Debates of May 16th, 2022

Health

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

Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, the member talked about aviation safety. I want to pick up on that point and ask him about the exclusion of Taiwan from Interpol and to whose benefit it is to exclude it from all of these agencies. Whether it is with respect to tracking criminals, aviation safety, the WHO or the WHA, who is benefiting when a responsible actor and democracy such as Taiwan, one of our allies, is excluded?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the world is not benefiting from the exclusion of Taiwan. It is straight-up bullying by the Chinese communist regime, and we need to stand up against that.

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

Madam Speaker, typically when I rise, I say it is a pleasure to speak on something that is before the House. Even though this is an important issue, there are many important issues that are debated and discussed in standing committees. As Parliament goes on in the months and years ahead, we will see standing committees do some outstanding work on a wide variety of different issues. There is no doubt about that.

I want us to stop for a moment and think about what the Conservative Party is doing. It recognized that the standing committee had a meeting, and then there was a recommendation from the committee. There was no detailed report or anything of this nature. It was a very simple statement, and I will read it. It will not take very long. It states:

That the Standing Committee on Health report to the House that it supports the full participation of Taiwan in the World Health Assembly (WHA) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

That is the recommendation from the committee. There is no doubt that there would have been a great deal of discussion regarding the merits of a motion of this nature coming out of the committee, but I would also suggest that there are many standing committees.

For example, I remember the work, in particular, with the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration when I was in opposition. There were so many issues. We would raise the issues and have reports come to committee, just as we are debating today a report that went before the committee. If we were to debate every report that comes before the House of Commons—

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

The member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, the interpretation is not working.

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

It is working now.

The parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, if we were to take reports such as the one that has been brought forward by the Conservatives today, the one that I actually read onto the record, if we were to do that every day on all the different reports, there would not be the opportunity to have debates on the legislative agenda, not only from the government's perspective, but also from the private member's perspective, especially if we factor in opposition days.

People who have been following the debates of concurrence motions will be very much aware that the Conservative Party of Canada might be interested in the topic being debated. All members of the House are very much aware of the relationship between Taiwan and China, and we are very much concerned about Taiwan and its future. We see the true value of having Taiwan play a stronger role with the World Health Organization. I suspect that is one of the reasons why it passed through the standing committee.

The Conservative Party announced that we need to have a fulsome debate on this issue to be able to see how the entire chamber is going to vote, how each member of the House is going to vote. What issue in the standing committee, which is ultimately providing a report, would the Conservative Party say it has no interest in bringing before the committee as it is an absolute waste of time? I suspect they could argue that every report is important and should be brought to the House. As the opposition House leader said, they are.

If we do that, we are taking away from the opportunity for the House to do the many other things that it needs to do. One would ultimately argue, as I would, that the real purpose of the motion is not to deal with Taiwan and the World Health Organization. It has everything to do with the ongoing gamesmanship of the official opposition to frustrate the government from being able to get its legislation dealt with.

I ask members to think of the motion. I will read it again:

That the Standing Committee on Health report to the House that it supports the full participation of Taiwan in the World Health Assembly (WHA) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Madam Speaker, how many times have you sat in your chair and heard members from all sides of the House stand and say, “There have been consultations among the parties, and we would like to see if we can get unanimous consent to pass”, before reading their motion?

I am surprised, and I will maybe give some advice to my colleagues across the way: If they are genuine about the topic at hand, why not have those discussions? Why not get the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the shadow minister for the Conservatives together? Let us get our friends in the New Democrats and the Bloc, and do a little consultation with the Green Party, which is something the Conservative Party is not very good at. Let us see if we can have a discussion among parties in the chamber and build the consensus that was achieved at the standing committee.

Nothing would prevent the leaders of the House from then bringing forward a unanimous consent motion. I would suggest that they follow the advice that was provided by the Speaker shortly after question period, when the Speaker clearly indicated, on the passing of unanimous consent motions, that there should be some consultations done prior to the introduction and the sense that it would be approved.

I looked at my colleague, the deputy House leader at the time, and we both thought that was a pretty bold and right-on statement by the Speaker. I was encouraged by the number of Conservative members of Parliament who were applauding the comments of the Speaker. That tells me that even Conservative members in opposition recognize how important it is to actually work with other members of the House. That is a good, healthy sign.

We, in the government, have been reaching out to the Conservative Party to say that they should work with us and recognize some of the benefits being brought forward through House initiatives. There is some really good stuff here that we could be passing, that we could be working together on. However, the Conservative Party is not interested in that.

If the Conservatives were interested in that, we would not be speaking about this right now. The opposition House leader talks about disinformation, just as the presenter of the motion talked about misinformation and disinformation. Hopefully I will have some time to expand on that. I think that is a valid point being raised by the mover of the motion.

For me, at this stage in my comments, I want to acknowledge that sometimes we do see some encouraging signs coming from the Conservative opposition. After question period, I saw that.

Let me suggest to the members that, before they just look at the Order Paper and pluck something out that they want to introduce that day as a tool to filibuster, prevent debate or stop the government from being able to debate its legislation, before they actually do that random draw, to take a look at the motion. Did the House leadership of the Conservative Party realize the content of the motion? I do not think it did.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have an admission from the opposition House leader. I appreciate that. We can go a long way with some honesty.

At the end of the day, this is the type of thing that I think, with some effort from opposition—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I have been very patient, I think, but this is not a conversation. We have times for people to speak and times for people to comment. I would like to let the hon. parliamentary secretary conclude his speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am just trying, in a friendly fashion, to give some advice and thoughts on ways in which we can be more effective inside the House. I know that opposition members appreciate that I am afforded the opportunity to talk on this important issue, by them bringing in the concurrence motion. In that sense, I thank them for that because I do have a great deal of passion for Asian nations. I often talk, for example, about Philippines and how important Philippines is to me personally, let alone other nations in that region. Therefore, I am very sensitive to it.

I very much would like to see Taiwan be a part of the World Health Organization for many of the reasons the member for Sherwood Park—St. Albert mentioned. At times, the member says some pretty good stuff, including his comments concerning the role that Taiwan played in advising and providing information and support to Canada. Taiwan has contributed in a very positive way. I suspect that the member for Sherwood Park—St. Albert is not alone in his thinking—

[An hon. member]

He is the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I should know that he is the member for St. Albert—Edmonton because I was actually posted in Edmonton when I was in the forces. St. Albert is a beautiful community.

The point is that there are many members of Parliament, no doubt, who would realize and see the value of Taiwan's contributions.

With respect to the World Health Organization, on the other hand, we know that members from the government caucus and, I suspect, maybe even members from the Conservative caucus, have a full appreciation of the World Health Organization and the work that it did in the pandemic. The World Health Organization, much like Health Canada, has very strict enforcement and respect for science and health experts. In regard to the pandemic, Taiwan did have a lot to offer. I am not sure, but one member made mention that it was the first country in the world to say that COVID-19 can be passed person to person. That was already part of the debate on the issue. I do not know for a fact that it is the case, but I do know that Taiwan did lead in many ways, as did Health Canada.

Through Health Canada, we have an independent agency that has served Canadians well over the years. During the pandemic, civil servants have played such an incredible role in ensuring that Canada is in a great position to provide the advice that was absolutely necessary for the general public as a whole. I am thinking of individuals who did the science, looked at the World Health Organization, worked with health experts from coast to coast to coast and came up with the recommendations that were necessary, as a country and as a nation. The Prime Minister had daily briefings for Canadians, talking about the importance of, for example, washing our hands, wearing a mask and making sure that people were in protective zones, as we went through a very difficult process at the very beginning.

The World Health Organization took a global approach in ensuring that all countries around the world recognize how important it is to step up to the plate. I think that the World Health Organization was able to benefit from some of the policy initiatives that Health Canada advanced. I do believe that Canada, the European Union, the United States, Taiwan and many other countries, the over 150 countries that participate in the World Health Organization, all have had contributions to make note only at the beginning of the pandemic in 2019, but even today.

We still are not out of the pandemic. It is easy to think we are, but that is not the case. When we listen to Conservative members, we can think of the issue of misinformation. There are members of the Conservative Party who believe that mandates are no longer required, and yet your home province, Madam Speaker, the province of the Conservatives' deputy leader, had a mandatory mask mandate that has just been lifted. That is fairly recent.

If we take a look even back to December, people were starting to think that things were turning around, but curfews were being put in place. Manitoba had additional measures. The demand for rapid testing went through the roof.

We understood as a government the types of things we needed to do. The World Health Organization was a great resource for some countries more than other countries. For developing nations that do not have organizations like Health Canada, it played a critical role as it does today.

My suggestion to members opposite is that they spend less time on the political gamesmanship that we see day in and day out and more time on serving Canadians. Today, there is no reason why, before five o'clock, we could not have passed Bill C-14. There is no reason at all. Yes, the Conservatives will talk and talk about this and that and debate times and so forth, but there is absolutely no reason why. Elections Canada is independent and every member in the chamber is supporting Bill C-14, so there is no reason why it should not be passed. However, the Conservatives, as with this particular concurrence report, are more interested in playing political games and using up government debate time on the legislative agenda.

It was not that long ago when Canadians said that we, as the Liberal Party, were going to be given a new mandate, but part of that mandate meant that it was going to be a minority—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Winnipeg North has been droning on for almost 20 minutes now and he has not been relevant to the motion at hand, which is a concurrence motion talking about health. The last five minutes—

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

He has been very relevant to the motion at hand.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the point is that there are other mechanisms, especially when we talk about this particular motion.

I would encourage members of the official opposition to heed the advice of what the Speaker said after question period. Let us do a little more working together. That is what Canadians want. They want the government to work with opposition parties, and they want the opposition parties to work with the government. This could have been a good example of that.

If we take anything away from the debate today, let us recognize the fine work that the standing committee has done, and let us see if we can do some more work together for the betterment of all Canadians.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I could, I would certainly want to use a unanimous consent motion to give the member more time to speak to this because he was so riveting. I know that you, Madam Speaker, were paying great attention.

We want to ensure that the committee's work is recognized in this House on an important issue, especially with all of the geopolitical issues going on around the world, not the least of which is what is happening in Ukraine, but also the sabre-rattling that is going on in the South China Sea basin as it relates to Taiwan, recognizing the importance of Taiwan and its inclusion in the World Health Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization. That is what the committee came back with and that is what we are concurring on today. If that is not important, I do not know what is.

Also, we are hearing a lot from the Liberals about the issue of obstruction. The House hours were extended until midnight tonight. As it stands right now, there are zero Liberal members scheduled to speak tonight to the government legislation. So far on Bill C-14, there have only been three. The prediction that I made in this House on Motion No. 11 is that, in effect, we could have opposition members solely speaking to government legislation and the government not trying to convince Canadians why it is important for these pieces of legislation to pass.

I am wondering if the hon. member has comments as to why there are no scheduled Liberal speakers tonight on an important piece of legislation like Bill C-14.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree that it is important legislation. That is why, from the government's perspective, we do not need to put up speakers. We have already put our position on the record. We are supporting the legislation and want it to go to committee. This is important legislation. We do not have to debate every piece of legislation at great length. Everyone in this chamber supports it.

The opposition House leader says that this is an important issue, being the report we have before us today. If it is so important, why not have it on an opposition day motion? The Conservatives have this Thursday as an opposition day. Has the Conservative Party ever brought forward a concurrence motion on an opposition day? The answer is no. The Conservatives will not do that because they are not going to filibuster on their opposition days. They only do it on government days.

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

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of words spoken and I will let Canadians judge the substance of those words.

The member for Winnipeg North inferred something that brings forward an interesting contradiction in the Liberals' messaging. Often the Prime Minister, members of the Liberal cabinet and the member himself will say that committees are in charge of their own destiny. This motion, passed by a committee of this place, was supported by the Liberals unanimously. I am curious as to why the member is so opposed to that support. He has previously suggested that committees are masters of their own destiny, although I sometimes question the independence of them, but that is for another conversation.

As members in this place, there are tools and mechanisms, and moving concurrence motions is one of them, and an important one. The House spoke very strongly to re-engage the Canada-China committee that was cancelled. The committee passed a motion. Why does it not deserve fair hearing in this place?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, standing committees pass all sorts of motions. I would argue there is an endless number of wonderful debates that we could be having, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is that the Conservative Party continues to focus its attention on doing whatever it can to prevent the government from being able to debate its legislation or budgetary measures.

The Conservatives could have worked with the government on this particular motion. We could have had a group hug and see if we could pass this with unanimous consent. At the end of day, let us be very clear. This has nothing to do with Taiwan. This has everything to do with Conservatives playing games and filibustering. That is what this is all about. They do not want to debate Bill C-14. Let us vote on Bill C-14 and get it passed.

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

Madam Speaker, whenever I hear the hon. parliamentary secretary in high dudgeon because there are political games being played in this place, it is so very Casablanca: “What? I'm shocked. There's gambling going on here?” We have to recall there are political games on all sides. We can all do better. This an important issue. This is a concurrence debate that attaches some significance, but I join the hon. parliamentary secretary in lamenting that we are not debating Bill C-14. This is less a question than a comment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-14 is the bill that we were supposed to be debating today. We started it this morning. In essence, Elections Canada is an independent organization. We are bringing forward legislation to ensure that the province of Quebec, a province I am very, very proud of, especially that French factor, gets the minimum 78 seats. In fact, I understand that every member of this chamber wants to make sure that Quebec gets that, but there is one political party that just wants to debate it. Members of that party do not want it to pass it. They just want to filibuster until I do not know when.

Sometimes they need to be shamed into doing the right thing. Hopefully a little shaming here will cause them to allow Bill C-14 to pass. It would be wonderful to see it pass before 5 p.m.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am encouraged by the parliamentary secretary's words of support for Taiwan's participation at the WHO and the WHA. The Chinese Communist regime, in addition to trying to block Taiwan's meaningful participation in international fora like the WHO and WHA, has also insisted upon the mislabelling of Taiwan in which certain Canadian government institutions are currently actively participating in such mislabelling. One is the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which is the leading federal government health agency. The minister has been aware of this issue for some time. I wrote to the minister some six months ago. The member for Humber River—Black Creek has brought this issue forward and yet, this mislabelling continues. Why?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, over the years one of the things that I have learned, whether it was with Stephen Harper when he was prime minister all the way to today, there are some significant tensions between China and Taiwan and it does have an impact around the world, including Canada. I have full confidence that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is working with the different departments to ensure that first and foremost Canadian interests are met and our Canadian values are espoused around the world. That is something which we in the Liberal caucus take very seriously.