SoVote

Feb/1/22 5:22:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, health care is in crisis, and in my riding of Victoria, many of my constituents are struggling to access primary health care. There are 100,000 people in the capital regional district who do not have a family doctor, and we are losing multiple walk-in clinics as physicians retire or move on. Decades of health transfer cuts have had devastating impacts on our province's capacity to address issues in our health care system. We have seen that acutely during this pandemic. Premiers across the country are asking the government for health transfer increases. Does the member agree we need to increase health transfers now more than ever, and that the government needs to show leadership and work with the provinces and territories to tackle wait times, improve access to primary care, and ensure we recruit and train doctors and other health care professionals to identify the gaps in our health care system?

156 words

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Feb/1/22 5:22:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that great question. During the election campaign, I think our party was clear about its commitment to increase health transfers unconditionally. I believe the government really needs to help all Canadian provinces so as to improve health care everywhere. I think that is worth emphasizing. There are problems in big cities, but there are problems in my riding and everywhere else too. It is hard to recruit doctors and maintain adequate services. The solution is financial support, so that is what the government should be doing.

93 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Feb/1/22 5:23:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, representing a largely rural constituency, I have certainly heard about the challenges concerning the rural-urban divide. I am wondering if the member could comment further on that.

30 words

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Feb/1/22 5:23:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The problem seems to be getting worse over time. I think immediate intervention is crucial to minimizing the growing rural-urban divide. I have never had anything against urban communities and big cities, but I think our governments and the federal government in particular should pay special attention to supporting rural communities across Canada.

63 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Whitby, Lib.)

Feb/1/22 5:24:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to the Speech from the Throne today. I could definitely talk about the broad strokes and priorities of that speech, like moving faster on a path to reconciliation, taking bolder action on climate change, growing a more resilient economy and standing up for diversity and inclusion, among others. Each one of those priorities is certainly worthy of a fulsome speech itself, in my view. However, in light of recent events I would like to focus my remarks today on perhaps one of our most pressing challenges, which is finishing the fight against COVID-19. Nearly two years have passed since the international community sounded the alarm for what would become one of the greatest public health crises that we have ever known. Certainly in my life, I have never seen anything like this and many of us can say that. I am sad to say that COVID-19 has claimed over 5.6 million lives worldwide and the pandemic is not over yet. I cannot help but reflect on the incredible loss and grief people have gone through, and my heart goes out to them and their families. What we have seen from Canadians over the past two years is nothing short of remarkable. People across Canada have stepped up in every way possible, over and over again, to help each other out and do what is right to keep each other safe. We all know the many things we have done to help, and that includes getting vaccinated. There have been countless sacrifices made by everyone, without exception. People, families, children, businesses, organizations, governments and communities have all had to adapt and adjust, and those changes have been really challenging and hard. I fully acknowledge that. Business owners, children, seniors, frontline workers and others have made huge contributions to our response to COVID-19 as a nation, and it has definitely made a difference. It has saved many lives. Canada has 840 deaths per million people, which is much less than half of the EU, the U.K. and the U.S. In fact, it is one-third of the COVID deaths per million in the U.S., so we have saved many lives with all our efforts. Those efforts have not been futile. In fact, immeasurable hardships have been brought on by this pandemic. We are all tired, frustrated, fed up and even angry, and it is not over yet. Some of us feel like we are at a breaking point. We even want to shout and scream. We feel like there are whole dimensions of our lives that have been cut off. We miss our families. We want to take a vacation. We want to get together and celebrate again. We want to go back to the way things used to be. All of these feelings are completely understandable and even natural, given the circumstances and based on what we have all been going through together. However, there are healthy ways to cope and constructive outlets for those feelings, and there are unhealthy, unhelpful and destructive ways. To Canadians, I say their government is not the enemy and vaccinations are not the enemy. The virus is the enemy. The Minister of Health said that this week in the media, and it really struck me. We must not give in to the temptation to give up or to aim all of this frustration at the government, when it should be rightly placed on the circumstances. We must not let ourselves be overcome with hate and anger or lash out. I have to say that some of the activity we saw over the past weekend on display in our nation's capital was completely and utterly unacceptable, and there is no excuse or justification for it in this country. I never thought I would see this type of behaviour in our country, in our nation's capital, at the seat of our democracy on Parliament Hill. I am referring to symbols of hate and racism, including swastikas and Confederate flags being displayed. I am referring to disrespecting the memory of some of our national heroes like Terry Fox and the unknown soldier at the National War Memorial. As if these acts were not despicable enough, we also saw videos of protesters harassing shop owners and refusing to wear masks, and we heard accounts of protesters harassing workers at a soup kitchen and stealing food meant to feed the homeless. We also saw that protesters and trucks have shut down the downtown core of Ottawa, causing businesses, schools and even vaccine clinics to be closed. Let us not pretend that the people of Ottawa have not been impacted by all of this. Businesses have lost income, kids are not able to go to school and people's ability to access vaccines and health care has been impeded. That is not healthy. After the shockingly deplorable behaviour we witnessed in Ottawa this past weekend, we see the Conservatives trying to justify the fact that they supported this group by using the “just a few bad apples” excuse. In reality, we know many of the Conservative MPs encouraged this. They amplified the rhetoric. They served coffee and came out to show their support. They jumped on the bandwagon for political gain, and when it came time to call out the abhorrent behaviour we all witnessed and stand unequivocally against hate, violence, racism and intolerance, they were not so quick. I think we can agree the minimal amount of racism, hate and violence we must tolerate is exactly zero, and one cannot assist in fomenting anti-government sentiments and then not be guilty by association. I realize that many protesters were out expressing their points of view and assembling peacefully, which they have every right to do, and I hear them about wanting our freedom back. All of us feel the same way, but let me remind them what they have accomplished. In their opposition to lockdowns, they have essentially locked down a city from the freedom they say has been taken away from them, adding to the strain on the people of Ottawa and causing extensive cost and hardship to many people. I might add the people opposing lockdowns in the nation's capital is somewhat strange to me. It seems misplaced, because this is the seat of the federal government. Public health restrictions, lockdowns in particular, are imposed by provinces and territories. Perhaps what is most alarming is that opposition MPs lined up to support this movement, and the public was sold a bill of goods. First, it was that vaccine mandates at the border were supposedly going to disrupt the entire supply chain and lead to empty shelves, but we know that has not happened. In fact, the approximately 90% of truckers who are vaccinated have been delivering goods across our border and are keeping our shelves fully stocked. In fact, I am told there is no measurable impact on cross-border trucking traffic at this point. The United States, in fact, has the same vaccination requirement for truckers, so it is sort of a moot point at this point. Let us also remember that the Canadian Trucking Alliance, which represents the industry, does not support this Freedom Convoy, because the CTA represents the majority of truckers, who are already vaccinated. To top it off, the organizers of the current rally on Parliament Hill apparently have a proposal to dissolve or overthrow the government. Let us get this straight. These individuals want to overthrow a democratically elected government that is following through on the publicly proclaimed campaign commitments it was elected by the people of Canada to fulfill. Why? It is because a loud minority in this country does not like it. This is at a time when over 88% of eligible Canadians are vaccinated and just after vaccine mandates for federally regulated workplaces and cross-border travel by train, plane and ship have been implemented, which, as far as I know, last August had an over 80% approval rating in public opinion polls. It was clear that the majority of Canadians supported vaccine mandates and realized this was essential for defeating COVID-19. The public gave our government a clear mandate in the last election to follow through, and that is exactly what we are doing. I hear the voices of this small minority of Canadians who do not want to get vaccinated and think it is government overreach to require them to do so. However, the reality is that people have the choice to get vaccinated or not. The anti-vaxxers who the Conservatives are courting just do not like the consequences that come with that choice, but as we have learned since we were all kids, choices come with consequences. I think we can all agree we are in extraordinary circumstances, and public health experts around the world say the best chance we have to get back to normal, protect against future infection, blunt future waves and avoid lockdowns is to get those vaccination rates up as high as possible. People who have dedicated their lives to science and to protecting people's health have provided evidence that vaccines work. Allow me to summarize. People are fed up with their lives being turned upside down by a new virus that is highly transmissible, and a small number of them who refuse to get vaccinated, despite having every opportunity to do so, want everyone else to give them special treatment and accommodate them, instead of complying with the wishes of the majority. They want their rights and freedoms to be completely unlimited, and they want their decisions, no matter how harmful to others, to come with zero consequences. They also oppose lockdowns to the wrong level of government while simultaneously locking down a city in a province that is just about to reopen, all being organized by a group of people who say they want to overthrow a democratically elected government, which is busy fulfilling its promises for the majority of Canadians, because they claim to be the true patriots. Ironically—

1697 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/1/22 5:34:52 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member has used up all his time. I tried to give him some signals, but I know he was quite into his speech. I am sure the hon. member will be able to address additional comments during questions. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Essex.

48 words

Mr. Chris Lewis (Essex, CPC)

Feb/1/22 5:35:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, through you to the member for Whitby, the Speech from the Throne addressed the fact that the dairy industry would receive compensation as it was very much affected by the CUSMA deal. Can the member update the House as to when our dairy industry can expect a fixed date from the government, along with the amount it can expect when the budget comes down?

66 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Feb/1/22 5:35:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while I certainly appreciate the question, I do not know how it pertains to the speech I gave. However, it does pertain to the Speech from the Throne, so I will do my best to answer it. I do not have a specific time and date, but I can say that our dairy industry is exceptionally important to our country, our food system and our supply chains. We are studying that at the agriculture committee, which I am very proud to be on and working with other members of other parties. I would certainly be willing to look into that and get back to the member.

108 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Feb/1/22 5:36:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the survival of French in Quebec and Canada. I have been in Parliament for two years now, and this issue is very close to my heart because the percentage of francophones in Quebec is less than 80%. In Montreal, the proportion of people whose first language is French is about to fall below 50%. This is unheard of. I have heard a lot of rhetoric in Parliament over the past two years. We talk about how we are going to save the French language. Liberal members even voted to recognize Quebec as a nation with French as its only official language, but then the government turns around and appoints a Governor General who speaks only English. We know that the CEO of Air Canada, which is subject to the Official Languages Act, does not speak French. We recently learned that the majority of CN's board of directors do not even speak French, even though the company is also subject to the Official Languages Act. Yesterday the hon. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship held a press conference in English only. This makes no sense for a department that is so critical to the survival of French in Quebec. Does my colleague agree that it is time to add targeted measures in the next Official Languages Act to save the French language in Quebec?

236 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Feb/1/22 5:37:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, what my hon. colleague brings up is exceptionally important to this country and all Canadians. It is important to promote bilingualism and to ensure there is no loss of the French language. I think we need to do our best to protect it. I have been taking French lessons. I am not at a point where I feel confident enough to speak it yet, but I look forward to the moment when I begin to do that in the House.

83 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Feb/1/22 5:38:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to go back to the issue of seniors. I raised a question with the member's colleague, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge, regarding the problems my constituents in Vancouver East are faced with. There are seniors who are facing eviction and getting the runaround from officials who are telling them to contact Service Canada to send in a form, which we all know will not help the situation. His response was to contact the parliamentary secretary. I did one better. I contacted the minister about these issues and so far there has been no resolution. The reality is this. It seems the government is not going to bring in any measures to help seniors at least until May. In the meantime, seniors in my riding are getting evicted and are absolutely desperate. I am asking the member about advocacy for seniors in his own riding, as well as across the country. Will he ask his government to fix this problem now?

167 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Feb/1/22 5:39:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the member by saying that seniors are exceptionally important to me and my riding. I spend a lot of my time listening to their concerns and many of the vulnerabilities they experience, which often relate to housing insecurity. I definitely agree this is an area I am pursuing actively and have been doing so since I was elected in 2019. Certainly, there is more progress our government can make. I cannot speak to the specific issues in the member's riding or her constituents, but I certainly am working on all the ones that are relevant to my riding.

107 words

All Topics

Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.)

Feb/1/22 5:40:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House. As this is my first opportunity to present a full speech, please allow me a couple of minutes to thank the good people of Charlottetown for the honour of representing them here in the House of Commons for the fourth time. I was first elected in 2011; they saw fit to elect me once again, and for that I am grateful and humbled. I am also extremely grateful to the army of volunteers it takes to run a successful campaign. I have been blessed to have a solid core of people who have supported me in those volunteer roles since my first election in 2011. At the risk of missing someone, I am only going to single out my campaign chairs, Emily MacDonald and Spencer Campbell. Spencer has been with me since the very first campaign, and I certainly would not be here but for their leadership and for the other lifers around the table who have supported me over the last 10 years in my campaigns. I am thankful for the love and support of my parents and my partner Deirdre. Without them, there is absolutely no way it would be possible for me to get through the marathon we endure to get to this place or for me to be sitting here. Part of my motivation for getting into politics 10 years ago was the treatment of my province and of the country by the then Conservative government, which was led by Stephen Harper. He cancelled plans for a third subsea cable that would assure energy security for Prince Edward Island. We fixed that. He increased the age of eligibility for old age security for seniors. We fixed that. He closed offices of the people who served veterans. He closed district offices and slashed hundreds of positions of people who served veterans, including those at the national headquarters in Charlottetown and right across the country. We fixed that. He tore up agreements that had been achieved under then minister Ken Dryden for a national child care program and replaced them with payments of $100 a month to parents. We fixed that. This throne speech indicates that we continue on the progress that has been made since 2015 on building a resilient economy and a cleaner and brighter future for our kids. Of the key themes in the throne speech that resonated in my riding during the campaign, there is probably none more prominent than housing. It is a major priority in Prince Edward Island; it is absolutely a major priority in Charlottetown. Housing is a human right. Every Canadian deserves a safe, accessible and affordable place to call home. During the campaign, I heard from many constituents about the impact Canada's housing crisis has had on them. Our government has a plan to increase housing affordability and make home ownership a reality for more Canadians. Since 2015, with the implementation of the national housing strategy, we have helped more than one million Canadians find a safe place to call home, but there is still so much to do. Here in Prince Edward Island, there is an investment of $40.7 million in the Canada-P.E.I housing benefit that was announced to support low-income households. There are over 22,00 households in P.E.I. that will receive assistance for affordable housing under this benefit. Other examples that I am particularly proud of are three buildings that were financed under the retail construction financing initiative, with a $19.2-million low-cost loan for residential buildings in Charlottetown. Investments like these are sometimes met with scorn from those who are extremely concerned about the plight of low-income Canadians and low-income islanders, because that particular program is designed for those who are at or above the median income, and that is the model. What I will say about the rental construction financing initiative and the particular investment in my riding is that the minute those units were constructed, they were filled. The national housing strategy addresses needs at various socio-economic strata across the country and on the island. One in particular that was directed to low-income islanders was something called Martha's Place, which was finished in 2020. It is a real model of how the national co-investment fund is supposed to work. Here is how Martha's Place came together. It is a development that has rent geared to income, so 25% of what someone makes is their rent. It came together because the Province of Prince Edward Island donated the land, the city of Charlottetown waived the property taxes, the Sisters of St. Martha contributed $1 million and the federal government came in with a low-cost loan of $11.5 million. Now there is a rent-geared-to-income project in the riding on a transit route. It is something that is absolutely critical and something, quite frankly, that we need to see more of. It is my hope that under the initiatives in the throne speech toward housing, we will soon be in a position to announce something under the rapid housing initiative as well as further projects under the national co-investment fund to promote partnerships like the one that I just described. Something else that resonated significantly in the riding during the campaign was with respect to child care. Throughout the pandemic, many parents have struggled to re-enter the workforce due to limited access to affordable and flexible child care. The Speech from the Throne commits to building the first-ever Canada-wide early learning and child care system, after almost getting there on the eve of the arrival of the Harper government. Child care fees are expected to be cut in half by the end of 2022, which will save families thousands of dollars. Here in Prince Edward Island, we have already seen the beginning of those reductions. The standard for government-run early childhood centres last year was $34 a day. In Prince Edward Island, that has already been reduced to $25 a day, and those reductions will continue through the life of the program. Here on P.E.I., within the next two years we are going to see 452 new early learning and child care spaces that offer high-quality, affordable programming. The child care agreements, as we know, have been signed by all provinces, except Ontario, and all three territories. It will certainly make life more affordable for Canadians, but it will also create new well-paying jobs and ensure that every child has a fair shot at success. Investments in child care will build on the success of the Canada child benefit, which, over the past five years, has provided tax-free support to over three million Canadian families and lifted 300,000 children out of poverty. I have a quick anecdote with respect to the Canada child benefit. A major employer here on Prince Edward Island is the Department of Veterans Affairs. The payroll is in excess of $100 million a year. It is widely seen as a major contributor to our economy. The Canada child benefit contributes that same $100 million a year, but the difference between the payroll at the national headquarters of Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canada child care benefits that are put into the pockets of parents every single month is that the latter are not taxable. That is meaningful, progressive policy that will help us through the pandemic and into the 2020s.

1262 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Feb/1/22 5:50:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his discourse here today, and I have to say that I do miss him at the human resources committee. The member talked a lot about some of the positive things that we have seen or that he has seen coming from the Liberal housing strategy, but Prince Edward Island, like most other regions of this country, has seen drastic increases in the cost of single-family homes and condos. What would the hon. member state in respect to his government's failure to account for the challenges that Canadians are facing in affording a market residence?

107 words

Mr. Sean Casey

Feb/1/22 5:51:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to see my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon again, albeit virtually. I certainly enjoyed working with him on the human resources committee, and for a member of Parliament from British Columbia to be so knowledgeable about the situation on Prince Edward Island is appreciated. To answer my hon. colleague, there is much more to do. Of that there is no doubt. There is a dramatic increase in housing prices right across the country, and Prince Edward Island has not been immune to those increases. We have a bit of a perfect storm here in P.E.I. We have done a great job of attracting and retaining immigrants, and before COVID our economy was absolutely booming, but we have a situation here of 1,000 unfilled construction jobs. That is a major bottleneck, so the member makes a fair point. There is much more to do, and in one sense, we have actually become victims of our own success. However, I certainly appreciate the question from him and the knowledge displayed in the way he posed it.

187 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/1/22 5:52:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. He spoke a lot about social housing and the major housing crisis. We know significant investments are needed. However, there are delicate jurisdictional issues at play in these areas. Would my colleague agree with the idea of transferring a large amount of money to the provinces and Quebec so that they can quickly start building a significant number of social housing units?

71 words

Mr. Sean Casey

Feb/1/22 5:53:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I believe that our government has done a great job implementing the national housing strategy. There are some aspects in this strategy, no doubt, and I would be happy to support any measure that will help speed up the solutions to the problems in this country, including making transfers to the provinces.

61 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Feb/1/22 5:54:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. One of the issues that I am hearing in Nanaimo—Ladysmith that I did not hear in the member's speech surrounds the inaction on the part of our current government. Each year, unfortunately, despite flooding, droughts and a quickly approaching deadline to lower greenhouse gas emissions, Canada is giving 14 times more money to big polluters in oil and gas. Is the member opposite ready to support a real transition to address the climate emergency?

86 words

Mr. Sean Casey

Feb/1/22 5:55:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes.

3 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Feb/1/22 5:55:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Drummond. Many people have said that the throne speech was a compilation of platitudes, an short collection of empty words designed to appeal to hardcore Liberal converts, the ones who will get behind anything. It has been said that say the throne speech contains commitments, promises. Let us be clear. The word “promise” comes from Latin. The prefix “pro-” means “forward” and the verb “mittere” means “send forward”. I do not think that is the case here. If we really think about it, the throne speech only contains three things: first, old news; second, silences; and third, repetitions. With respect to the “old news”, the throne speech confirms that the Liberal government plans to continue interfering with areas under provincial jurisdiction, such as housing, police reform, mental health, natural resource management, and the prevention of violence against women. Now, let us talk about the “silences”. There is a deafening silence when it comes to health transfers, the transition to green finance, EI reform, seniors, agriculture, and many other issues. Now to the third point, the “repetitions”: unacceptable immigration delays, access to clean drinking water in indigenous communities, international aid, making web giants pay their fair share, and so on. I could go on because the list of recycled, unkept promises is infinite, but life is short, so I will stop there. The throne speech talks about bilingualism and foreign policy. Since I have just 10 minutes, I am going to talk about two issues, both of which qualify as “old news” or “repetitions”: the French language, and the absence of a clear foreign policy direction. With respect to the French language, the throne speech is a step backward. It creates the illusion of aspiring to equality for English and French, but all it really offers in return is institutional bilingualism. The proposed means are not commensurate with the stated ends. French and English can never be of equal importance. A mere eight million francophones are up against 400 million anglophones. When it comes to the preservation of French, real equality for the two languages is just wishful thinking. It will take asymmetrical measures to restore equity. I want to make it clear that “equity” is not the same thing as “equality”. Equality means “everyone is the same” or “the same thing for everyone”, whereas equity means everyone gets their due. Equity means adjusting symmetry so that both languages can take on their rightful importance. That is not going to happen overnight. As the Bloc Québécois critic for the international francophonie, I can assure my colleagues that French and the francophonie are doing well around the world. It is projected that French will be spoken by 700 million people around the world by 2050. If the Liberal government's current momentum is any indication, it will not have much to do with it. In order to move things forward, I have proposed that the Jeux de la francophonie be held in my riding of Trois‑Rivières. The games will bring delegations from 50 participating countries and nearly 5,000 participants and supporters to Trois‑Rivières. These people will do more for the French language during the games than the half measures proposed in the throne speech. Perhaps the Prime Minister has forgotten, but French is an identity, a culture, a way of life and a way of seeing things. This way of seeing things is an asset, and we must not squander it. It would be better to protect the French language than to repeat yet another intention. Do my colleagues know what an intention is? It means being about to do something, but not having done it yet. Rather than intentions, we would like results. If the Liberal government is unable to take real action on the French language, it should let Quebec do it for itself, by not opposing its initiatives. Next, I want to talk about Canada's foreign policy or, I should say, its lack of foreign policy. When it comes to diplomacy and global affairs, time and consistency are key to building lasting ties that allow us to expand our influence and wield that soft power on the international stage. I get nostalgic thinking back to a time when Canada was seen as a key player, a country that would be called upon to settle disputes or provide unique perspectives or solutions. I remember when Canada had a foreign policy. I will remind members of the Quebec Conference in 1943. That was a long time ago, but the conference brought together Churchill, President Roosevelt and his French counterpart in Quebec City. Some of the decisions made at that conference changed the course of history. Canada did change the course of history with the Iraq war, but since then there has been nothing. I remember when Canada did not choose new foreign affairs ministers based on polls or personal preferences. Diplomacy takes time; it requires consistency and perseverance. Diplomacy calls for long-term commitment and proven action, not just talk or a show of intentions. I may sound wistful, but I also remember a time when Canada made foreign policy decisions without first looking to the United States. I remember a time before Canada decided to simply copy the Americans instead of thinking for itself. I remember a time when Canadian prime ministers knew and understood that they could make their own decisions. I remember a time when Canada had a vision for its foreign policy and clear objectives. Many challenges lie ahead in 2022, including China and Huawei, Ukraine, international immigration, humanitarian crises, American protectionism, and so on. The throne speech does not address any of those troubling issues, but maybe that is my fault. I expected too much of the throne speech, but I guess that was about nostalgia for a bygone era. In the Speech from the Throne, I would have liked to see the Liberal government outline a direction for its actions, a path to follow, a way forward; instead, it was just empty rhetoric. I do not want to end on a sour note, so I will say this: I can only applaud the throne speech, but with no hands.

1092 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 21