Debates of May 16th, 2022

Health

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

Madam Speaker, I would simply ask a question that was asked a previous Conservative speaker on this. It is not only important to acknowledge the reality of Taiwan's exclusion from the WHA and WHO, but also other international entities, such as Interpol, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization. The member said that this has nothing to do with Taiwan. With respect, I would fundamentally disagree. This has a lot to do with Taiwan and the ability for this place, the centre of Canada's democratic infrastructure, to make a clear statement to say that Taiwan does matter.

I would ask the member to comment specifically on Taiwan's exclusion from other international organizations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the motion before us today has everything to do with Taiwan. What I was referring to was the games that are being played by the Conservatives, which is something that I have very little tolerance for. I hope that the Conservative Party will bring this issue back on Thursday when it has an official opposition day.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, International Development; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Natural Resources; and the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Climate Change.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, although we were supposed to be debating Bill C‑14 today, we nevertheless had to consider the tabling of the committee report.

Last week I attended Taiwan Night with some colleagues, where we were able to discuss the Taiwanese government's concerns on this matter. After the event I invited our Taiwanese friends to come observe this afternoon, but I am disappointed, because I have been hearing members over the past hour asking why we are not talking about something else. I obviously care a lot about Bill C‑14, but it is also important that this report be tabled. We must examine its findings and how it calls on us, as parliamentarians, to do something about this situation.

We have all witnessed the situation in Ukraine and Russia over the past few months, and the expression that comes to mind when I think of that situation is “the thorn in the lion's paw”. NATO has said that it is no one's fault but, at the same time, it is everyone's fault. That same expression comes to mind when I think of relations between Taiwan and China.

I think we need a little flexibility in order to make an informed decision under the circumstances. That is what we need to discuss this afternoon: What can we do to speed up Taiwan's admission to the World Health Organization, or WHO, and the World Health Assembly?

In a community or a group, the first thing to do if we want to be in society is to appreciate the true value of the “other”. The failure to contribute to the admission of entities—or, in this case, independent countries—to associations such as the WHO or the World Health Assembly amounts in some way to denying their existence.

Why do we do this? Generally, we do it strictly on the basis of conviction. We all have convictions, whether it is the Speaker, myself or even the member for Winnipeg North. That is what keeps us standing, what we value, and it is often an imperative. However, societies also have convictions. Unfortunately, a conviction is something that we hold very dear, but with little regard for its predictable consequences. Following a conviction is often done at all costs, which is evident in the delay of Taiwan's admission to the bodies I mentioned.

However, when it comes to a conviction, we cannot deny that there are no consequences to our actions. Every action has its consequences. In fact, the consequences are part of the action. For Russia and Ukraine, the consequences are dire. We had good intentions, but good intentions do not count if they are not carried through. We can hope, but if we do not act on that hope, it does not count.

We must justify our conviction about whether we are for or against admitting Taiwan into these organizations. This is what I personally call the ethics of responsibility, the ethics of a form of decision-making that involves considering the foreseeable consequences of a given action.

What are the foreseeable consequences of admitting or not admitting Taiwan to these organizations? We can predict that, if Taiwan is denied admittance, the decision will be postponed, and there will be petitions, more lobbying and, most importantly, people who will not be able to contribute to or benefit from science.

I believe we are heading for the inevitable and that admittance is the best way to go. If we agree to admit Taiwan, I think we will reduce the risk of confrontation in a part of the world that, frankly, is prone to confrontation. I do not have a crystal ball, but when I look at Russia, Ukraine, Finland and Sweden, I see Taiwan on the other side of the crystal ball.

The consequences of denying Taiwan admittance should not be underestimated. We all have our own convictions, and that is fine. When we look at the consequences of having or not having convictions on this issue, we reach the stage that I call the ethics of discussion. I mention this because it is what we do here in Parliament. The ethics of discussion is the ability to discuss objectively in order to reconcile what we want to do with what we end up doing.

This is about reconciling what we want to do with what we end up doing. It is about aligning word with deed. I believe that we should be able make a decision without having unnecessary barriers thrown up, without getting bogged down. We may decide to take action or we may decide not to. Yes, we might make a mistake, but we are not God. The worst mistake is not deciding. The biggest mistake is looking the other way. I often say that the greatest lack of ethics is turning a blind eye.

Certainly, in this case, we are not being asked to make a decision. We are not the WHO. We are being asked to receive the conclusions of a committee that is established under the rules of the House of Commons, one that operates independently and has tabled its report.

Too often in the past, we have seen reports that were not received by the House of Commons, which comes back to haunt us after a while. It makes for even more procedures than necessary.

This afternoon, what are my Taiwanese friends seeing when they are watching us? In the last hour, they have seen people disagreeing about how to move forward. No one has been stubborn about moving forward, but we disagree about the method. Meanwhile, time is passing and people are waiting, yet no decisions are being made.

I believe the report should be presented because I believe Taiwan should be part of the WHO. Why do I believe that? I think it is about social values. Values are things that we find to be good, noble or desirable, but the value we are talking about here is solidarity. Solidarity means unity for common cause. In this case, that common cause is health. Taiwan made a significant contribution with respect to COVID‑19. Taiwan is willing and able to contribute. What may be preventing this report from being presented today is fear, misplaced fear of the Chinese bear. We are a legally constituted Parliament. I believe we should make this decision. This is not a life or death decision; this is about concurring in a report. We should concur in it so we can move forward. This is about solidarity. This is no time to pretend the problem does not exist. This is no time to be stubborn about our convictions just for the sake of being stubborn.

In answer to the concerns raised by my colleague from Winnipeg North, I would like us to adopt this motion quickly so we can move on to Bill C‑14. Bill C‑14 is extremely important to me. What I would suggest today is an entente cordiale among the parties so we can move forward and do our parliamentary work without obstacles of our own making.

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

Madam Speaker, there are many different reports that will never come before the House. I would ultimately argue that concurrence, in this particular case, is not necessarily to send a strong message. The message has already been sent through the standing committee, and this is one of many reports that will be tabled over the coming weeks and months.

Does the member believe all committee reports should have a concurrence here on the floor of the House? If so, does he also believe, then, that it should not happen just on government business days? Should it also be on opposition days, or should it be restricted to only government days?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North. I should be a little candid here, because as a newly elected member, I do not know all the rules. However, to answer both points, I believe that all committee reports should have a life. Now, is this the only time they can have a life? I do not have the answer to that, being new to Parliament. I do not think there is any committee work that should remain in the shadows, and I believe that everything is better in the light, frankly. Should it be during government orders or on an opposition day? I think there is probably strategy on both sides, but I cannot assume bad faith.

One thing is for sure: I am on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, and we work very hard. Until recently, we have had unanimity on just about every decision we have made, with the Liberal Party and everyone. Honestly, I think it is nice that we can all work for the common good together. I think the outcome of the work should at least be heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a very thoughtful speech by the member for Trois-Rivières. I think he touched on some of the important reasons we need to take this seriously.

My question is similar to a question I asked the parliamentary secretary and that another Conservative colleague asked earlier in this debate. On the substance of what we are discussing, we can see that Taiwan, for geopolitical reasons, I suggest, is being excluded from some of these international organizations. That certainly is problematic in terms of Taiwan's being a democracy. Further to that, I would suggest in this place today that it is to the detriment of the ability of the world, in the case of the WHO and the WHA, to combat COVID-19.

I would ask for the member's further thoughts on that, as well as on Taiwan's being excluded from ICAO and Interpol, among a number of other international agencies. It has a significant voice that should be heard. What does the member think about the tactics being used by certain regimes around the world to try to exclude Taiwan, for geopolitical gain, from what are very meaningful and important organizations, whether it be about COVID-19 or other issues that our world faces?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot.

Taiwan is a democracy and a free country, just as Quebec will be one day. At that time, I hope that we will also be recognized, and that we will become formal participants in international organizations.

Now, my colleagues know full well where the red light on the decision to include Taiwan came from. I think we need to be very careful. Denying an established democracy's right to exist is a bad idea. Whether we are talking about Interpol or the international aviation organization, in all cases, this seems to needlessly kick the legs out from under an established democracy and, once again, as a member of a party that supports the creation of a country, our failure to show our support would concern me deeply.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, interestingly, I am in the chamber today. I am always honoured to speak in this House, representing the people of London—Fanshawe, but I am in the chamber today because the Standing Committee on National Defence was cancelled, unfortunately, because the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is filibustering a motion on women's reproductive rights at the foreign affairs committee and there simply are not enough resources for the House to hold that filibuster and continue the Standing Committee on National Defence.

The Conservatives have been seizing every opportunity to delay legislation and are now holding up committees. I certainly am prone to the committee I sit on, which is national defence, but I know we all feel the same in terms of the business of committees, which they are holding up. Now we see today, again, with this debate, that there is no difference. Time after time, with legislation, they are holding up debate in this House.

We are debating a committee report that I support, absolutely, and that New Democrats have supported, absolutely, and that we are proud to have supported. It was adopted unanimously at committee. I hope we can do the same in this chamber.

I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion, that the motion to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on Friday, April 29, be adopted immediately without further debate or amendment.

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

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that I am quite surprised the Conservatives moved this motion to adopt the report. It was proposed for unanimous consent and they denied it. I am not quite sure why. They wanted this report approved and we were willing to do that.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division, please.

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

Call in the members.

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

Vote #91

Committees of the House

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

I declare the motion carried.

Finance

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

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that, during its consideration of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation:

(i) Bill C-19A, An Act to amend the Civil Lunar Gateway Agreement Implementation Act, Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code, the Judges Act, the Federal Courts Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, containing divisions 18, 19, 21 and 22 of Part 5 of the bill,

(ii) Bill C-19B, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, containing all the remaining provisions of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this and to advise you that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, a beautiful part of the country. Of course, the predecessor of the hon. member was a good friend of all of us, Gord Brown, who passed away tragically. He was an hon. member of Parliament and conducted himself with great integrity, at one point as the opposition whip, and he is greatly missed in this place.

The reason why I rise today is to discuss a curious part of the bill, the budget implementation act, which, of course, as we are aware of, is an omnibus bill, a bill that includes many provisions in it. It totals, roughly, well over 400 pages, and it is a difficult bill to comprehend, in the sense of the volume of the bill and the amount of information that is in it.

There is one curious issue about this bill that I think requires further consideration by the committee. That is why I stand here today to propose splitting this bill, to really give the committee an opportunity to look much deeper into this aspect of the BIA, an act to enact the civil lunar gateway agreement implementation act and amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code, the Judges Act, the Federal Courts Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, containing certain divisions.

Effectively, what this means is that what the government is proposing on this, and this is why it is curious and why it needs to have further study at committee, including the potential for further witnesses to talk about the consequences of this bill, relates to travel to the moon. We are assuming that, obviously, astronauts are going to the moon. I do not think, and I stand to be corrected, that there has been a situation where a Canadian astronaut has been to the moon, but of course we have had several who have been on the space shuttle and have circumnavigated the earth, and we are very proud. One is in the House right now and I congratulate the hon. member for that.

I will note, Mr. Speaker, that you pointed him out, not I, but we are all proud of Canada's involvement in the space program. The hon. member conducted himself very distinguishedly and proudly as an astronaut, and there have been several others before and certainly after. In fact, I recall that, just a couple of weeks ago, the hon. member rose and paid tribute to a fellow astronaut who was part of the space program. When we lose that legacy, it is difficult.

Curiously, I am not aware of any plans. I know there are plans to go to Mars, for example. This part of the budget implementation act did not address the part about Mars, but I am not aware of any plans for lunar landings. I am not aware of any plans that there are going to be any bases on the moon to which these provisions, not just of the Criminal Code but of the tax act, would apply. I assume that if astronauts do land on the moon and they are paid, they will have to pay tax on it. We are just not sure of that and what impact this would have.

I think this speaks to a broader problem, as I speak to the budget implementation act. I am not even sure what the tax rates on the moon will be. I suspect that maybe they would be higher than they are currently. The only good thing is that there may not necessarily be an affordability crisis on the moon that I am aware of. Of course, if the government is still in power when astronauts do land or live on the moon, I suspect it will be looking at ways to increase levels of affordability on the moon.

We are trying to give the committee, seriously, an opportunity to take this part of the bill and look at it in more depth.

As I said earlier, the budget implementation act is an omnibus bill. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister said in 2015 that he would end omnibus bills and there would be no more omnibus bills, there are hundreds of provisions in this bill, which does constitute and classify it as an omnibus bill. What the Prime Minister did in 2015, as he has done many times over the course of the last several years, was break another promise. This is another broken promise not to have any more omnibus bills, yet we have an omnibus bill with this type of provision in it, and it is difficult to understand what the impact of that is going to be.

Therefore, having the committee analyze the bill and extract it from the budget implementation act, basically separate it out to be able to study it a bit further, is important, and it is important to understand what its implications are. As I said, we are not aware of any lunar plans for Canadians to either land or cohabitate on the moon. However, if they are going to be paying taxes and doing some of the other things that this part of the budget calls for, then I think we need to have a better understanding of that.

I want to speak as well to the types of actions by the government. We see an omnibus bill when the government ran on saying it would not be implementing omnibus bills. We are seeing some other things happening, for example Motion No. 11, which we have talked about in this House previously. This all adds to a further decline in democracy and really speaks to the trust in our democratic institutions.

Recently, and I have said this previously in the House, the Ethics Commissioner came to the procedure and House affairs committee and I asked him about the decline in democracy and the decline in the faith that Canadians have in their institutions, all institutions. When we see these types of motions, like Motion No. 11, and promises not being kept with respect to acts like the budget implementation act, which is clearly an omnibus bill, it further adds to that decline in democracy, and I think all Canadians and certainly all parliamentarians are concerned that we are heading in that direction.

Therefore, we should give the committee an opportunity to look at this part of the bill, and there are many other parts of the budget implementation act that in my opinion should be separated and pulled out from the entire act so that the committee can do its job.

On the subject of the debate we have had, perhaps we could have been talking, debating and asking questions of the government as to what this particular part of the budget implementation act means, but the reality is that we were given very little time to discuss the BIA. The government imposed time allocation. I believe there were only five hours of debate on a 400-plus-page omnibus bill and 11 speakers who had an opportunity to speak to it. If not on this, then perhaps on other parts of this budget implementation act we could have asked the government what it means and perhaps debated it and offered suggestions.

What I am trying to do is make sure the committee is able to do its work and look at this particular part, and there are many parts of this bill. I hope it does, for the sake of the faith in our institutions and certainly the faith in our committees. We see other committees that are doing very important work right now, for example the foreign affairs committee, which is studying Ukraine and what is going on in the South China Sea and how Canada can be better prepared for those things. We see games being played by the government, which is adding to this further erosion in the trust and confidence Canadians have in our institutions, and it is certainly adding to a decline in what we are seeing in many western democracies around the world.

We are going to continue to make sure that Canadians have answers. In terms of the level of importance, I would say it is probably not at the top, but there are questions that need to be answered with respect to this part of the budget implementation act, which is why I stand today to ask that we separate this part of the BIA.

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

Before I go on to questions and answers, I apologize to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount for pointing him out. He is my favourite astronaut, so I took the opportunity. When great Canadians are here, I have to do that.

It looks like he might have a question.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the very generous comments with respect to my previous career.

This is more of a comment than a question, although my colleague may wish to comment on it. Just for his information, Canada joined the Artemis program, which is a NASA program and, as a result of that, we will have a chance to send a Canadian to the moon. The first time it will be to orbit, not to land, but with the expectation, because the U.S. is returning to the moon, that eventually a Canadian will also have the opportunity to land and work on the moon.

We are being forward-thinking in trying to plan the necessary legislation that would apply to that lucky individual who would one day go to the moon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remember when I was a very young boy—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, I just turned 58, so I was not that young, but I remember watching the hon. member and feeling that sense of Canadian pride, and seeing that patch on his shoulder as he flew into space on the space shuttle. It was a terrific moment, a very proud moment as a Canadian to see the hon. member and his colleagues, many of whom have followed in his footsteps.

The Artemis program is probably years away. There are some curious questions in here, as I said, around the amount of tax that astronauts are going to be paying if they are living on the moon, and the relation to the tax court and the Criminal Code and how that applies. These are the kinds of questions that I think we could have had a fulsome debate on in this House, if the government had not moved time allocation and restricted debate on all parliamentarians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo some of the member's words in regard to my colleague, Canada's first astronaut. I believe that on all sides of the House, we are all very proud of him.

An hour ago, the Conservatives were arguing that they wanted to spend hours of debate talking about Taiwan, and now they want to spend hours of debate talking about the moon. I wonder if the member could explain to people who might be observing why the Conservatives are going out of their way to prevent us from talking about legislation that would enable the Province of Quebec to have a guaranteed number of seats.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I want to thank the hon. member.

I am not going to thank the government for imposing Motion No. 11 on us, which extends hours to midnight so that we could debate very important topics that Canadians are seized with. If the hon. member wants to spend time debating these, if he wants to extend sittings to midnight, Conservatives, and I said this the very day we debated Motion No. 11, will be here every single night, as the government requires, to debate those issues that are important to Canadians.

We are also going to be debating government legislation tonight, right up until midnight, Bill C-14. When I rose earlier, how many speakers from the government side were willing to debate that? None. Just as we predicted, it will be the opposition debating government legislation. It will be the opposition asking the opposition questions on government legislation. The government put us in this position to debate these issues that are important to Canadians, just like taxes on the moon and the Criminal Code on the moon, and we are going to be here to debate them as long as we need to.