Debates of May 3rd, 2022

Public Safety

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, MPs continued to work from right here in Parliament throughout the winter protest. In fact, I would walk across Wellington Street at least once a day, with my infant son in a stroller, to come to work.

If the threat was as serious as the government is now making it out to be, did the Minister of Public Safety knowingly put my life and those of my infant son and every single person who works here in danger?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I am very relieved that my colleague was able to access the Hill with the additional protection and safety that was offered by the RCMP, by the Parliamentary Protection Service and by the Sergeant-at-Arms, but there is a big difference between what some of us were able to experience on the Hill and what was going on off the Hill.

There can be no doubt that people who live in Ottawa had their lives completely upended by the illegal occupation here, and that people who lived in border communities had their lives upended. That was because individuals broke the law to a point of a national emergency. That is why we invoked the Emergencies Act. We did it to protect Canadians.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, there were protests in downtown Ottawa. The police, the City and the various stakeholders managed the situation effectively and quickly. It was simply a matter of leadership.

However, last January, the government was completely overwhelmed by the events on Parliament Hill and hid behind the Emergencies Act.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit that he failed to show leadership?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, there are many differences between last winter's protest and last weekend's, which was much smaller.

Last winter's blockade and occupation were illegal. We listened very respectfully to what the police forces told us. Then we very carefully made the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. That decision was necessary. Now we will collaborate with all transparency efforts.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer.

Again, the protest this past weekend was orderly. It was simply a matter of leadership. The Minister of Public Safety said, “first of all, we are relieved because of the good work of the police forces on the ground, including the RCMP, which added resources to assure everyone that public safety would be maintained.” That is what he is repeating today.

How can he still claim today that it was really necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act for the January events?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that it was necessary.

There was a lot of disruption at the border. There was a lot of disruption to the economy. There was a lot of disruption to public safety for many Canadians. Those are the reasons why we invoked the Emergencies Act. It was not an easy decision to make. It was a tough, but necessary decision.

Now, we on this side of the House will be transparent during the inquiry into this process.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in March we were lamenting the fact that immigrants in Quebec had to wait 28 months for the federal government to process their permanent residency applications. Now, just a few weeks later, that delay has jumped to 31 months. The feds are 31 months and 29,000 files behind, some of which have been languishing since 2009.

There is an immigration crisis. The minister cannot just say that everything is fine. He cannot just try to pass the buck. These figures are from his own department.

Can the minister at least name the problem and acknowledge that yes, there is an immigration crisis?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps now would be a good time to talk about the Canada‑Quebec accord.

Quebec is entitled to 28% of the new permanent residents that arrive each year and chooses to welcome 13% of them. It selects 74% of the immigrants who settle in Quebec, and this includes their language skills. The federal government transfers Quebec nearly $700 million a year, with no conditions, for the facilities that provide settlement services such as francization.

We, on this side of the House, will continue to work with Quebec instead of picking fights like the Bloc Québécois.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party says the Bloc wants to pick a fight. The parliamentary secretary just said that the immigration crisis is Quebec's fault. They are the ones picking a fight.

The federal government is currently in court over cases that have dragged on since 2009. That has nothing to do with François Legault's targets; his party did not even exist in 2009. It is not Philippe Couillard's fault either; he had not yet returned to politics. It is not Pauline Marois's fault; it has been going on longer than that.

The system is broken. It has been broken for a long time. When will the federal government take a good look at its own actions instead of blaming Quebec?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy my colleague's energetic style in the House. His position is an honourable one.

As we on this side of the House have said on more than one occasion, immigration is essential to our economy.

As the member knows, Quebec sets its own immigration targets. Last year, the province welcomed nearly 50,000 new permanent residents. This year, Quebec has significantly increased its immigration targets, which will reduce wait times.

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

Mr. Speaker, three things are certain in life: death, taxes and federal government delays in bringing in temporary foreign workers.

However, there is nothing more predictable. Spring arrives at about the same time every year, as does the harvest. Every time, the federal government seems surprised. Every time, farmers face the same delays. Every year, they wonder if the workers will arrive on time.

Ottawa's machinery is broken. If they do not want to fix it, they should transfer the file to Quebec.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we know that immigration is an integral part of addressing the labour shortage.

IRCC is prioritizing work permit processing for in-demand occupations in industries such as health, agriculture, food and seafood production.

I would like to remind the House that in the first quarter of 2022, we processed more than 100,000 work permit applications. That is nearly double the number of work permits processed over the same period last year.

We will continue to ensure that Canadian employers have access to the workers they need.

Health

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if a person wants to visit Big Ben or the Queen, it's no problem. Passengers through Heathrow no longer require tests or proof of vaccination. If they want to visit the Hans Christian Andersen Museum or the Little Mermaid statue by the sea, they should feel free. There are now no travel restrictions in place for tourists visiting Denmark. If they have always dreamed of visiting the Leaning Tower of Pisa or the Trevi Fountain, no health pass is needed.

However, Canada is left behind in a myriad of mandates as tourist season looms. When the Prime Minister said that Canada was back, did he mean the back of the line for ending the mandates?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the last two years have been very difficult for Canadians. A once-in-a-hundred-years pandemic has compelled governments around the world and in Canada to put together a range of measures to protect the health and safety of their citizens.

Over the last few weeks, our federal government has been adjusting these measures. We have removed predeparture tests. We have removed testing at airports. We are now continuing to adjust our measures based on the advice we receive from our public health experts.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, here are a couple of headlines from the past few weeks: “Italy, Greece relax COVID restrictions ahead of tourist season”; “UK Drops All COVID-19 Travel Restrictions”; “Denmark Lifts All Covid-19 Travel Restrictions”. Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Ireland, Romania and Slovenia are all open for travel ahead of summer, and the list goes on.

When will Canadians have the same freedoms that so many others around the world currently enjoy? Very simply put: Does this NDP-Liberal government actually trust Canadians?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the key word, which is “freedom”. The reason we have the freedom to relax those measures in Canada is that many Canadians, in fact, the vast majority of Canadians, have received their first, their second and, in many cases, their third dose.

When we hear the opposition speak about public health measures, but badly about vaccination, we have to make a choice. We cannot have relaxation of public health measures and more freedom without vaccination as we go through COVID-19.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that our duty is to Canadians and ensuring their safety, but these mandates have gone on too long. Canadians are unable to travel to see their ill relatives or attend funerals. Constituents continue to not be able to see their mothers, fathers, siblings or grandparents who are suffering from illnesses. Canadians are looking for hope.

What is the government going to do to end these mandates and reunite Canadians with their families?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, 135,000 is the number of lives lost in the United States because it had a lower vaccination rate than we had in Canada, and 135,000 people is about the size of any one of the ridings in our country. There were 135,000 lives lost because the other country had a lower vaccination rate. That is not only a personal but a social tragedy.

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

Mr. Speaker, Argentina, Costa Rica, Denmark, Hungary, Jamaica, Thailand, Mexico, Norway and Poland are a few of the many countries that have ended all their vaccine mandates. Even citizens of Cuba, a country with an interesting connection to the Prime Minister, have more freedom to travel than Canadians. However, the Liberal government maintains one of the most restrictive vaccine regimes around the world.

On what day will seven million Canadians get to fly again?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague never agreed with any of the public health measures we put in place. He never supported vaccine mandates—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order. If we let the minister answer, then members can ask another question. It is easy to get on the list. They can talk to their whips and get on the list.

The hon. Minister of Transport.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that these measures are temporary and we will always consult our public health experts on how to proceed forward.

Let me just say to my hon. Conservative colleagues that they cannot, on the one hand, agree that vaccines save lives and, on the other hand, call them vindictive measures. That does not add up. They have to tell Canadians that they believe vaccines save lives. Do they agree with that or not?

The Environment

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today, 112 organizations wrote a letter saying fossil fuel subsidies are undermining our climate goals. The government is fuelling the crisis, handing out billions of dollars to big oil and gas. Today, the minister defended his newest subsidy citing the IPCC, but the Liberals lobbied to highlight this flawed approach. Despite that, the report says carbon capture is the least effective and most expensive option.

Why is the government listening to big oil instead of the science?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, this government remains committed to the phasing out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, but fossil fuel subsidies do not include the measures that are intended to reduce carbon emissions. If my hon. colleague would actually read the IPCC report, it talks about carbon capture and sequestration as being an enabling technology to reduce emissions around the world.