SoVote

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Mar/29/22 6:41:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for an opportunity to speak to the seniors in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha. Every member of the House knows how important our seniors are. Every member of the House hears from seniors regularly. As we have heard from many members this evening, this motion is important but there is a lot of concern on action. Conversation is really important and bringing awareness is important. One of my favourite sayings is “education equals awareness equals change”. However, as my colleague from Hastings—Lennox and Addington has said, we do need action. I want to take this opportunity to read a message from one of my constituents, as it is my job as an MP to advocate on their behalf. “Michelle, I hope that's okay. I'm not politically in the wave.” He was not sure if he was allowed to call me Michelle. “Is there any way that our existing governments can help seniors with their expenses? I moved here to Millbrook, Ontario”, which is in the riding of my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, “from Toronto many years ago just to get away from the city. After 15-plus years, my company pension is running out. Now with an annual income ready to drop well below $16,000, I am in a bind to say the least, [with] rent, hydro, gas, Nexicom”, which is Internet and very expensive for basic cable Internet and land line. “I don't have a cellphone and could not afford one to begin with. “I have to give up my Legion membership and their lottery pool.” That one makes me very sad. “Being handicapped, my personal care worker costs are over $1,000 a year. Foodland prices are through the roof: two dollars for one potato, three dollars for one tomato, etc. I'm not asking for any handouts in any way, but turning 75 next month, I am in trouble to say the least. I love the village, but [it has] multiple housing developments. We only have one bank machine. I'm not complaining to you. I just have to vent. Thank you very much for reading my concerns.” This is from Bob, a constituent. I wanted to take this opportunity to read one of my constituents' letters. There are many hundreds more like him. They truly are struggling and truly cannot afford to make ends meet, and it is our job, every single member of the House, to stand up for seniors.

434 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/29/22 6:43:36 p.m.
Watch

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

30 words

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC)

Mar/29/22 6:44:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we know that the RCMP provides essential services in communities, especially in the communities that I represent. My constituents know how important their work is and appreciate the RCMP members who serve our community. RCMP members deserve appropriate pay for the work that they do and we do not believe that is debatable. To be clear, the issue at hand is not about the pay rate for RCMP members, but rather the financial burden that has been placed on local municipalities and the Liberal government's failure to engage appropriately with other levels of government. The collective agreement negotiated last summer by the Liberal government resulted in not only increased policing costs going forward but significant one-time retroactive wage payments. Despite their exclusion from the process, the financial burden of this collective agreement largely falls on the shoulders of other levels of government. These costs have placed a tremendous constraint on municipalities in my riding of Battlefords—Lloydminster and no doubt on rural municipalities across this country. Municipalities certainly anticipated increased policing costs following these negotiations, but the negotiated agreement far exceeded what was anticipated. We know that municipal governments cannot run a deficit budget by law to cover these costs, so without assistance from other levels of government, municipal governments are faced with cutting services in communities or significant tax hikes. Neither is a suitable option for my constituents. We cannot forget that these bills are coming due as an affordability crisis continues and is continuing to balloon in this country. The City of North Battleford in my riding has calculated an annual policing cost increase in the range of $800,000 to just over $1 million annually. That is in addition to the one-time retroactive wage payment of over $1.6 million this year. For the City of Lloydminster in my riding, the retroactive payment costs are estimated to be up to over $1.8 million. Other municipalities in my riding, like Cut Knife, Wilkie and Paradise Hill, have all expressed similar concerns with their budgetary constraints. These municipalities have asked the Liberal government to provide them some relief by absorbing the one-time retroactive wage costs. I do not think that ask is unreasonable, even more so because the Liberal government chose to exclude municipalities, provinces and stakeholders from the process. When I asked the Minister of Public Safety to agree to this reasonable solution, his response was disappointing. The minister not only disregarded the fiscal position many municipalities find themselves in by asserting the current divisions of cost, but he also led the House to believe that there was an established level of communication between his government and local governments in my riding. Sending municipalities a bill and a payment schedule does not by any means equate to meaningful engagement. Will the Liberal government admit today that it has placed rural municipalities, like the ones I represent, in a difficult position, and will it finally step up now and throw them a lifeline by absorbing the one-time back-pay costs?

510 words

All Topics

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Mar/29/22 6:48:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-7

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a cornerstone of policing across much of rural Canada, in the Canadian north and in many towns and large urban areas. Its members keep our communities safe. The RCMP is the frontline police service of jurisdiction in the territories, in all provinces except Quebec and Ontario, and in more than 150 municipalities. The Government of Canada shares the cost of these policing services. In large municipalities, the federal government pays 10% of salary, equipment and other costs. For municipalities with a population of fewer than 15,000 people, the federal government pays 30% of these costs. I fully agree with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster that RCMP members deserve fair compensation for their work in keeping our streets safe. That is why, in 2017, our government passed Bill C-7. This historic, first-ever collective agreement between the Government of Canada and the bargaining agent for RCMP members, the National Police Federation, came into effect on August 6 of last year. The agreement provided a reasonable economic increase and market adjustments to address wage differences that existed between RCMP members and reservists and other police services across Canada. It marked the first time RCMP members had received a pay increase since 2017. It also brought their salaries in line with other police services across Canada. The agreement was fair both for our hard-working RCMP members and for Canadian taxpayers. Our government is mindful that policing represents a significant cost for all communities and local governments. Officials are working hard to engage directly with every contract policing jurisdiction on the costs to implement the new collective agreement. They have written to all partners to provide information, and meetings with individual jurisdictions to discuss their specific situations have started and will continue in the coming weeks. In closing, let me assure members that our government will continue to work with contract jurisdictions on the financial impacts of the collective agreement, and we will continue to support the RCMP and all jurisdictions to ensure the safety and security of our communities.

348 words

All Topics

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk

Mar/29/22 6:50:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that response disappoints every municipality that finds itself in this position of fiscal precarity because of the agreement that the Liberal government negotiated. There is no meaningful engagement with the government. It does not operate in partnership or collaboration with other levels of government. I just want to bring to the parliamentary secretary's attention a letter that was addressed and sent to the Minister of Public Safety on November 30, 2021, from the Minister of Corrections, Policing and Public Safety from Saskatchewan. It says that the province was excluded in these negotiations, as were the municipalities, and that the Government of Saskatchewan is requesting that the Government of Canada absorb the entire fiscal impact of unilateral decisions regarding retroactive wage compensation for the prior periods of 2017 to 2021. Is it normal for the government not to respond to letters from provincial ministers?

146 words

All Topics

Ms. Pam Damoff

Mar/29/22 6:51:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our government appreciates the financial planning challenges and complexities in the implementation of the collective agreement. We know that the retroactive salary increase puts financial pressure on municipalities and contract policing jurisdictions. We collaborated with our partners throughout the collective bargaining process at all levels. Our government remains steadfast in our commitment to continue our strong partnerships with the jurisdictions. Bilateral meetings have started in order to answer partners' questions and better understand their needs. Our objective is clear: We are engaging all partners in a meaningful way to enable open dialogue and with a view to supporting them in meeting their financial obligations.

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Mar/29/22 6:52:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing from some Canadians who are considering or have made the decision to join Ukraine's foreign legion. That is obviously a very difficult decision. What those Canadians are not looking for from government is a repeat of travel advice. Those who are choosing to go and fight in defence of Ukraine are already aware there are significant risks associated with doing so and they do so in full knowledge of those risks. What those Canadians are looking for is legal clarity from the government. My question, in the first instance, was never about if the government can give those people life advice. It was about whether the government could help those people have the clarity of knowing how the law applies to them, specifically with respect to the Foreign Enlistment Act that was passed in 1937, which I think has an important area of ambiguity that the government would do well to clarify. The Foreign Enlistment Act makes it an offence for a Canadian to join or engage in the armed forces of a foreign state at war with a “friendly foreign state”. That is the operative phrase. If someone is going abroad to fight against a friendly foreign state, then that person is committing an offence in Canada. The act does not contain a definition of what constitutes a friendly foreign state. In fact, in the entire history of this act, from what I was able to discern, there have not been any prosecutions under it, which might suggest that the risk of prosecution for a Canadian who is going to fight abroad is low. However, people are still looking for that legal clarity and they do not have the benefit of legal precedent to look at. A friendly foreign state could mean a state that Canada is not at war with. A friendly foreign state could mean an ally or partner of Canada or a like-minded state in some ways, but the problem is that we just do not know. My original question to the government was if it could clarify whether, for the purposes of the act, not in colloquial usage of the term but for the purposes of the act, is the Russian Federation considered a friendly foreign state. However, I think more broadly it is important for the government to consider the need for clarity around this legislation, because there are many other cases where Canadians choose to participate in conflicts, feel very deeply on behalf of one side or the other, and there may be national interests that are impacted in Canada by those actions. We do not have clarity in the law with respect to when that would or would not be allowed at all. I asked the government then, and I am asking the government now, to provide Canadians with legal clarity with respect to the application of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and in particular, the provisions around what constitutes a friendly foreign state. Could the government clearly state that, for the purposes of this act, the Russian Federation is not considered a friendly foreign state? Could the government also consider regulations or modifications that would provide greater meaning to that section, so that Canadians who are taking this risk to fight in the defence of Ukraine do not have to worry about the possible, what I would argue, misapplication of this statute? The law also gives the government an opportunity, through Governor in Council regulations, to, “by order or regulation,” provide for “the application of this Act, with necessary modifications, to any case in which there is a state of armed conflict”. Therefore, the government does have the ability, under this act, to put forward regulations that would provide that clarity. I have an Order Paper question as well that asks the government specifically to respond, to provide a list and to provide information on what it considers a friendly foreign state, because Canadians should know whether or not this law applies to them.

676 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/29/22 6:56:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the Foreign Enlistment Act, I can confirm that it does prohibit Canadians from enlisting in the armed forces of any foreign state at war with a friendly foreign state. It also prohibits anyone in Canada from recruiting or inducing another person to enlist with any foreign armed forces. The act defines “armed forces” as including army, navy and air forces or services, but excludes medical and other services engaged in humanitarian work for or under the Canadian Red Cross or other similar Canadian organizations. To my knowledge, no court has considered the act, nor am I aware of any prosecutions under the act. It is important to note that decisions about specific criminal investigations are made by relevant police jurisdictions. Decisions on whether to prosecute are made by independent prosecutors. I want to be clear that the Government of Canada is concerned for the safety of anyone travelling into Ukraine at this time for any purpose, including to take part in the conflict. Global Affairs Canada has advised against all travel to Ukraine since February 1, 2022, and has recently stated in a new travel advisory that the safety of Canadians is at high risk if they engage in active combat. The Government of Canada may not be able to provide any assistance to Canadians who join militias or armies and are injured or captured. The decision to travel is the sole responsibility of the traveller, and we cannot guarantee the safety and security of Canadians abroad. That said, Canada is committed to contributing to the enormous international effort that is under way to collect and preserve evidence in pursuit of accountability for the serious allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. To that end, we are working on multiple fronts and joined the group of 41 states that ultimately referred the case to the International Criminal Court. I would also highlight that Canada is presently supporting the International Criminal Court through expert deployments and is exploring other possible areas for support. We will continue to co-operate with the court and respond to its calls for assistance in this matter. There is no doubt that this is an international effort, including in the courtroom. Canada has been and will continue to be there for the people of Ukraine. Together, we strive for peace, security and justice. Having said that, over the years we have seen literally hundreds, if not thousands, of private members' bills and initiatives that have been brought to the chamber. Just prior to going into this discussion, we had a private members' hour, and I would highly suggest and recommend that this might be one of the considerations my friend from across the way might want to put forward, if he feels so empowered, to better address the issue.

478 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Mar/29/22 7:00:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been working on a private member's bill initiative for the past six years. People were working on the same initiative for 10 years before that, and it has not passed yet. It is something everyone agrees on. That just shows that, when the government has the regulatory power to solve a problem, saying one should wait 15 years for a private member's bill is not very helpful. I think members could reasonably draw the conclusion, from the statement of the parliamentary secretary and from the statements of ministers, that the Russian Federation is not considered a friendly foreign state, and I think some Canadians will take some comfort in that. However, it is a little frustrating that the parliamentary secretary could not provide a clear response to a clear question, and it is not a partisan question at all. It is simply saying that it is up to the government, in a sense, to define in the context of its foreign policy what states it considers friendly and not friendly, for the purposes of the act. Presumably, courts would refer to statements and opinions of the government, when considering what is a friendly foreign state. Why will the parliamentary secretary not simply and clearly state that, for the purposes of the act, the Russian Federation is not considered a friendly foreign state?

228 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/29/22 7:01:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have different departments within the government that are taking a look at the situation that is at play in Europe, and specifically Ukraine. I would suggest to members that these departments have very capable and ably-minded individuals who are very aware of the situation, and we continue to move forward. The issue of humanitarian aid is something that the Government of Canada has taken very seriously, as Canadians have taken it seriously. We have seen that in terms of monetary contributions, and we see that every day, whether it is with prayers or other forms of support that go to Ukraine from Canada. I am sure the specific issue the member has raised will work its way through in a very natural way.

127 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Mar/29/22 7:01:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening to let all members, and all Canadians, know that it is time to end the mandates. This issue is so much bigger than any one individual piece of the pandemic restrictions we have seen over the course of the last two years. It is bigger than any one hardship, but the collective hardships that Canadians have faced amount to so much. The decisions that the government has made over this time, as we have heard time and time again, have been grounded in science. Hon. members in this place are expected to be honourable at all times, to be honest, to not mislead the House and to be forthright, so this evening I am going to give the parliamentary secretary the opportunity to tell Canadians what the government's plan is. On which date is the government going to end federal mandates? We know that every single one of the provinces have either ended their vaccine and mask mandates, or they have announced the date they are going to do that. Every single one of them has done that. Those decisions were made by the chief medical officer of health of each of those provinces, guided by the science. We have 10 of the provinces, with 10 chief medical officers of health, all agreeing that it is safe to lift those restrictions based on the science. The same should be true for the federal chief medical officer of health and for the federal government. Instead, the hardships Canadians have faced over the last two years persist, with those such as the federal public servants who have been put out of work because of those restrictions or a medical choice. Some even received their first dose in a two-dose series and had a reaction, or they were not able to proceed with their second shot. Some were not prepared to disclose their vaccination status to their employer. That is true for federal public servants, RCMP and members of the Canadian forces. We know that Canadians have the strictest domestic travel regulations in the world. Canadians cannot take a plane to fly to visit an ailing loved one, see the birth of a child, mourn the passing of a family member or a close friend if they do not check the boxes that the government has set out. This is the federal government, when the provinces have said that it is safe to waive those restrictions. Our tourism sector businesses have been incredibly hard hit. Speaking with members of the Frontier Duty Free Association, members in my riding and their representatives from across Canada, I have been hearing about how they are at risk of losing their businesses and their homes because of these continued regulations, but the science says that it is safe to lift the restrictions. I look forward to the parliamentary secretary telling me all the good things and about the lives that have been saved. We all celebrate saved lives, but now we are at a point two years in where the science tells us it is safe. It is safe to lift those restrictions. We need to shift to a model of personal responsibility, like so many Canadians have done over the last two years, by following the rules, staying home, masking up and, for many, getting vaccinated. Now that personal responsibility is theirs to bear, and we as a society are prepared to follow the science, to end the mask mandate and end the vaccine mandates because that is what the science says.

598 words

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Mar/29/22 7:05:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes for his question about how we are handling our international borders. I would like to remind the hon. member that the Government of Canada announced new border measures that will take effect this Friday, April 1. It is a step that so many Canadians have been waiting for and it is great news for snowbirds who are keen to come home after spending the winter abroad. These new measures are a result of the tenacity of citizens. Canadians, residents, foreign workers, truckers, health care workers and many others have steadfastly worn masks, kept their distance, sanitized and followed public health guidelines. They have postponed, as he mentioned, vacations, weddings, birthdays and so much more. They have lined up to take not just one or two but three vaccinations. They understand the value of coming together to protect our most vulnerable. I wish I could thank everyone who has committed to these measures over the last two years. It is those sacrifices and that sense of community that allows us to transition this week to a new phase at the border. I know my hon. colleague will join me in offering our thanks here in the House of Commons. Starting April 1, fully vaccinated travellers will no longer need to provide recent COVID-19 test results in order to enter Canada by air, land or water. Although boosters have shown to help Canadians avoid COVID, they are not necessary to qualify as fully vaccinated. Public safety remains at the forefront of all of our decision-making, so while we no longer need all fully vaccinated travellers to be tested, some of them will be selected randomly for mandatory testing. Those who are selected will be glad to know they are not required to quarantine while waiting for their test results. To further safeguard Canadians, we will continue to require valid accepted proof of pre-entry testing for travellers aged five and up who are not vaccinated or are only partially vaccinated. I would like to remind our returning snowbirds and other travellers that regardless of how long they were away from Canada, we still need them to submit their information in ArriveCAN before arriving in Canada, either by using the free mobile app or by printing their receipt from a computer. If I may, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Canada Border Services Agency employees for their tireless work over the last two years. We will continue to move toward a more sustainable approach to the management of the COVID-19 pandemic.

443 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/29/22 7:08:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I echo the parliamentary secretary's praise of our dedicated CBSA officers, including at the two ports of entry in my riding, but PSAC, which represents federal workers, is calling for an end to the unscientific mandate that is keeping their members and employees off the job. The businesses along the border, like the duty-free shops I mentioned before, are suffering. They are unable to do business. Those ones in particular were disproportionately hit hard by border restrictions and are just asking the government to follow the science and lift the federal mandates, just as has been done in all the provinces where each one of those ports of entry operates.

114 words

Ms. Pam Damoff

Mar/29/22 7:09:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, over the last few months the Government of Canada has had to make adjustments to public health measures already in place at our borders in an effort to tackle the omicron variant of COVID-19. Based on a number of factors, including Canada's high vaccination rates, the increasing availability and use of rapid tests to detect infection, hospitalization rates and growing domestic availability of therapeutics and treatments, the Government of Canada is adjusting and will continue to adjust its border and travel measures. Canadians continue to be asked to please exercise caution while travelling abroad, understand the risks that are still associated with international travel and take the necessary precautions. Rules and public health measures can change quickly. The Government of Canada will continue to enforce public health measures at the border in response to the evolving threat of COVID-19, and we will always protect Canadians.

150 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/29/22 7:10:39 p.m.
Watch

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 7:10 p.m.)

42 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 48