SoVote

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.)

Jun/9/23 12:19:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition today that has been signed by the members of the Falun Gong, who have been very proactive on a number of different issues. Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that consists of meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. In July 1999, the Chinese Communist Party launched an intensive nationwide persecution campaign to eradicate Falun Gong. Hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in forced labour camps, brainwashing centres and prisons, where torture and abuse are routine. Thousands have died as a direct result of this. I am sure members can imagine the passion in those individuals involved in the petition campaign. What they are really doing is calling for the government, and all parliamentarians, to do more in terms of raising the profile of this particular issue and taking actions where we can.

156 words

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

Jun/9/23 12:21:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1435, 1436, 1441 and 1443.

15 words

Jun/9/23 12:21:31 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 1437—

Questioner: Brad Redekopp

With regard to government departments, except Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: what is the spending on settlement services for immigrants by governmental and non-governmental organizations, broken down by the (i) organization, (ii) fiscal year since 2015-16, (iii) projected spending for the fiscal year 2023-24, (iv) province and territory, (v) program line?

Question No. 1438—

Questioner: Brad Redekopp

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and applications to the temporary resident to permanent resident pathway during the program's dates of May 6 to November 5, 2021, broken down by province and territory: (a) how many applications (i) were received, (ii) have been completed, (iii) were approved, (iv) have been refused, (v) are currently outstanding; (b) how many agents are working on the program; (c) on an average weekday, how many processing agents were working at the Whitehorse, Yukon, IRCC office on these files during this time; and (d) what was the budget for processing the applications?

Question No. 1439—

Questioner: Gerald Soroka

With regard to overpayments made by the Phoenix pay system, as of April 24, 2023: (a) what was the total amount of overpayments made by the system; (b) what was the number of employees who received overpayments; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by department, agency, or other government entity that used the Phoenix pay system; (d) of the amount in (a), how much has (i) been recovered, (ii) not yet been recovered; (e) of the amount in (d)(ii), how much has been written off by the government; and (f) for each amount in (e), what was the reason for the write-off?

Question No. 1440—

Questioner: Gerald Soroka

With regard to the report released by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) titled "What We Heard: Perspectives on Climate Change and Public Health in Canada": (a) what was the estimated cost of producing the report; (b) what is the itemized breakdown of all costs associated with the report; (c) what was the total number of PHAC and Health Canada employees who worked on the report; (d) what are the details of all contracts issued related to the report, including, for each (i) the vendor, (ii) the value, (iii) the description of goods or services provided, (iv) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process; and (e) what was the total amount spent on (i) travel, (ii) hospitality, related to the report?

Question No. 1442—

Questioner: Adam Chambers

With regard to government expenditures related to the Prime Minister's town hall meetings that have occurred since January 1, 2023: (a) what are the total expenditures to date associated with the meetings; (b) what is the breakdown of expenditures by meeting, including the date and location of each meeting; (c) what is the itemized breakdown of (a) and (b); and (d) for each meeting in (b), which groups or organizations hosted the meeting?

Question No. 1444—

Questioner: Mike Lake

With regard to government funding of non-governmental organizations or groups, since November 4, 2015: (a) how much money has the government allocated to (i) Environmental Defense Canada, (ii) Climate Action Network Canada, (iii) Oil Change International, (iv) Canadian Climate Institute, (v) LeadNow Society, (vi) Centre for International Environmental Law, (vii) Climate Emergency Institute, (viii) International Institute for Sustainable Development, (ix) Canadian Institute for Climate Choices, (x) Canadian Labour Congress, (xi) Trottier Energy Institute, (xii) Friends of the Earth U.S.; (b) for each entity in (a), what are the details, including the (i) department, agency or other government entity, (ii) date of the funding, (iii) amount and deliverables expected; (c) of the allocations in (a), which ones were (i) sole-sourced, (ii) awarded through a competitive bidding process; (d) of the allocations in (c)(ii), what was the (i) duration of the competition, (ii) number of organizations that submitted bids for the required deliverables; and (e) what programs from each organization listed in (a) received government funding, broken down by year and deliverables expected?

Question No. 1445—

Questioner: Rachael Thomas

With regard to government requests to remove, edit, or alter information in the media, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many requests has the government made to social media companies, including for any article, post or reply; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by social media platform, year, department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity that made the request; (c) what are the details of each request to a social media company, including, for each (i) the date, (ii) the platform, (iii) the description of the post or reply, (iv) a summary of the request, (v) the reason for the request, (vi) whether the information was removed, edited, or altered, and if so, what changed, (vii) the title of the individual who made the request; (d) how many requests has the government made to traditional media companies; (e) what is the breakdown of (d) by media outlet, year, department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity that made the request; and (f) what are the details of each request in (d), including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the media outlet, (iii) the title of the individual who made the request, (iv) the description of the content subject to the request, (v) whether the content was removed, edited, or altered, and if so, what changed?

870 words

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

Jun/9/23 12:21:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1437 to 1440, 1442, 1444 and 1445 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

29 words

Jun/9/23 12:21:31 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 1435—

Questioner: Brad Redekopp

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the government's response to Order Paper question Q-1146: what are the details of the tables provided in Annex A, broken down by category and country of origin?

Question No. 1436—

Questioner: Brad Redekopp

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: what is the spending on settlement services for immigrants by governmental and non-governmental organizations, broken down by the (i) organization, (ii) fiscal year, since 2015-16, (iii) projected spending for the fiscal year 2023-24, (iv) province and territory, (v) program spending, including but not limited to, the Resettlement Assistance Program, the Interim Housing Assistance Program, the International Migration Capacity Building Program, and the Settlement Program?

Question No. 1441—

Questioner: Scott Aitchison

With regard to the Housing Accelerator Fund: (a) will having municipal regulations that encourage housing development be a pre-requisite for communities to receive money through the fund, and, if not, why not; (b) will communities who receive funding be required to avoid taking any action that makes the building of housing more difficult, such as restrictive zoning changes or by-laws; (c) what are the metrics that will be used by the government to monitor the effectiveness of this funding in each community; and (d) how does the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation currently track municipal housing policies, and does this tracking include whether or not a community's policies are consistent with the goals of the fund?

Question No. 1443—

Questioner: Michelle Ferreri

With regard to the government's response to the July 2018 report from the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology titled "The Shame is Ours: Forced Adoptions of the Babies of Unmarried Mothers in Post-war Canada": (a) why did the government not act on the first recommendation by issuing a formal apology; (b) does the government have any plans to issue a formal apology to the mothers and babies who were subject to forced adoptions, and, if so, what are the plans, including the time; (c) did the government create a fund to support training programs for professional counsellors that is appropriate for the needs of individuals affected by past adoption practices and the provision of counselling services by those professionals to mothers and adoptees affected by forced adoption practices, at no cost to them, and, if not, why not; and (d) does the government plan on setting up a fund similar to that contained in recommendation number three of the report, and, if so, what are the details?

1692 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/9/23 12:21:31 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/9/23 12:21:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

22 words

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

Jun/9/23 12:22:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is very encouraging legislation. As I highlighted earlier in the form of a question to the member, it is actually healthier legislation today than when it was first introduced, because of the process that we have gone through. The biggest benefactors, I believe, to this are going to be the people who it will impact and the people who have the desire to reach out and help others, in particular, in Afghanistan. Could the member just give a very brief highlight as to why he is supporting the bill?

92 words

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

Jun/9/23 12:22:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I certainly agree that this bill has been improved through the committee process. I think it improves on the absence of a bill in this context, although there is still a lot of work to be done. This is why Conservatives proposed a very tight timeline for review, so that we will be able to revisit the subject a year from now. Our government has moved far too late on this, but at this point, we need to move forward as quickly as possible and then evaluate the approach. We can then see to what extent it is working effectively to get humanitarian and other forms of development assistance to those who urgently need it.

120 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/9/23 12:23:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-41

Mr. Speaker, it is quite an honour for me to rise with you in the chair. It is a first for me, and I hope I will live up to your wisdom. I am a bit nervous about my speech and I am worried you will find it is not up to snuff, but we can talk about that later. Last year, many of my colleagues from the other parties and I had the honour to serve on the Special Committee on Afghanistan. I was one of the co-chairs of that committee. One of the very first questions that I had the opportunity to ask the witnesses over a year ago now at the February 7, 2022, meeting was this: They said that the Criminal Code might need to be amended so that NGOs on the ground could operate in Afghanistan without fear of being accused of funding terrorism. In my opinion, this is a very important subject that we need to address. What are your thoughts on this...? That was February 7, 2022. I asked that question as soon as I had the opportunity to do so, both to the organizations themselves and to the various departments involved. It will come as no surprise, then, that I was quite happy to hear the government finally announce that it was going to amend Canada's Criminal Code to make it possible for humanitarian aid to flow again and to allow NGOs to do their work without fear of prosecution. That was exactly what the NGOs were afraid of. Bill C‑41 is a useful bill that will help us make progress in the area of humanitarian aid. I am happy to have made my small contribution along with my colleagues from the other parties. As everyone knows, I am a lover of democracy. I am one of those who believe that, despite differences of opinion, working together is beneficial to the parliamentary process the majority of the time. I would therefore like to thank my colleagues with whom I have worked over the last few weeks to try to improve this bill, but also to support its speedy passage. I would like to mention them by name because, unfortunately, it has been a long-term process, but one of collaboration. I want to thank the member for Oakville North—Burlington, the member for Edmonton Strathcona and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. A number of other MPs took part in the work, but it was this group of MPs who worked in greater depth on the bill and managed to find some common ground. I would also like to take this opportunity to tell them that I am proud of the work we accomplished. It shows that, despite our often differing positions, and sometimes even completely opposing positions, we can work together and get things done. Ultimately, Bill C‑41 is a good bill, but we have to be careful not to get ahead of ourselves. Although I consider it a good bill, I had to temper my expectations a few times. There is nothing unusual in that; it goes hand in hand with teamwork and collaboration among the parties. Still, although I dare hope we achieved a result that will satisfy everyone, I think Bill C-41 could have been much better. Let me explain. The bill is now in the Senate for a pre-study before it reaches report stage. As it is currently written, the Criminal Code does not include any exemptions to facilitate the delivery of essential activities in areas affected by terrorism. The government of Canada tabled Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, on March 9. As I mentioned earlier, this bill amends one of the Criminal Code's anti-terrorist financing offences to facilitate the delivery of much-needed international assistance, immigration activities, and other assistance in geographic areas controlled by terrorist groups. In other words, the proposed amendments would create a new authorization scheme that would allow those that provide humanitarian aid to apply for an authorization that would shield them from the risk of criminal liability if the terms and conditions of the authorization are respected. We have to understand that the Taliban, as the current de facto authority in Afghanistan, is likely to receive revenue from any payments needed to support humanitarian aid. For example, sometimes the Taliban may collect taxes at roadside checkpoints they have set up and people have to pay to be able to pass through. Under the Criminal Code, any Canadian or person in Canada making or authorizing such payments would risk contravening a provision of the Criminal Code. Despite the uncertainty, most organizations have continued to respond to crises around the world, but problems have grown exponentially since the Taliban, a listed terrorist entity, took control of Afghanistan in August 2021. In that regard, the scale of the humanitarian and economic crisis that the Afghan people are now facing cannot be overstated. On paper, Bill C-41 rectifies this inability to make exceptions for organizations that are trying to deliver humanitarian aid on the ground. Some humanitarian groups welcome the bill, but others were less favourable because they feel it creates more legal obstacles and red tape. For the sake of clarity, here is what Bill C‑41 set out at first reading. Under this regime, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, the Minister of Public Safety or an authorized delegate would have the authority to grant an authorization to NGOs. That seems like a lot of people. When we talk about bureaucracy, that is what we are talking about. I think it is clear that Bill C‑41, at its foundation, may not have been ideal. “The authorizations would shield applicants from criminal liability for certain activities such as the provision of international assistance...that would otherwise risk contravening the Criminal Code.” That is a good aspect of the bill and it is about time. “In deciding whether to grant an authorization, the Minister of Public Safety would consider referrals by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and take into account their assessment of the application”. All of that remains to be seen. The Bloc Québécois criticized the government for using an approach based on mistrust, even though it already knows a good number of the Canadian NGOs that it collaborates with and who have a proven track record. No departmental representative was able to tell me how long the authorization process would take. Even if someone had given me a figure, would we have believed them? Since becoming an MP, I have had many opportunities to observe how slowly the Canadian bureaucracy moves. At first reading of Bill C‑41, it provided for applications for authorization to be processed within a reasonable period of time by the Government of Canada. I repeat that we were talking about a reasonable period of time by the Government of Canada. That is scary. Despite the positive advances in Bill C‑41 at first reading, what worried me was the number of interventions required between departments and the impact of such a bill on humanitarian organizations. It is no secret that when it comes to processing times, I get the sense that there are some departments that do not spend much time checking the clock. For NGOs working in countries such as Afghanistan, where the situation is deteriorating before our eyes, time is running out. As I said earlier, when Bill C‑41 was being studied in committee, I had to make some concessions. That is fine and it is to be expected. The Bloc Québécois worked closely with the other parties and with stakeholders to speed up the passage of this bill but, more importantly, to improve it. Overall, I was happy with the result. Imagine my surprise, however, when I learned in committee that the government was boasting about having held extensive consultations with major NGOs in drafting the bill. We quickly realized that some major organizations like Doctors Without Borders had not been consulted, when those are the organizations who are most familiar with what is happening on the ground. The entire sector should have been consulted, but unfortunately, it was not. Another unfortunate point is that I get the impression that this is starting to become a habit on the government side. Bills are introduced, but, often, the community that will be most impacted by them has not been consulted, or the government consulted a small, select group of people who often have close ties to the Liberal Party, people who are already convinced. I think the government should do a little soul-searching and perhaps re-evaluate the way it conducts consultations on bills that are to be tabled in the House. Although all the parties had announced their willingness to pass the bill quickly so that humanitarian aid could get to Afghans in need as quickly as possible, it still took quite a while. The original bill contained some problematic provisions, including a very significant concentration of power in the hands of the Minister of Public Safety, a lack of predictability for NGOs and overreach in certain elements of Canadian government investigations. For this reason, I think that the amended version of Bill C‑41 achieves the necessary balance between security, justice and humanitarian aid. What is more, opposition members were united on most of the amendments proposed. My colleagues who spoke before me mentioned that, and the ones who will speak after me will say the same thing. However, I must also point out that the government was available and honestly open to discussion. I want to thank the member for Oakville North—Burlington, with whom I spoke many times, sometimes late into the night, to try to come to an agreement so that the bill would be passed by the House. Yes, the opposition parties were united on some of the amendments, but the government was also very open. I want to say that it is a pleasure to work with my Liberal Party colleague. I know her reputation and I know that I am not the only one who finds it easy to work with her. All of my colleagues who have worked with the member for Oakville North—Burlington on various files have said the same thing. We often give the government a hard time because that is our job, but when someone works hard and is open to discussion, it is only right to acknowledge it. Ultimately, the amendments that were adopted improve the bill on several fronts. First, they remove the sword of Damocles hanging over the NGOs wishing to contribute to humanitarian aid in areas controlled by a terrorist group, as the principle of wilfully provided illegitimate aid will be incorporated into the Criminal Code. NGOs will nonetheless have to make reasonable efforts to minimize any potential benefit to terrorist groups. The minister will also be required to inform any eligible group or person of the classes of activities that would require authorization in certain geographic areas. The amendments also provide for an annual report by the minister outlining the applications that were approved or refused in the previous calendar year, as well as a comprehensive review of the impact of the bill, with a detailed plan to remedy any deficiencies that may be identified. The amended bill is a version that, on paper, seems to suit the objectives of all the parties. The true impact of these legislative measures on the ground remains to be seen, however. That is why I want to say that the NGOs and the communities involved are the ones who will be able to tell us whether this is going to work. Unfortunately, we will only know during humanitarian crises in areas controlled by terrorists. That means that things will go badly somewhere in the world. The people who are there to help the less fortunate and the vulnerable are the ones who will be able to tell us whether these legislative measures are working or not. It is mind-boggling to know that it took almost two years since the evacuation operation in Afghanistan for us to finally adopt this kind of legislation in Canada. If I remember correctly, on December 22, 2021, the UN proposed resolution 2615 to respond to the problem of NGOs that want to work in areas controlled by terrorists. The UN adopted that resolution on December 22, 2021 and here we are in June 2023. Canada is finally waking up. It is extremely problematic. Let us not forget that when the pandemic hit the entire country, all the opposition parties came together to adopt legislative measures to quickly come to the help of the Quebec and Canadian people. These were very complex bills that contained complex provisions, but we got the job done in a matter of weeks. Everyone agrees that there is a problem in Afghanistan, that children are probably dying, and that vulnerable women, men and children are suffering and experiencing one of the worst humanitarian crises on the planet. Why has it taken two years to amend Canada's Criminal Code to help them, whereas Parliament was able to quickly adopt pandemic measures over the course of barely two weeks? Every time I asked the ministers why it was taking so long, I was told that the situation was complex, that there were many things to examine and that they did not want to rush. It was urgent, and it is still urgent. For this Liberal government, is the situation of a Canadian who loses their job because of the pandemic more important than that of an Afghan child who needs humanitarian aid to eat and who will die if they do not get it? That is the question we needed to ask. Unfortunately, I believe I know the answer: No, it was not urgent for this government, otherwise the bill would have passed a long time ago. When the government announced that it planned to amend the Criminal Code to facilitate the provision of humanitarian assistance in areas controlled by terrorist groups, the Bloc Québécois reached out to the government. We announced that we wanted to work twice as hard to pass the bill quickly so that our NGOs could once again do their work on the ground and humanitarian aid could reach vulnerable populations. I think it is fair to say that the government did not define the word “quickly” the same way we did. However, let us remain optimistic and continue in a spirit of collaboration. Right now, Bill C-41 is a step in the right direction for humanitarian workers and people who are suffering. However, we will need to take more than one step forward to improve the situation. Since the situation is urgent and we need to be on the ground as quickly as possible, I think we have no choice but to vote in favour of this bill. However, I can understand how some of my colleagues, knowing that the bill will be passed, will vote against it in order to send a message to the government that this bill is not ideal. Of course I have the utmost respect for my esteemed NDP colleague from Edmonton Strathcona. I know she has a background in this field, and she had several criticisms of this bill. While we may vote differently, I think we agree on the principle that we need to help the NGOs do their job. This bill does not necessarily have unanimous consent, but at least we were able to improve it through a number of amendments when the opposition worked together. I think it is important to emphasize that. Just because the NDP and the Bloc Québécois will be voting differently does not mean we are not on the same page. That may sound a bit odd, but it is nevertheless true. In closing, I hope the government will learn from how it handled this file. It is just wrong for the government to drag its feet when it is well aware of a situation that calls for diligent action. When it is a matter of life and death, that is just wrong. This government, which claims to champion human rights while not giving a penny for international development and doing even less than the Harper government did, I would remind the House, needs to stop thinking that it is the best in the world when it comes to human rights. One need only look at how it handled this bill. It is just wrong that the government took so long to do this while people are suffering. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For as long as I live, I will definitely never forget that I delivered a speech with you in the chair.

2872 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Jun/9/23 12:41:56 p.m.
Watch

Before we go to questions and comments, I would like to remind the hon. member that he cannot be disrespectful towards the chair, even sarcastically. The member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

31 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/9/23 12:42:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct that we worked very well together on this legislation. I will be speaking to it directly after him. As he mentioned, I have worked in this sector for over two decades, and one of the main concerns I have with this bill is that, in effect, it criminalizes international development work. Instead of saying that we will tell organizations when we do not want them to work in a certain area or when they need an exemption in a certain area, they have to assume they are committing a crime and check in. This is the criminalization of international development and of the very Canadian organizations that are flying our flags around the world and doing what needs to be done in the most dangerous, difficult circumstances. We are now criminalizing them. I wonder if he could talk a bit about how difficult that makes things for organizations.

154 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Jun/9/23 12:43:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-41

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. That is one of the consequences of this bill. I mentioned it and I believe that she, too, understood my point. We have no choice but to pass it now. It is better to have NGOs on the ground than to have no one. At present, people cannot go work in Afghanistan because they would be in violation of the Criminal Code. That will be the case until we pass this bill. It truly is a ridiculous state of affairs. It was worse in the beginning, at first reading of Bill C‑41. Clearly, there was mistrust of NGOs, as though they were fundamentally doing something wrong and it was up to them to prove otherwise, whereas we should be reversing the burden of proof. I agree with my colleague, 100%. As I said, everyone tried to come to a compromise for this bill. That is what has happened. Admittedly, it is far from perfect. However, people are suffering in Afghanistan right now, and we absolutely must vote in favour of this bill, even if it means tabling a new bill to improve it when Parliament resumes in the fall. In the meantime, a number of NGOs in the sector are asking us to pass the bill. Then we will see if we can amend or improve it.

225 words

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

Jun/9/23 12:45:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the member's efforts and thoughts in regard to the whole committee process. It is quite encouraging when members from different political sides come together to give strength to legislation. I understand there was a high sense of co-operation. I looked this up just to make sure that I had the riding right. Oakville North—Burlington is the riding of the member he is referring to. Knowing her personality, I am sure she would have greatly appreciated the sense of co-operation coming from the member representing the Bloc. Would my hon. colleague not acknowledge that, as a result of that high sense of co-operation, something done in an apolitical fashion, to a certain degree we now have stronger, healthier legislation?

130 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Jun/9/23 12:45:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, there was a lot of co-operation and mutual support on this bill. Not everyone is happy with the final product, but it is what it is. I think that the way that we worked and the process that we followed to get to where we are today can serve as a model. The Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the government all worked on this bill. The next person who is going to speak, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, is going to be a bit more critical in her speech. I support those criticisms. However, as I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill because the situation is urgent. Something should have been done long a long time ago. Throughout the process, I saw evidence of the fact that it is possible to work with some government members to make legislative changes. However, that is not always the case. I would like all the other government members to look at what the member for Oakville North—Burlington did and follow her example. If everyone were like her, then things would go a lot better in this Parliament.

211 words

Criticisms

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/9/23 12:47:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech and his hard work. International humanitarian aid represents 0.3% of Canada's GDP, despite the government's commitment to increasing that figure to 0.7% of GDP. This bill could have been passed long ago, because lives that depend on it. My questions for my colleague are the following. Does this not give the impression that, in international matters, Canada is always lagging a bit behind, as though this were not a priority? I do not want to say this is done consciously or voluntarily, but perhaps out of negligence. Should there not be more pressure to make international aid for those who need more a priority again in the future, whether through legislation or financial support?

128 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Jun/9/23 12:48:23 p.m.
Watch

In 2015, Justin Trudeau said, “Canada is back”. Even the NDP—

14 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Jun/9/23 12:50:34 p.m.
Watch

The member for Lac-Saint-Jean knows full well that he cannot name sitting members of the House and that he needs to refer to them by their title.

29 words

Jean
Lac

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Jun/9/23 12:50:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is what the Prime Minister said. People from everywhere, from all political backgrounds, believed him when he said that infamous phrase in 2015. However, the Liberal government spends less on international development than the Harper government did. Canada has never spent so little on international aid. There were even cuts to international aid funding in the last budget. The UN has asked us to invest 0.7% of our GDP in development assistance. Canada is currently investing 0.3%. We are not even close to the OECD average, which is around 0.42%. I am a Quebec sovereignist, and I would argue that Canada is not a military power or an economic power, but it has shown leadership in the area of human rights in the past. Lester B. Pearson comes to mind, with his contribution to peacekeeping. On the Conservative side, Brian Mulroney led the battle against the apartheid regime. Canada has quite a human rights history. When the Prime Minister came to power, he told us that everything would change compared to the previous government. However, things got worse. This Prime Minister is all about image and never about action, especially when it comes to international development, human rights, or funding for international projects that help vulnerable and underprivileged people who live in fear of losing their family, their life and their friends. The Prime Minister should look in the mirror. I know he does it a lot, but he should look himself in the eyes rather than looking at how he is dressed before leaving for work.

263 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/9/23 12:50:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I tend to disagree with the member's comments regarding the Prime Minister. In many ways, Canada is back. We see it, whether through international trade agreements or the demand for the Prime Minister to go outside of Canada, which is fairly high, especially if we compare it to former prime minister Stephen Harper. In many ways, Canada continues to contribute, working through the United Nations, working with our allied forces, doing things to support the Five Eyes countries and doing so much more. On the legislation, I think the legislation is good, and after its passage, we are going to see more people helping more people in need. I see that as a good thing. Would he not agree?

122 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 210