Debates of May 3rd, 2022

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a fan of action. I am not saying that everything is bad, but I just pointed out that there are some big files that the government is not even working on.

I am not the one saying this. We are hearing this from workers. A just and fair transition is not a pipe dream. The government will have to allocate resources. When a door is closed in one industry, another door needs to open. That is the reality.

I am sorry, but the government and the Liberals should at least have the decency to admit that they made a commitment to reform EI back in 2015 and have yet to follow through. It is another broken promise.

Meanwhile, the government waits for a crisis or a pandemic and then improvises some emergency measures. What we need are safe, predictable measures, and the government has failed in that respect.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, we agree on the urgent need for EI reform. I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to talk a little more about what kind of reform she thinks is needed to create a good EI system, for example, the number of hours required to be eligible, the level of wage replacement or other things she thinks make up a good system.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that my colleague knows very well what the answer is, since the entire labour movement, including the Canadian Labour Congress, Quebec's four central labour unions, and several other unions, such as the unemployed workers' associations, have raised a number of issues.

Furthermore, on our initiative, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities conducted a study on this subject, so I think that the solutions are known.

However, what I find unfortunate and do not understand is how the NDP, when it signed its pact with the Liberal government, could fail to consider the fact that the central labour unions told all the candidates during the last election that EI was a priority for the unemployed workers' associations.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville talked about measures that would help workers and help our industries. We heard about labour market impact assessments, temporary foreign workers and anti-scab legislation. These are measures that would not cost a penny.

We know that the government is too cheap to help workers. The member for Winnipeg North had to go all the way back to 2015, 2016 and 2017 to tell us the last things that the government did for workers.

How can the government be so cheap that it will not help workers even when it does not cost a penny?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe it is a matter of political choice. Take, for example, the anti-scab legislation that has been part of the Quebec Labour Code since 1977. It is now 2022 and the federal government still does not have such legislation. Adopting provisions for fair treatment is a choice.

Does the government really value the right of association? Does it value just and fair working conditions? Those are questions for the government, because having to look back 20 years does not give us a good idea of what it will do tomorrow.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for granting its consent, which gives me the opportunity to say a few words today. I hope to use this time to make some relevant remarks.

Let us get one thing straight. The member for Winnipeg North tacitly accused my colleague of finding excuses, false reasons and pretexts for voting against Bill C-19. Let me be perfectly clear. We will be voting in favour of the principle of the bill. We will work hard in committee to rework the bill, but we will vote in favour of its principle.

Incidently, I would encourage my colleague not to applaud me too quickly. I would be concerned. Several things need to be addressed. The only reason we are voting in favour of the bill is to amend it, and quite extensively in certain areas.

Let us talk about the process first. We are dealing with a bill that is a real juggernaut. It is a thick tome of some 500 pages with about 60 measures that amend 37 laws, along with several concurrence amendments. The summary alone is eight pages long. This is a bit of a kitchen-sink bill. It includes budgetary measures, non-budgetary measures, minor measures, as well as apple pie measures, as we say back home. At the same time, it also includes much more substantial things. I think a distinction should have been made between minor legislative amendments or small measures and much more substantial and profound measures that should have been examined separately. It includes measures to update certain things, as well as provisions from three bills that presumably would have died on the Order Paper.

That is the issue we have with this government and this parliamentary culture. We are constantly having these tomes forced on us and have to live with “all or nothing”. We have to agree with it all or reject it all. What we call a parliamentary monarchy is a bit of a paradox that way. We are told that, in this system, Parliament is the ruler. However, we are still in a system where, as the word “monarchy” implies, transparency is sorely lacking and where, all too often, a parliamentarian's purpose is to rubber-stamp mammoth bills, legislative monstrosities, like the ones that have been surreptitiously foisted on us.

What it boils down to is that the Bloc Québécois opposed the budget statement. As everyone knows, we voted against the budget. However, we are prepared to live with the principle at this point. I said “principle” because we are not ready to commit to supporting it to the full extent, unlike a certain other opposition party. We will see what happens next, when it is studied in committee, but we are willing to live with the principle because we think that many of the bugs that were in the budget are not in this bill. For example, the budget announced massive oil subsidies, including for carbon capture. There was also the issue of small nuclear reactors, and the budget contained major conditions and major intrusions on the health care systems of the provinces and Quebec. Fortunately, none of that is in this bill.

In addition, there are a few urgent measures that have been mentioned and on which we agree, particularly with regard to EI. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville explained that well, and there are some significant grey areas that were well clarified in the last speech.

There are also some measures that look interesting on paper and several that require closer inspection. One that I find particularly interesting is the obligation for federally regulated pension fund managers to disclose climate-related information. That is a first step towards what we call green finance, which is an important issue for my colleague from Mirabel. What we need to do is reorient our banking and financial systems toward supporting the energy transition instead of the energy of the past, fossil fuels. That calls for political will.

Some things look interesting on paper. One of those is aerospace, which is a very important file.

Bill C‑19 includes a tax on select luxury items. This was already in budget 2021, which reads as follows:

... it is also fair to ask those who have prospered in this bleak year to do a little more to help those who have not. That is why we are introducing a luxury tax on new cars and private aircraft [manufactured after 2018 and seating up to 39 passengers] worth more than $100,000 and pleasure boats worth more than $250,000.

Here is another excerpt:

If you've been lucky enough, or smart enough, or hard-working enough, to afford to spend $100,000 on a car, or $250,000 on a boat – congratulations! And thank you for contributing a little bit of that good fortune to help heal the wounds of COVID and invest in our future collective prosperity.

When we read that on paper, there is no problem. The Bloc Québécois is fine with the wealthy contributing more. The division of wealth takes political will as well. It is too bad there is not as much will to combat tax havens, but that is another story. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the division of wealth because it is a social democratic party. We have no problem with that.

Now, the problem is that, unfortunately, the devil is all too often in the details. The way the bill is written, all new aircraft designed after 2018, including planes, helicopters or gliders with a maximum capacity under 40 seats, including corporate aircraft, will be subject to the tax. Aircraft usually used for commercial activities, like the ones equipped for carrying passengers or designed exclusively for transporting goods, are excluded.

As I was just saying, the Bloc Québécois agrees in principle. The idea of a tax on luxury items and luxury jets sounds good.

However, we do have major concerns about the negative impact of the tax. As described in Bill C‑19, it is a tax on the Quebec aerospace industry. I can say that we have had various meetings with the aerospace industry, which is a key sector. The late Jean Lapierre used to say that aerospace was to Quebec what the auto sector was to Ontario.

Quebec is the third-largest aerospace cluster in the world, after Seattle and Toulouse. These three clusters are in three different countries. Canada is the only country with such an important cluster that does not have an aerospace policy, and Bill C‑19 does nothing to fix that.

I want to come back to the luxury tax. We have had meetings on this. I have had meetings with several industry players. Both the unions and the companies, including Bombardier, are concerned about this, as are the associations that represent small and medium-sized businesses in the industry. Obviously, when we think of aerospace, Bombardier immediately comes to mind, but there are a lot of very innovative, powerful and dynamic SMEs in the greater Montreal area, especially in Longueuil and on the north shore. There are a lot of them. Everyone is worried. Generally speaking, workers' associations can hardly be said to favour seeing the bosses line their pockets and not getting a share of the income and wealth, so when workers' associations, SMEs and large companies are in agreement, it is a sign that there is a real consensus on the fact that this tax must be reviewed and reworked. As it stands, it will fundamentally harm an industry that has not gotten the policy it deserves.

Last November, my colleague from Mirabel and I issued a statement. We would have liked to see the government get involved in aircraft salvage. North America is a huge aircraft graveyard right now. Given that Airbus has announced that it intends to accelerate aircraft recycling by creating partnerships with several regions in the world, we would have liked to see Ottawa hurry up and seize this opportunity.

We therefore reluctantly support this bill, but the Bloc Québécois will be extremely active when studying it in committee in order to fix its many problems.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment with regard to supporting the principle of the bill and it going to committee. We look forward to having an ongoing discussion on the aerospace industry, which is an industry we are all concerned about. We know how prominent the province of Quebec is in that industry worldwide, but the province of Manitoba also has a very healthy aerospace industry. I do not think it will be affected as much by what is being proposed, but yes: Let us have that dialogue in committee and see what we can come up with.

I would ask the member to provide his thoughts on the difference, let us say, between a $350,000 luxury boat and a $350,000 light aircraft or private aircraft. Does he distinguish a difference in terms of the value of taxation potential or whatever it might be?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member raised many points and I wonder which one to respond to and how. Like the 500-page bill, there are both good and not-so-good aspects. Let me try to summarize.

I recognize that Manitoba has an aerospace sector, as do other provinces. However, it cannot be denied that this industry's main hub is in the greater Montreal area. Trying to make this distinction, or watering down this interpretation, plays into the fact that there is no aerospace policy or concrete strategy.

With regard to that aircraft, the problem with this tax is how it is applied. Why does it apply to the aircraft, not the travel, and why is it based on criteria that often focus on the number of seats? That creates problems.

We spoke to Bombardier, which estimates that the impact on its cash flow could be in the range of $50 million to $150 million per quarter. That is huge. The government is carving up our cherished aerospace industry. It took generations to build, but the government's actions will destroy it all in just a few years.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will have two minutes and 48 seconds the next time this bill is before the House.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from March 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to comment on the bill introduced by the member for Dufferin—Caledon, Bill C‑242, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act regarding temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents.

This bill would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by making a number of specific changes. I know these changes may seem quite minor in theory, but despite its modest appearance, the bill will bring about major changes for many families in Quebec and Canada.

Before I begin, I would like to put things in context. In my riding, Trois-Rivières, an organization called La Maison des Grands-Parents celebrated its 20th anniversary yesterday. The connection to Bill C‑242 is that, for the past 20 years, La Maison des Grands-Parents has been a place for civic engagement, a place where senior volunteers strive to make life better for the children and families they work with. By sharing their knowledge, these volunteers cultivate a meaningful intergenerational connection and contribute to the well-being of their community. I would actually like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all the volunteers as well as board chair Éliane Touchette.

Having said that, I want to say that it is impossible to be unmoved by the member for Dufferin—Caledon's bill. This bill makes very significant changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Bill C‑242 will make it easier for parents and grandparents to immigrate if they are sponsored by a child or grandchild who is a permanent resident or citizen of Canada. Since they have temporary status, these immigrants do not cost the government anything. Furthermore, although I do not have precise statistics on the number of super visas issued per year, we know that there are fewer than 20,000 nationwide. This represents a fairly marginal proportion of 1% to 2%. For the years 2017, 2018, and 2019, about 1.6 million, 1.9 million, and 1.7 million temporary resident visas were issued annually.

Moreover, the few thousand people who currently qualify for a super visa are generally people of considerable means. Both the children in Canada and the parents who come over are financially secure.

However, what can the less well off do?

First off, allow me to clarify a few things. It is not possible to exist in society without creating ties or links. The word “link” comes from the Latin word ligare, meaning to encircle or surround. Links imply proximity, meaning nearness. Back when the word “religion” was invented, it was a combination of “re-” and “ligare”, or re-link. It always comes back to proximity.

There is also the word “reliance”, which we hear a lot about these days. It refers to creating links between people or systems. “Reliance” is a psychosocial need to break out of isolation. No one wants to be alone in the world. We all need family in order to know who we are.

When we talk about parents and grandparents, we are talking about blood ties, filial relationships, an emotional and moral connection that is impossible to deny. Victor Hugo once said, “There is no grandfather who does not adore his grandson”.

Obviously, a bill is not a simple thing. The Department of Immigration sometimes provides a practical illustration of boundless Kafkaesque absurdity. There needs to be a framework to ensure that the purpose of the bill is achieved and that the people it is meant to serve can benefit from it.

Beyond giving families the chance to obtain permanent residency, there are many socio‑economic benefits to the bill. Having grandparents around will allow parents to dispense with child care for a few moments or even free parents from having to pay for child care. In that sense, the arrival of family members allows working-age immigrants to fully participate in the workforce and in the Quebec and Canadian economy.

It is estimated that between 38% and 50% of children under six will have an immigrant background by 2036, so the availability of child care options for the parents of these children will be all the more important. A number of studies are highlighting the socio‑economic difficulties often associated with this new start for families. It seems pretty clear to me that bringing parents and grandparents over will make life easier for many of our fellow citizens who have immigrated here.

This will give the entire reunited family more quality time together.

However, it concerns me when I read that immigrant parents are currently less likely to use child care services less than non-immigrant parents.

Bill C-242 aims to address this by providing alternatives to paid child care, which will be beneficial for immigrant families.

Quebec has a public child care system that is a source of pride. It is an accessible service that was established in 1997, and it remains just as relevant and useful today as it ever was. This service enables women in particular to enter or return to the labour market.

We need as many workers as we can get. No one should be left behind. Neither Quebec nor Canada can afford to lose talent. We know that many immigrant parents do not use child care services because they are too expensive. Although the changes brought about by Bill C‑242 will affect only a small portion of the immigrants entering Quebec and Canada each year, if this bill can help create alternatives to paid child care for immigrant families, it will be worth it.

I want to ask the following question in a broader sense. What is keeping us from moving forward? What is keeping us from doing for immigrant families what the Maison des Grands‑Parents does for the people of Trois‑Rivières? Nothing, absolutely nothing is keeping us from doing better.

To be human is to share the world with others. No one wants to be alone. We all want to find our family, those with whom we share a common origin. We must break the isolation. Let us rebuild the link that has been broken by circumstances.

I confirm that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑242 introduced by the member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in support of Bill C-242. I would like to thank the member for Dufferin—Caledon for bringing it forward as a crucial step in reuniting new Canadians and refugees with their families.

Separation of families, parents and children, or grandparents and children is often a by-product of Canada's deeply broken immigration system. It is something we are all very much aware of. In the past few years, with the COVID pandemic and many humanitarian crises around the world, we have witnessed disturbing trends with regard to the functioning of our much-needed immigration system, whether it is the thousands of refugee applications pending as people face imminent danger in their home countries, or the backlogs or strict restrictions for temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents that prevent the reunification of families.

I am deeply disheartened by the effects that these delays and restrictions have had on real people: families and individuals who are simply seeking peace. I know first-hand the devastating effects of not being able to be with loved ones. Canada has a history of separating families, and particularly indigenous families. Let us not repeat and continue this legacy.

Families should not have to go through long and very difficult ordeals just to be together. Families are an important and critical aspect of how we understand our quality of life, and when we do not have our children, our parents or our grandparents with us, especially after a very difficult life, where does the healing begin?

New Democrats strongly support making family reunification processes easier so that people can reunite with their loved ones. It is critical. I am positive that the measures contained within this bill would help to fill some of the gaps, such as the increase in the length of time, for example, that a temporary resident can stay in Canada while visiting their child or grandchild. It would raise the cap from two years to five years. The reduction of the minimum income requirement is also a helpful course of action. These are real, tangible solutions.

However, I recognize that this bill is simply a short-term solution to a deeply seated problem in our immigration system. For years, Liberal and Conservative governments have made grave errors in the way temporary foreign visas and the parent-grandparent sponsorship program applications are processed. During the Harper government, for example, in 2011, records that were found through access to information requests demonstrated that over 150,000 applications were ultimately denied, and these were all contained within a backlog.

The government at the time then doubled down and created a restriction for further applications to limit the wait. It refused to learn from previous mistakes and made matters worse. The two-year moratorium on applications created a massive backlog that families are still reeling from today.

Then, the Liberal government promised voters a reformed, streamlined immigration process to fix decades or years of pain. It went on to introduce an arbitrary lottery system that made the parent-grandparent sponsorship program the only immigration stream in Canada based on a lucky draw. This meant that a random selection system determined the fate of thousands of families while throwing out many of the applications because they did not pre-screen for eligibility.

Clearly, this system failed horribly. It was replaced by a first-come, first-served basis. This process took eight minutes to fill to capacity, disadvantaging many others who were unable to attain an online connection because they did not have the technology, such as a cellphone or computer, in their place of origin to file online.

What happened to the many applications that were unable to get in by the first-come, first-served basis? They waited. The families waited. In fact, at the time of this program and the first-come, first-served debacle, 70 families filed a lawsuit because they were unable to get the application in time. The government quietly settled that. The government proposed a visa application process that continues to remain inaccessible and to cause deep hardship to deserving families. It is an unfortunate reality continuing to be faced by thousands in our country.

In my constituency of Edmonton Griesbach, we are home to many new Canadians, refugees and immigrants who have waited a long time to come to safety, to seek refuge and peace, and to seek a new way and a new life. They finally have a chance to breathe, to catch up with loved ones and make up the lost time due to crisis and international conflict. It is something that will take many supports and much family to heal.

I know personally of a constituent in my community who has been in Canada for over 10 years. This whole time, his family has been stuck in South Sudan. When the situation got too difficult in South Sudan, their family had to flee to Egypt, where they continued to wait for their family to be able to sponsor them to bring them here. He was separated from his wife and children.

He applied and fortunately the application for his wife went well. The application for the three children, however, did not. As South Sudanese people are not issued a birth certificate at birth, he had to obtain them through a separate process all together. The visa officer, however, did not consider their certificates to be valid and the children's eligibility was not approved. They were asked for DNA testing. The embassy refused to help with this.

Finally, the mother, in order to satisfy the permanent resident request, did have to come to Canada, but that meant leaving three of her children behind. Those three children are ages four, eight and 12. They are now expected to find some way to figure out DNA testing all by themselves, while also simultaneously not having a birth certificate that is recognized. How is a four year old supposed to do that? It is devastating and heartbreaking.

Another constituent of mine is a Syrian refugee. His wife and one of his kids are in Canada. However, his 12-year-old daughter is stuck in Saudi Arabia by herself. One son is stuck in Turkey. Both kids have deep mental health breakdowns and hardships every single day. There is nothing wrong with their applications, but the processing time is literally killing them. This time away from family and away from loved ones can leave scars that last a lifetime.

Again, I would like to further recommend that the government address the long-standing failures of IRCC as a department and reallocate funds for other streams in order to reduce the backlog. I want to conclude by thanking my hon. colleague for tabling this critical, shortstop measure, which would reunite families and save lives. I look forward to hearing my colleagues' speeches.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the member for Dufferin—Caledon, a member of the Conservative caucus, for putting forward this bill. It is a bill that very much reflects Conservative Party values and emphasizes the importance of open and fair immigration. It is also a bill that is very pro-family. It recognizes the value of strong families and of families being able to spend time with each other, and the need to have creative measures that allow for families to spend time together.

What we really need to reflect on in terms of reforms to our immigration system is the value of family and extended family and how we can promote family connectedness so that people do not have to suffer through these processes and spending long periods of time away from close family members in the context of waiting for applications to be processed or in the case of other situations. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to that a bit today.

Specifically, the bill put forward, Bill C-242, by the member for Dufferin—Caledon, would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as follows:

to allow a parent or grandparent who applies for a temporary resident visa as a visitor to purchase private health insurance outside Canada and to stay in Canada for a period of five years.

It would also require the Minister of Immigration to prepare a report on possibly reducing the minimum income requirement for a child or grandchild. This recognizes the value of what is often called a “super visa”, supporting family members so they can be together and support each other.

A bit of context is important here. Very often, families are looking at sponsoring members of their immediate or extended family to come to Canada for permanent immigration. That is a valuable channel, but there are limits to it. There is an additional option, one that maybe reflects the desire of some family members who would like to come and stay for a long time in Canada but do not plan on permanently immigrating here. I believe it was a Conservative government that developed the idea of having a super visa program as an additional channel for people. The super visa is for people who are not immigrating permanently to Canada but would simply like to come here, be with family members, like children and grandchildren, and spend extended periods of time with them.

As a condition, those who come are expected to purchase private health care and are therefore not relying on the public system. This is very reasonable. We should not stick ourselves in this binary of saying that either people do not come or they come and immediately have all the social services associated with someone who has a permanent presence in Canada. Instead, we can create mechanisms that allow people to come and spend significant amounts of time in Canada with family members, while paying privately for insurance. At the same time, we should look to make these channels more accessible and more reasonable so that more people can take advantage of these opportunities to be together as a family.

The super visa program is a very good program and a very popular program, and for those who are able to fit into this stream, it really achieves the best of all possible worlds. It is beneficial to Canadian society to have these folks come and be with family members and provide various kinds of support to their families. Also, again, it recognizes the fact that there are some limits in the permanent immigration stream regarding parents and grandparents. It strengthens this particular stream and allows those who may not wish to be here permanently to nonetheless come and be present in and supportive of their families.

Needless to say, the value of extended families is well known, I think, to all Canadians. For many cultural communities, there is a particular recognition of and appreciation for the role being played by extended family members. As I give this speech now, I have five children at home, and I am very glad that my mother-in-law is able to visit and play such a key supportive role in our family. That enables me to travel and enables my wife to do all the things she does. For newcomers to Canada who do not have the benefit of grandparents being here in Canada, that can create some really significant challenges.

Having that super visa channel available and extending it to five years, making it more accessible and making it easier for people to make those health care insurance purchases by giving them a broader range of options of who they can purchase from, makes that transition so much easier for people who are living and working here in Canada. This is really designed to ease that process. Again, it reflects a Conservative understanding of the value of family connections, both within the idea of a nuclear or immediate family, but also within the extended family and the supports that are provided there.

This is an excellent bill, but there are many more things that the government needs to do, and that Conservatives are calling on the government to do, to address the unnecessary pressures on families that are associated with our immigration system right now.

One of the main complaints we are hearing in our offices is the strain that is created for families by backlogs. The fact is that across a broad range of immigration categories, there are huge delays, and this forces families to be apart from each other for much longer than they should be. The idea that people have to wait years, for instance, to have a spouse come to Canada, or that they have to wait years for other members of their families or for caregivers to come to Canada who meet all the requirements and are very much needed, is an issue that we need to really get to the bottom of.

This affects the issue of refugee sponsorship as well. The delay, I think, is three years for private refugee sponsorship, so Canadian community groups, church groups and others who are waiting to sponsor vulnerable refugees have to wait for a three-year period. It may be that those refugees are in a vulnerable situation: they may be in need of ongoing financial support where they are or their security may be in question, yet they are sitting and waiting while the Canadian sponsors are sitting and waiting for that long processing delay. Those lengthy delays are simply unacceptable, and they require urgent action by the government and by all of us.

In our last concern of the election platform, I was very proud of some of the concrete proposals that Conservatives put forward in terms of expediting, processing and addressing the long backlogs. Of course, the adjudication process is critically important, but it needs to be timely. It is always tragic when families are forced to be apart for years for no reason other than bureaucratic delay, so we need to do much better. The government needs to do much better in terms of ensuring a lean, effective and results-driven immigration system. We all see these frustrations in our offices right now, and this is why we have really been pushing forward on the issue of backlogs across the range of categories.

As well, my colleague for Dufferin—Caledon gave notice of motion at the immigration committee today on a motion to call for addressing the backlogs in citizenship applications, which is a different issue from immigration applications. There are various elections coming up in different parts of the country. Here in Ontario, there is going to be a provincial election relatively soon, and people who would otherwise be eligible for their citizenship and would participate in that election are waiting in longer and longer queues to get their citizenship applications processed. It is not just on the front of families being together, but it is on other fronts, such as people being able to exercise their democratic rights and other things where the issue of delays, inefficiencies and backlogs within the immigration system has concrete negative effects for families. We put forward some concrete proposals in our last election platform around addressing this. I think it is very important.

I will conclude by congratulating the member for Dufferin—Caledon and recognizing the work that he is doing in trying to strengthen and make more accessible the super visa program. This very much aligns with our vision of a family-friendly immigration policy: one that recognizes the value of strong families and of families being able to be together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon for his work on this legislation.

The government is firmly committed to reuniting families and their loved ones abroad. Family members are an important part of our immigration system.

Canada has one of the most generous and comprehensive family reunification programs in the world. Through this program, we help to keep families together and contribute to the integration of immigrants, who are an important part of the success of our communities across our country. Parents and grandparents want to visit their adult children and grandchildren. Likewise, Canadian citizens and permanent residents benefit from the support of their parents and grandparents.

Parents and grandparents of Canadian citizens and permanent residents who wish to visit their family for a longer period can apply for a parent and grandparent super visa. This process is authorized through ministerial instructions.

The super visa is a multiple-entry visa that is valid for up to 10 years and allows for stays of up to two years at a time. Super visa holders may also request an extension of their stay for up to an additional two years while in Canada, and there are no limits on the number of extensions they can request.

Since the super visa allows for longer stays than a regular temporary resident visa, applicants must meet additional medical and financial criteria. These criteria include a medical exam, private medical insurance from a Canadian company and financial support from a child/grandchild host, who must meet an income cut-off minimum based on their family size.

These important safeguards are in place to ensure that this potentially vulnerable population has financial support and protection in the event of a medical emergency while in Canada.

They also ensure that there is no undue burden on the Canadian taxpayer through unpaid medical bills. This is particularly important, as demonstrated by our experience during the pandemic, when many health care systems across the country are strained. This private member's bill, Bill C-242, proposes to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow a parent or grandparent to stay in Canada for five years under the super visa and to purchase private health care insurance from outside Canada. It also requires the minister to table a report on reducing the income requirements that the child or grandchild must meet for the parent or grandparent to qualify for a super visa.

While the government supports many principles of Bill C-242, we have concerns that it would reduce our ability to ensure that parents and grandparents are arriving with adequate supports during their stay. We also continue to look out for the best interests of Canadian taxpayers.

First, the act is not the appropriate instrument to make program changes to super visa conditions. Parliament intended for the act to serve as framework legislation, which authorizes the making of regulations and ministerial instructions. As I stated, the super visa is authorized through these ministerial instructions. As such, we propose amendments to Bill C-242 to maintain the authority for super visa conditions under ministerial instructions. This would allow the government to respond quickly to the emerging needs of clients, rather than necessitating a lengthy legislative process.

The government supports the member's proposal to increase the length of stay per entry. However, we propose to extend this from the current two years to three. Once again, this would be changed through ministerial instructions. Since super visa holders already have the opportunity to extend their stay in Canada for up to two years, this means parents and grandparents could then stay in Canada for up to five years without needing to leave the country.

The government believes that increasing the length of stay any further would negate the spirit of the super visa, which is to support temporary residence in Canada. Increasing the length of stay beyond three years without needing to request an extension could lead to visitors establishing more permanent connections to Canada, and this would undermine the purpose of having a legal framework to address temporary residents.

The government does not support the member's proposal to allow super visa applicants to purchase private health insurance from foreign companies.

Private health insurance is required through a Canadian company, and this is to ensure super visa holders, who are a potentially vulnerable population, have sufficient and reliable medical insurance in case of a health emergency while in Canada. This is an important component of the super visa. The government believes that allowing super visa holders to purchase insurance from companies outside Canada could introduce various risks. Applicants might purchase coverage from unregulated or fraudulent providers, for example, and this could have devastating consequences to parents and grandparents, as well as for our health care system.

We have actually seen what can happen when parents and grandparents arrive on regular visas that do not require emergency medical insurance. We know of several cases when parents were visiting on a regular visitor visa and experienced a medical emergency, such as a stroke, during their stay. They did not have health insurance and incurred medical bills worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. These stories underscore the importance of ensuring that super visa holders are protected with appropriate health insurance during their visit.

I would like to also note that allowing super visa holders to obtain coverage from international health insurance providers, as proposed in the hon. member's bill, could pose significant complexities for the government to verify the coverage. To ensure the validity of foreign health care providers for coverage and billing purposes, IRCC would have to establish a complex and costly designation framework to establish pre-approved insurance options from abroad. With respect to Bill C-242's final proposal, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship commits to tabling a report to Parliament to review the current financial requirements for children or grandchildren.

While the Government supports a review of this requirement, I wish to underscore that we believe a financial requirement remains a necessary and important component of the super visa. While family reunification is an important part of our immigration system, it should not place undue financial burdens on Canadian taxpayers, and visitors should be adequately supported during their stay.

I will state once again that the super visa's minimum necessary income requirement is in place to ensure the host child or grandchild can provide for the basic requirements of their visiting family members while they are in Canada. This is also key to maintaining public support for the super visa, which facilitates longer stays of parents and grandparents.

The government is committed to family reunification. We must maintain an immigration system that meets the needs of Canadians if we want to take full advantage of this system.

The government believes the current conditions of the super visa adequately balance the interests of families that wish to reunite with their loved ones, as well as those of all Canadians, as it protects their hard-earned taxpayer services.

The super visa enables us to reunite families quickly and for longer periods. At the same time, the government is able to adequately manage the operations of this program under its current framework. For over a decade, the super visa has remained a popular and accessible option for Canadian citizens and permanent residents to reunite with their parents and grandparents, with approximately 17,000 super visas issued each year.

I believe it is a highly successful program by any measure. That being said, the government always remains open to finding ways to improve our programs and policies.

Although the government supports the spirit and intent of Bill C‑242, it will only support this bill with the proposed amendments. The goal is to ensure the integrity and long-term viability of the highly successful super visa program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if she is listening, but I must commend the member for Saint-Jean for the thorough job she has done. She gave a remarkable speech during the previous reading of this bill, which has greatly inspired my speech today. She was again inspiring today when she asked her question to the House and especially when she moved the motion about a woman's right to have free reign over her own body. Unfortunately, this motion was defeated, because some dinosaurs, primarily on the Conservative benches, voted against it. I think it is a disgrace, in the history of this country, to have voted against that motion. I hope that those who did will look at how they voted today. It proved to me that I am not truly Canadian. Today, in Quebec's National Assembly, a similar motion passed unanimously. Once again, that proved to me that Quebec is my country.

I will come back to the bill. I also want to commend the member for Dufferin—Caledon for his patience, as he has been waiting a number of months for his bill to move forward. To start, I will quickly explain what a super visa is, for those who are listening today. Basically, it is a visa, a travel document, designed for parents and grandparents. It does not permit the holder to work during their stay. It allows multiple entries of a period of up to two years. There are certain requirements, but the two most important ones are that the applicant must have medical insurance from a Canadian company and must prove that the child or grandchild who will be hosting them here has the financial capacity to support them. This means that there is a minimum income threshold that must be proven by the child or grandchild in order for the parent or grandparent to be issued the visa.

It will shock no one to hear that I am in favour of this bill.

For many families that want to bring their parents and grandparents to Canada, the logistics, paperwork and delays are an onerous and immense administrative burden. What these families often want is to sponsor their parents or grandparents and bring them here permanently. The super visa being considered provides the opportunity to have one's parents here while the sponsorship and permanent residence application is being processed. It is also another option for those not picked in the lottery.

That system is very restrictive. Few people manage to get a sponsorship application for parents or grandparents. I would like to add one thing: Right now, every time we check, the government has a backlog for almost all immigration programs.

It would be a good idea to fast-track and simplify the process for those who in all likelihood would receive a favourable decision. I think that would be all right.

The bill would also make some minor but specific changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We know this will apply to a relatively small number of the temporary residence visas granted every year. We also know that, because they have temporary status, these immigrants will not end up costing the federal or provincial governments anything. Lastly, we know that the few thousand people granted the existing super visa are generally people of significant financial means. Applicants have proof of funds, and parents and grandparents have prepaid health insurance. In essence, they have to be financially secure. They pose no risk to anybody.

What exactly is a super visa? What will this bill change? Bill C‑242 makes four changes. First, visitors must purchase private health insurance outside Canada. Current eligibility criteria require applicants to purchase insurance from a Canadian company. Yesterday, I was talking about supply and demand in a previous speech, and it is the same idea. This could expand the pool of insurance companies, which will probably reduce insurance costs for super visa applicants.

As my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, mentioned, all it takes is a quick search to see that this kind of insurance coverage is extremely expensive. For a young person in their forties with no known health issues, it can cost between $1,000 and $1,500. For people slightly older or with any health problems, insurance coverage can cost up to $6,000 or even $7,000 a year. For parents or grandparents, it can cost about $10,000 annually. This does not include all the costs associated with the immigration process.

As I said, yes, these people do have resources, but that is no reason to stop them from shopping around for insurance. Just because they have resources does not mean that they should not be able to shop around.

The bill requires that foreign insurance companies be accredited by the minister, which ensures that the company is legitimate and that its coverage is compatible with our health care systems.

By opening up the market to competition, we take away Canadian companies' monopoly on this type of insurance coverage. I am not an economist, but I have friends who are, and they confirm that I am right to believe this is a basic way to reduce the cost of coverage.

It will also allow some foreign nationals to combine this insurance coverage with a policy they already have for their home or vehicle. People might be able to save money, which, I imagine, could be used to settle here, buy goods and contribute to the economy.

What is more, Bill C‑242 extends the period of time a person can stay in Canada without having to renew the document from two years to five years. This would help minimize several current irritants. The super visa is a multiple-entry visa, and it is valid for a maximum of 10 years.

The number of round trips that parents and grandparents have to make between Canada and their country of origin increases airfare costs. This measure alone would be significantly reduce those costs.

As well, renewing the permit every two years very often requires a medical exam for the insurance premium. It is obvious that, over a total span of 10 years, the grandparents’ health could change, which could result in higher premiums and, more importantly, add some unpredictability to their stay in the country.

Going back to what I was saying, it is clear to me that as long as these people do not pose a financial risk to taxpayers, we should try to make life easier for them and their children who are hosting and taking care of them.

I mentioned earlier that these children, who are permanent residents or outright citizens, must have a minimum of financial means. Bill C-242 does not propose to reduce or abolish the requirement to prove that someone has the financial means to look after their parents or grandparents.

Instead, the bill proposes that the minister review the need to maintain the income requirement or threshold. Thanks to my colleague from Saint-Jean, I have learned that many people are talking about repealing it altogether. If the minister decides in the next two years to maintain this low income cut-off at its current level, he will have to explain why he wishes to keep it in place.

This bill is therefore not very compelling for parliamentarians. It seeks a review of the relevance of a legislative measure, something that I think is ultimately reasonable and commonly done.

When it comes to spousal sponsorships, Quebec does not even assess the spouses' financial capacity, and it nevertheless works very well.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has already looked into something similar and made a recommendation regarding the sponsorship of parents and grandparents.

The study on this aspect could help determine whether this threshold is appropriate in different places across Canada. The cost of living is not the same everywhere, as we know. Could there be different sponsors depending on where the individuals will be living? I think this would be a positive thing.

It would also acknowledge the fact that many families see a positive financial impact when parents and grandparents come to stay with them, since it allows them to rejoin the job market.

I could go on at length, but as parliamentarians we have a duty to set partisanship aside and address our constituents' problems.

I want to reiterate that what happened today in the House of Commons with respect to the motion the member for Saint‑Jean tried to move is unacceptable and shameful for this Parliament. It just reinforced my belief that Canada is not my country. My country is Quebec.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite delighted to rise today to speak to this very important issue of Bill C-242: the reuniting families act. This bill proposes to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow a parent or grandparent who applies for a temporary resident visa as a visitor to purchase private health insurance outside Canada, and to stay in Canada for a period of five years. I am hoping that we can bring this bill into committee to study this very good idea more, and really understand the implications of this idea and how it would impact constituents in my riding and across Canada.

One of the main issues that I face in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills, with over 50% of the population being first-generation immigrants, and a population of professionals and double-income households, is the issue of child care and raising kids within Mississauga—Erin Mills and the impact of grandparents. I immigrated to Canada when I was 12 years old, and one of the most beneficial things I was able to experience in my childhood was spending my summers with my grandparents from both my mom's side and my dad's side. I learned a lot from them. I learned the value of family from them. This is what I hear a lot from my constituents who are first-generation immigrants and who want their kids, born in Canada, to have that same experience.

The importance of having family here in Canada is paramount not just in building strong communities and strong families, but also in terms of our economic prosperity. As I mentioned, we have double-income households in my riding. One of the main issues that my constituents face is child care. I do not just mean having somebody to look over kids throughout the day, but having quality child care with family values and that all-encompassing upbringing that our kids deserve. Grandparents really fulfill that role.

Over the past seven years that I have been serving as the member of Parliament for Mississauga—Erin Mills, this has been one of the top issues that my constituents have raised. They apply for the super visa, as we call it, so that their parents can come and go as they please to make sure that they are well connected with their grandkids and with their kids, who are living meaningful lives here in Canada. Often, especially over the past two years, I have seen that there is a huge delay in how these super visas are being processed, wherever in the world they are being processed, and there is an impact on families. I have a constituent who recently went through a major surgery and she wanted her mom be here with her, but her visa had expired. She had applied for another super visa and waited and waited. The surgery came and the surgery went, and she still did not have a decision on her super visa.

That issue of private health insurance is a really big one. When and if we move this private member's bill into committee to study this issue further, I think we could really help constituents such as mine to be able to support their families here in Canada and be able to get the support they need, not only in terms of how they are operating but also how they are raising their kids, how they are doing their jobs and how they are taking care of their health and their well-being and also the health and well-being of their parents, who are trying to come to visit Canada on occasion.

It is really important to have the blessings, in my opinion, of our parents as we continue to grow, to evolve and to set down roots as first-generation immigrants here in Canada. Exploring how this bill can impact how we do that is important. I am hoping that we can explore this issue further in committee.

I am hoping that we can explore the issue of how private health insurance, especially international private health insurance, would impact the whole regime, the whole scheme of super visas here in Canada.

I am hoping we can explore how and what the impact of extending the time of the expiry of a super visa would have on constituents like mine in Mississauga—Erin Mills. I am also really hoping that we can explore and understand how delays happen and what the economic impacts and social impacts of those delays are on families in ridings like mine in Mississauga—Erin Mills. I am hoping we can explore how we can really expand, for example, the parents and grandparents sponsorship program, to make sure that Canadian families have the support that they need, not just in fulfilling the well-being of a family in a riding like mine but also understanding how important the social aspect of it really is.

I am a big believer in family. I know and understand and have benefited from having grandparents around as I grew up. I know my nephew and my niece benefit from having my parents around in how they are raised, and I can tell members that they are a lot sharper for it.

I am hoping that we can continue to improve our immigration system here in Canada to ensure the well-being of families in ridings like mine of Mississauga—Erin Mills, that we are raising our kids right, that we are providing that support that young families need in order to thrive and to survive as they go about their double-income households trying to manage life events such as unfortunate health instances. we need to try to ensure that we are finding that balance between the economy and society and making sure that our families are being raised right.

I am really hoping that the committee really digs deep into how we can really improve not only the temporary resident visa process but also the parents and grandparents sponsorship program, and I am hoping that the committee will hear from experts on the direct and indirect impact and how we can continue to improve that process.

Over the past number of years, we have been really digging deep into this question about parents and grandparents and the role that they play in Canadian families. Over the past year, we have had 10,000 people come and visit Canada through the parents and grandparents sponsorship program, despite COVID. The demand has never been higher. In my riding, it is a conversation that I have almost on a daily basis, regarding young families who want their parents to come and have that positive impact on the families they are raising here in Canada.

I think there is so much we can do with this. I think that there is so much that we can expand on, that we can tweak and fix, to ensure that families here in Canada are being well-protected and are being raised effectively while we fix the parents and grandparents sponsorship program and also the super visa program, which Bill C-242 would ensures.

I am really looking forward to continuing to watch this study of Bill C-242 and seeing how it will impact Canadian families, especially those in Mississauga—Erin Mills and first generation Canadians.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to hear that both the Bloc Québécois and the NDP will be supporting this bill when it comes to a vote tomorrow. I am disappointed to hear the parliamentary secretary indicate that she is not supportive of the legislation, especially for the reasons why the Liberals are saying they are not supportive.

We just heard they are looking forward to having this bill studied. Family reunification was extensively studied at the immigration committee in 2016. The committee delivered a report, which included a report on the super visa. Witness after witness came to the committee and talked about the problems with the super visa. They said that, one, the time to stay should be extended from two years to five years, and two, the low-income test is disenfranchising so many Canadian families from reuniting.

I was moved to hear the member talk about how important it was for her to have her grandparents around when she newly came to Canada. Why are we disenfranchising so many other Canadians? In fact, the Canadians who most need the support of their family, in my humble estimation, are Canadians who have just newly come to this country, because they are in a new country and they are trying to make their way. What better way to do that than with the support of their family, which would include their parents and their grandparents.

The low-income cut-off disenfranchises so many of those hard-working Canadians. They come here and take lots of jobs, sometimes working two or three jobs to make ends meet. Then the government says, “Well, sorry, you do not have enough income in order for your parents to come and stay with you.” All the evidence shows that when a parent or a grandparent comes to stay with a family here in Canada, it adds to their economic success. Maybe it lets them take an extra shift at work. It actually allows them to have some extra child care. It is an economic boon to the family, which is an economic boon to the country. Why the government does not realize this, I really do not understand.

With respect to insurance, I cannot imagine that the government cannot figure out if there is a reputable insurance company in India or in the Philippines or in Burkina Faso. My point is that there are reputable insurance companies all across the world that could offer health insurance. All the government has to do is figure out which ones they are. I do not think it would take a complicated program, as the parliamentary secretary has suggested. There are large multinational insurance companies operating all over the world. It would create competition, which would lower the cost of health care.

One of the biggest impediments for families is the low-income cut-off, but even if they meet that, there is the cost of having their parents come, such as air tickets, and there is the very expensive cost of private health insurance. I am not saying no health insurance. All I am saying is, let us expand the suite of health insurance so that maybe it would be more affordable for Canadians, and therefore more families would take advantage of the super visa and more families would have those wonderful experiences, like the member just talked about.

To me, this is a bill that everyone should support. I am shocked to hear that this is something that may not be supportable. The thing I found most shocking was the parliamentary secretary saying that the Liberals were concerned about taxpayers and the effect it would have on taxpayers. The only time I have heard them mention being concerned about taxpayers or the effect on taxpayers is with respect to immigration and new Canadians. They do not worry about it in any other thing. I find that shocking.

This is a bill that would be fantastic news for families from coast to coast to coast. I am so proud that this is a bill that is going to do that. I am so proud that members of the Bloc Québécois and members of the NDP recognize it. I look forward to their supporting this bill tomorrow when it comes to a vote. I am hopeful that some Liberals would stand up, remove themselves from the whip, and vote for a bill that would be great for Canadian families, especially new Canadian families.

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

It being 6:29 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

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 would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 4, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for in Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand again to speak to the critical issues surrounding support for a just transition for workers in Canada's fisheries. Over the past year, we have seen the devastating impacts of the climate emergency. In my home of British Columbia, in just the past year we have seen a devastating heat dome, wildfires and flooding. The waters keep warming, and the impacts on our communities are increasingly severe. These are all terrible reminders that, both in Canada and around the world, we have failed to act to prevent the climate emergency.

It is vital that alongside bold emissions reduction targets, we set out to build a more sustainable economy for the future. Creating a viable fishery that prioritizes the conservation of our marine ecosystems is a key pillar of this plan.

This is all the more important because we have seen such drastic declines in the fish populations and consistent failures by consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments to protect our marine ecosystems and successfully rebuild stocks. Last year, almost 60% of British Columbia's salmon fisheries were closed as part of the Pacific salmon strategy initiative, also known as the PSSI, to try to help protect incredibly depleted stocks.

While the program includes a voluntary licence buyback program, it falls short of the robust transition supports individuals in the industry require.

In order to move forward, first nations, fishers, local organizations and coastal communities are asking the federal government to work more collaboratively. Those on the water and along our coasts understand best what is happening. They need to be part of the plan.

There are examples we can turn to. Forestry and agriculture workers in British Columbia, for example, saw a dedicated transition plan and financial supports from the B.C. NDP. These are the types of proactive solutions we need to see in the fishing sector to ensure that workers have a future as our economy continues to shift. All workers deserve assurance that they will not be left behind.

UFAWU-Unifor president James Lawson said it well when he remarked:

While our pleas for support...for displaced fish harvesters continue to go unanswered, forestry and agriculture workers are being rescued by exactly the kind of funding programs our Industry so desperately needs.

We know that fishers have ample transferable skills to take on related work including marine transport, coastal and marine tourism and countless other careers. It is time for the government to implement a clear plan that supports all those impacted, including those who are looking to start a new career or to retire with dignity.

This year's budget makes it clear that the protection and prioritization of our marine environment, coastal communities and all those impacted are an afterthought for the government.

It is also worth highlighting that in the almost 13 months since the PSSI was announced, we still have not seen any plan to rebuild wild salmon stocks. It is not good enough just to close our commercial fisheries and hope that fish populations bounce back.

Fishers, coastal communities and all Canadians want to believe that there is a bright future for Canada's marine ecosystems and our fishing sector, but that future is not possible until key funding commitments and a plan are delivered. The longer we wait, the more dire the situation will get and marine ecosystems, coastal communities and fishers' livelihoods will be lost to government mismanagement.

People are desperate to know: When will the government deliver a real plan that supports all those in the fishing sector, first nations, coastal communities and our marine environment?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the question from the member. I serve on the fisheries committee with her and have a great deal of respect for her.

Our department is focused on improving the status of some of Canada's most important fish stocks to allow them to regenerate to provide sustainable fishing opportunities now and for years to come. The department takes a science-based approach to fisheries management. Science advice continues to indicate that some fish stocks are indeed in trouble, and some have been in trouble quite some time despite progressive management measures employed to date.

To support these difficult fisheries management decisions, my department has policies in place that guide management responses to changes in the status of fish stocks. The precautionary framework prescribes rebuilding plans for depleted stocks and also indicates that any harvest of fish from a depleted stock must be kept as low as possible to allow the stock the chance to recover. Rebuilding plans developed with indigenous groups and other fish stakeholders are a key tool to promote the growth of depleted stocks so they can come back to the abundant levels that they need to be.

I recognize that fishing restrictions aimed at rebuilding fish stocks can have an economic impact during the rebuilding period. However, more significant impacts can result from delaying action or not taking sufficient action to promote the rebuilding of stocks. Healthy fish stocks support resilient ecosystems while improving the potential for economic returns in the long term. The protection and regeneration of our natural environment, particularly in the face of biodiversity loss and accelerated climate change, will be critical for the economic vitality of our fisheries.

Commercial fishing is incredibly important to the local economies of Canada's coastal regions, like mine and like the member's, and to the well-being of indigenous and non-indigenous communities throughout this country. That is why we are working closely with stakeholders and communities in making decisions with regard to the protection of the resource.

I am conscious of the fact that predictability is important for those who make their living from Canada's fisheries. Through advisory board processes, those who depend on the resource are engaged and informed regarding the potential impacts to stocks and regarding access to the very resource we are talking about today. The common goal of supporting the long-term health of the industry underpins these discussions.

It is important to recognize that Canada's fishing industry has faced many challenges over many decades by the nature of the dependence on a natural resource. Changes in access to the resource to support both environmental and socio-economic objectives are not unprecedented. It is because of this that the department has supported the industry by adopting mitigation measures to better adapt to such changes. For example, most fishery licence-holders in Canada have access to multiple species that allow for diversification and avoid dependence on one particular fishery. Through setting the legislative and regulatory environment to support industry through adjustment periods and ensuring regular communication on science-based decisions, the department provides the necessary conditions for continued economic vitality and viability in Canada's fishing industry.

In closing, in addition to working with Canada on a specific fisheries management decision, my department is taking a lead role in actively exploring and facilitating a transition to the future blue economy. Throughout the previous year, the department conducted numerous ministerial round tables and engagement processes to hear from Canadians, particularly in the fisheries and oceans sectors, with regard to the challenges that all of us may be facing with the responsible growth of the sector.

A comprehensive blue economy strategy will outline the vision for our ocean-related sectors and help guide future government action that will enable long-term growth. As a government, we are super committed to science-based decision-making. It will ensure that fishing opportunities are sustainable now and for future generations of fishers.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's response, but we are not seeing the urgency needed from the government to deliver a real transition plan for workers.

This year, we have seen more talk about a blue ocean strategy to revitalize Canada's coastal economy. These types of initiatives should be exciting and hopeful, but based on the Liberal government's track record of failing to protect our marine ecosystems and workers, it just feels like a pipe dream. That is why it is so important that we get to work to implement stock rehabilitation programs and support the transition of our industries to a more sustainable model. Canadian workers should not have to fight their government for support.

We know that Canada's response to the climate crisis will be stronger when we are all working toward a shared vision of a healthier economy and a clean-energy future, so I will ask a simple question: When will the Liberal government finally do the right thing and deliver a real plan?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, our department is focused on improving the status of some of Canada's most important fish stocks. Again, I recognize that fishing restrictions aimed at rebuilding fish stocks can have an economic impact during the rebuilding period. I have seen it in my own community.

However, more significant impacts can result from delaying action, as I mentioned, or not taking sufficient action to promote the rebuilding of stocks. Commercial fishing is incredibly important to so many coastal communities, if not all communities that have a fishery. That is why we are working closely with our stakeholders and communities at making decisions that protect this resource though things, as I mentioned earlier, such as board processes. Those that depend on the resource are engaged and informed on potential changes to certain stocks or access to the resource.

As a government, we are committed to science-based decision-making. We are working to ensure the fishery opportunities are sustainable for future generations to come, and I look forward to working with the member to achieve those agendas.