much faster.

That statement has come back to bite the government, especially now. People applying for visas are waiting anywhere from three weeks to six months to get a biometrics appointment at a visa application centre in Europe, let alone have their application even processed.

Mike O'Leary, a Canadian ex-pat, fled Ukraine with his family into Poland. He has been trying to bring his family back to Edmonton but cannot, because an overloaded system is holding up his application.

Tetiana is a former military interpreter who worked with the Canadian Forces before the war. She is in Poland and is waiting to do biometrics. She got the letter from IRCC with instructions on how to schedule an appointment. Still, she can find free spots in neighbouring countries only for July of 2022. Her friend applied on the first day the new program was opened and could only get an appointment for April 5, three weeks after she applied.

Konrad, a Ukrainian Canadian, contacted my office about his family in Ukraine. They were under siege in the south of the country. His family and their neighbours lost everything. His family managed to leave and get to Bucharest. They applied for the new program the day it opened and could only get an appointment for April 28, 2022, over a month from the day that they applied. He asked, “What is the meaning of 'emergency' in the title of this measure if the refugees have to the use the same procedure as study permits, regular economic immigration, work permits and tourist visas?”

He has a point. Why are Ukrainians stuck in a system that is already nearly two million people deep in backlogs when they are just looking for safety from a war inflicted on them?

That is why I brought this motion to the immigration committee. That is why I stand here today asking that the government not leave our friends and family trapped in red tape. We need to have visa-free travel for Ukrainians fleeing war, and they need it now.

I want to thank the hon. members from the Bloc and the NDP who voted to pass this motion at committee. I urge all members in this House to do the right thing for people escaping the Russian invasion and vote in favour of visa-free travel.

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

Madam Speaker, what is taking place in Ukraine today is horrific. Many members, in a unified, solidarity fashion, have come out in support of Ukraine. Now a member of the official opposition is bringing forward an idea. He mentions that he brought it forward to the committee, and now we have it in a concurrence motion.

If the official opposition was as genuine as it is trying to say it is on the issue, why not bring this forward in an opposition day motion? That would have allowed for a longer debate, more members could have participated and there would have been an actual vote at the end of the day on that issue.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, this just goes to show that the government is not ready to act at all. Liberals want to debate more and drag this on while people are getting killed in Ukraine. People are trying to come here as soon as possible.

It was this government, when I tried to—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

To both sides of the House, there is heckling going on or people are thinking out loud. I would ask that they keep it down, because I know that people will write to me or call me to complain that they cannot hear what is going on in the chamber and cannot hear the speaker because people are having side conversations or are heckling.

The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, it just goes to show that the Liberals are great at dragging their feet. When I sponsored a family from Afghanistan, it took the Liberal government four years, even though that family was fearful of their daughter being abducted, raped or forcibly married, and the Liberals dragged their feet then. It is because of the massive failures in Afghanistan that we have to bring this forward. If they did not jam up the immigration system and create backlogs like we have never seen before in almost two million applications, we would not have had to bring this motion forward. It is because of the government's failures that this needs to happen. They are dragging their feet again.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, during question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship talked about everything the government had set up for Ukrainians arriving in Canada. She talked about all the services that have been made more accessible and all the assistance put in place to ease their arrival and make it as comfortable as possible.

As my colleague pointed out and as our colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean has been requesting for weeks now, there is still no airlift to send humanitarian aid to Ukraine or to bring out the hundreds of thousands or even millions of Ukrainians looking for a safe place to stay until the war is over.

I would like my colleague to provide his thoughts on the matter. What is the logic behind preparing things here in Canada when nothing is being done to pick up the Ukrainians and the foreign nationals and bring them to Canada?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Bloc for supporting our motion and the member for Lac-Saint-Jean for his advocacy for the Ukrainians. We had been asking before the invasion took place for all sorts of help, including humanitarian aid. As with every other issue, the Liberals keep dragging their feet. Opposition parties have been working together for the benefit of Ukrainians, but we do not see any help or support coming from the Liberal side, whether it is visa-free travel or more supports.

It is a good recommendation. I hope that the Liberals take this seriously and that we get things done for the Ukrainians.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could speak more to the issue of backlogs and how when there is a crisis in one part of the world, it seems the government actually pulls resources away from another crisis. We should be able to address all the things going on at the same time.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, under the Liberal government, immigration is not working. We have a backlog of almost two million. It is proven that Liberals cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. It is sad to see that our immigration system under the government cannot do everyday business and handle a crisis at the same time. It is a massive failure in Afghanistan, and we are seeing the same type of failures happening in Ukraine.

Liberals need to get serious about immigration. Families are being separated and refugees cannot seek shelter here in Canada. Businesses are suffering under the government's immigration system and our economy is suffering because of all of that.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to participate in the debate on this Conservative motion for concurrence to take a number of measures related to immigration required to support the people of Ukraine, and, in particular, to implement visa-free travel from Ukraine to Canada.

I will start by saying I recently joined the immigration committee. It has been a pleasure to work with colleagues from all sides on the immigration committee, especially the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, our shadow minister, who has so much passion in this area. As he mentioned in his speech, he was privately sponsoring refugees as a private citizen before he was elected to the House of Commons or anywhere close to that. We need more members who take this area very seriously and are able, independently of the spotlight and outside of their elected lives, to actually be willing to put their money where their mouths are.

Before I get into the immigration measures, I want to speak to the situation unfolding in Ukraine overall. There has been a great deal of debate in the House on this previously. It is important that we do not let up and allow it to drift out of the headlines. We cannot stop really thinking about the ongoing situation and conflict.

When I spoke earlier on the situation in Ukraine, I said that I believe Ukraine will either be Putin's Afghanistan or Putin's Czechoslovakia. Of course, we know the sad history of Czechoslovakia at the beginning of the Second World War when the world kind of just let it happen. It negotiated the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and allowed Hitler to take over Czechoslovakia. That was a step to further aggression and violence.

On the other hand, we also know the history of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, where, as a result of significant support from the west that allowed people within Afghanistan to fight back against the Soviet invasion and to have the equipment they needed, they were able to drive out the Soviet invaders. That ultimately played a critical role in changing the tide of history in the aggressive agenda that had been pursued by the Soviets up to that point.

It is up to us to look at this situation and ask if we are going to support the people of Ukraine, so Putin's experience in Ukraine will be like the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, or are we going to allow the invasion to happen in the way similar to how the world kind of accepted the takeover of Czechoslovakia? That is the choice, and it requires our active engagement, our significant support for Ukrainians and our persistence in that enterprise.

Of course, we know that there is a lot of discussion in the news about possible negotiations and a possible back-and-forth dialogue happening. What is critical for us, as external actors, is to say that, regardless of negotiations taking place, we will not let up in sanctions and in holding Putin accountable unless he withdraws from all sovereign Ukrainian territory, respects the sovereignty of Ukraine's government, and respects the ability of Ukrainians to express themselves through democratic elections and make political choices about their future. Our role is to continue to apply significant sanctions. That is what we on the Conservative side have been saying is required, including significant increased lethal aid and other forms of tactical support to Ukrainians, tougher sanctions and, as our leader has called for, very importantly, air support for humanitarian corridors.

Speaking of those humanitarian corridors is a good transition point to talking about some of the immigration issues. While many Ukrainians are staying and fighting, heroically standing in the way of the Russian invasion, there are many people, such as women, children, the elderly and those who are not able to fight, who are desperate to get to safety. The UNHCR estimates that the number of Ukrainians who have fled the country is approaching four million. It is a very large number.

I want to congratulate Ukraine's neighbours, such as Poland, Latvia and other countries in the region. They have done incredible work. Everyday citizens of those countries are welcoming Ukrainians into their homes and stepping up to support Ukrainians in their hour of need. However, other countries that are farther away could play a greater role as well. Those of us here in Canada, with our large Ukrainian community and our close cultural and other ties, can play a critical role in welcoming those who are coming from Ukraine, many of whom, of course, hope to go back after the conflict is over. There is urgency to act now.

With respect to government action, the frustrating thing is that sometimes it seems like the government is solving problems but with such a delay and such a long time scale that things are ending, or past the point when they could best be solved, when the government is talking about it.

For example, it was announced that the government originally said that people coming from Ukraine could stay for two years; now, it is saying they can stay for three years. Obviously, three years is better than two years, but all of us are hoping this will be long over within two years and that people will have been able to go back within two years. We do not know.

It is hard to predict the future of how these kinds of things will unfold, but the government is making a promise about the far end, a time horizon, when what is really needed is to say how we can get people to be able to come more quickly right now, because right now is when we have the problem. I think we can make comparisons to other issues, such as COVID programs, where the government missed the boat and then, after the fact, would say, for example, that it was going to do ventilation in schools two years after this thing started. This is, I think, a problem with the way the government operates, sadly. It is not on top of issues, but then promises to do the thing we should have already done.

When it comes to immigration support for Ukrainians who are seeking to find a place to live and be in safety during this time, we are calling on the government to focus on the urgent immediate action now to help people get to a situation of safety. From this came a committee motion that was designed to really move this issue forward and emphasize to the government what needed to be done. A key part of that was the call for visa-free travel.

I do want to say that, while working on the immigration committee, the spirit of collaboration that exists has been really strong. It was a Conservative motion, but I think it is fair to say to my friends in the NDP and the Bloc that they were enthusiastic and keen about getting visa-free travel as part of this motion as well, and I am very hopeful we will see the same level of support and enthusiasm from other opposition parties, in terms of getting this motion adopted by the House of Commons. I hope, notwithstanding the fact that the Liberals voted against this motion at committee, that the Prime Minister, the immigration minister and the government will take seriously the will of the House of Commons in this respect. If a majority of the House of Commons votes in favour of saying we need visa-free travel, there is not a formal legal obligation on the government to implement the will of the House in this case, but I think there is a moral obligation in a democracy for the government to take seriously what the House of Commons is saying in this respect.

I do expect, given the positions taken by other opposition parties, this motion to pass, and I think it is a reasonable norm of democracy that, when a government that got a third of the popular vote is told by all of the rest of the parties in the House of Commons that it should take a certain action, the government actually takes that seriously and responds to it.

My colleague who spoke previously mentioned the arguments the government has used against bringing in visa-free travel. We saw them make some of these arguments at committee. They have said there are security issues that require a visa, and I think my colleague has demonstrated well, and the immigration minister sort of acknowledged this, that to whatever extent there may be individuals who are not actually sympathetic to the Ukrainian side who would try to use this program to get in, it could happen anyway with the provisions the government has put in place.

Moreover, I think the minister has said that it takes too long to pull back the visa requirement, which does not make a lot of sense to me. If the government is so slow in its operations that removing a requirement takes weeks and weeks of delay, that seems like a problem we should try to solve at a more fundamental level, because what we are calling for is not to add additional requirements to complicate the process; we are just asking the government to remove existing requirements. That should be a fairly simple, straightforward thing to do, and for the government to say that the imposition of this whole new program it has developed would somehow take less time than simply removing the visa requirement, I do not think that makes a lot of sense.

In any event, and I have sort of come back to this a few times in different contexts here this morning, I think we should ask and expect the Government of Canada to move faster during critical situations like this. I think we see this across the board with immigration. It is useful to think about how in the last year we had the situation in Afghanistan and now we have the situation in Ukraine. In both cases the government did not plan enough in advance and then told us it cannot move fast enough. It will say that it has all these papers it has to move around and things to sign, and that it is just going to take too long. The effect of accepting that somehow it is okay for these processes to take as long as the government is saying they will take is that it has real costs in human life and security.

The cost of government delays and inaction in the context of Afghanistan was that there were many people we should have gotten out that we did not. The cost in the case of the situation in Ukraine is, again, further delays, and more people being in harm's way for longer than necessary and longer than they should be.

I want to point out as well some of the statements being made by representatives of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress on immigration measures. For one, I think their position was actually misstated in committee. There was a member of the Liberal caucus who implied that somehow the Ukrainian Canadian Congress was not pushing for visa-free travel. The same day the Ukrainian Canadian Congress issued a statement clarifying that it does want visa-free travel. It also presented some concerns about the program the government has put in place, and maybe I will get to that in questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member can appreciate the issue of numbers and the importance of Ottawa working with other jurisdictions, in particular our provinces, when we talk about resettlement. We also need to get a sense of what people will be going into. For example, in the province of Manitoba, there are individuals with homes, literally hundreds of homes, who have been identified, so there is a coordinating aspect to this whole project. This is to ensure that the people from Ukraine who are coming will be in a good position to settle, whether temporarily or potentially permanently.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in terms of how important coordination is in this whole process.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, there is some heckling going on from the other side. I want to remind the members that I know the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan wants to be able to answer the question.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the additional contribution from my friends over here.

This is sort of the third excuse we have been given. We heard the first excuse from Liberal members saying why they would not do visa-free travel. The minister then said that was not exactly right, but he had a new excuse. Now we have a third excuse from the member for Winnipeg North with the implication that we should not be doing visa-free travel because we need to coordinate and we need to know how many people are coming.

Well, there is a great flow here of people coming in and out who are free to do so because they are Canadian citizens living abroad. There are many countries from which people can come now with visa-free travel. They can come from the United States, the U.K. and from other places. Therefore, for people coming from Ukraine, I think Canadians are ready to step up and help those who come, and we can reasonably estimate the numbers that are going to come. I do not think having a visa requirement to know the number of people who are coming makes any sense whatsoever.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!