So V ote

May/16/22 3:53:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is so important. I want to hearken back again to that day at the end of 2019 when Taiwan advised the world about the person-to-person transmission of the COVID-19 virus. We had the opposite of that coming from countries such as China. The Communist Party of China was telling us the very opposite. We could have all benefited from that information. When we look at the country of Taiwan, we see it is under threat like Ukraine has been under threat from Russia. When we do not speak out in advance and do not show our support for democracies like Taiwan when it counts, authoritarian regimes roll right over top of them and we have to try to support them in the aftermath of that. We say an awful lot about what can be done. This is something that we can do today to make sure that the next Ukraine is not Taiwan. It is so important that we support our democratic allies.

169 words

May/16/22 3:52:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a very disappointing response from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for the Government of Canada. We are using an important tool in this place, and that is to concur in a report from a committee that calls for the participation of Taiwan in the WHO and the WHA. With respect to the advice that we get from global health bodies, that advice can be improved by the participation of responsible, democratic countries like Taiwan. The government has an opportunity today to put aside the partisan politics that the government House leader's parliamentary secretary is offering and instead engage in this debate, which will be very brief on a day that we sit until midnight. Then we can vote in favour of this motion to support Taiwan's participation in the WHO and the WHA. It will result in better health outcomes for everyone around the world and all Canadians.

157 words

All Topics

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

May/16/22 3:41:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on Friday, April 29, 2022, be concurred in. It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this important report, tabled by the health committee. I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton. This report reaffirms the support of the full participation of the country of Taiwan in the WHA, the World Health Assembly, and the WHO, the World Health Organization. Taiwan has been shut out of these international institutions over the objections of one group, and that is the Chinese Communist Party. We should go back and take a look at the implications of this and the important role that Taiwan could have played in a major, recent global health event. In the early days of the COVID pandemic, we had a great opportunity. I want to take us back to December 31, 2019. One of the big global players that we saw on the stage during the COVID pandemic was the Communist Party of China. On December 31, 2019, it was not talking about COVID, but Taiwan signalled to the WHO major concerns about the COVID-19 virus being transmitted from person to person. That was the opposite of what the Communist Party of China was saying, but Taiwan was saying what we now know to be true. Taiwan was on the leading edge of this in 2019. It is interesting. We talk about “COVID-19”, because it is from 2019, but most of the world was not recognizing it until well into 2020. Taiwan was on the leading edge, but instead of heeding the warning offered by Taiwan, the WHO took the advice of communist China. In the early days of COVID, the world could have been informed by Taiwan's transparent epidemic command centre, but instead we were met with misinformation, cover-ups and suppression of the work of independent journalists. Now, more than ever, the need for rational states in the regions influenced by aggressive, authoritarian regimes has been made clear. The pressure and influence the CCP has exerted and continues to exert on these international institutions is nothing short of extraordinary, and the CCP has made it clear that if Taiwan wishes to be part of the WHO or the WHA, it must submit and accept the one China policy. That language is important. It is evident that, because of the pressure put on these institutions, China will be the one calling the shots. It should be noted that Taiwan participated in the WHO as an observer from 2009 to 2016, but since 2017 Taiwan has been excluded from the WHA due to opposition from China, particularly due to the policies of the current president. Since then, the WHO has denied Taiwan even observer status. Taiwan, a democracy, is being denied participation in the WHO and the WHA by the CCP. That is absolutely unacceptable. Taiwan deserves a seat at the table and should be allowed to participate on the world stage. That is evidenced by the point that I referenced earlier: its epidemic command centre. Taiwan was able to provide pandemic information on the leading edge in 2019, while we were being met with misinformation and cover-ups from the very country that would see Taiwan denied admission to the WHO and the WHA. From a health perspective alone, it is outrageous that Taiwan is not given the opportunity to participate. Canada and Taiwan's friendship has been ongoing during the past 150 years. They have enriched and benefited each other through their continued involvement and through their continued interactions. Canada must be there for its allies. Canada must stand up for its democratic allies. Many of our allies have been strong in their public support for Taiwan's participation in these important global institutions. The G7 issued a statement that said, “We underscore the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and encourage the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues.” It went on to affirm its support of Taiwan's inclusion, saying, “The international community should be able to benefit from the experience of all partners”. The United States has passed legislation supporting Taiwan's inclusion in the WHO and the WHA, underscoring the importance of the debate occurring today and a vote affirming it in this place. The United States House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill, S.812, to ask Washington to help Taiwan gain observer status in the WHA. The bill cleared the U.S. Senate in August of the past year, and President Biden passed the bill into law on May 13. Who else are we talking about? Denmark, Latvia, Slovakia and the European Parliament have all passed resolutions supporting Taiwan's participation in the WHA. Despite this, Canada has not offered support as an individual nation. It looks like it is our turn. There is more we can do and there is more that we should be doing. Concurring in this report is not all that can be done, but it certainly is a good step in showing support for Taiwan on the world stage. What has happened in Ukraine with the Russian invasion really underscores the possibility, frankly, that it could happen in Taiwan. It could be China that invades a sovereign democracy. Russia and China signalled their intention to have a close and historic partnership that everyone in the world should pay attention to. I have mentioned this before in the House. They talked about a comprehensive strategic partnership. Mr. Putin described it as “a relationship that probably cannot be compared with anything in the world”. Autocratic states want to upset the international and rightful order of things, and weakness on the world stage is exploited and allows these types of things to happen. Allies must support each other. Having Taiwan's full participation in these international bodies is important not only to the world, but also to Canada. It would be an asset in our responses to future health events. I invite all colleagues to join me and support Taiwan's inclusion in the WHA and the WHO, and in concurring in this report. An awful lot of work is transacted in this place, and we have an awful lot of opportunities to do the right thing. We have famously heard from the government in the past that Canada would be back on the world stage. It is time for people around the world to take notice, for Canada not to be last and for Canada to stand up for an ally, stand up for a democracy and stand up for Taiwan. That is the opportunity we have today.

1134 words

All Topics

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

May/16/22 2:13:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the current Liberal government’s recklessness has caused the price of everything to go up. People in my community are being forced to choose between buying nutritious groceries for their families and paying their utility bills. For a lot of families, summer sports are now a pipe dream due to the high price of gas. Never before have we seen gas prices this high, and the government continues to raise gas taxes, with no end in sight. The Liberals seem to be pleased with the massive cost of fuel, because it has helped to achieve the end goal of their carbon tax: to continuously raise taxes and increase the price of fuel, so that Canadians are effectively beaten into submission and can no longer drive because they cannot afford it. The cost of living crisis is desperately impacting Canadians, especially rural Canadians like those in my riding. They are looking to catch a break; they are looking for relief, and they are looking for someone to stand up for their best interests. Canada’s Conservatives will continue to hold the government to account for its recklessness and mismanagement. We will continue to fight to make life more affordable for all Canadians.

205 words

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

May/16/22 1:26:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, the member talks about co-operation and is very excited about the NDP's co-operation with the Liberals. I wonder if he has the same enthusiasm for co-operation with the provinces, which it is incumbent upon the government to undertake. Prior to the NDP's committing to support this legislation, can the member share with us what consultations, that he knows of, have taken place between the federal government and the provinces? As for the work that is already ongoing with respect to the boundaries commission, has that been adjusted, altered or worked into the planning of the potential implementation of this legislation? Further, Canadians have a guaranteed right to representation by population. What is the member's thinking with respect to Canadians' existing rights and the government's responsibility to partner, co-operate and communicate with the provinces instead of an “Ottawa knows best” or a “Liberal-NDP knows best” approach?

160 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 71 - May/13/22

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Michael Barrett)

May/13/22 12:40:38 p.m.
Watch

I will consult with the Table. And the count having been taken: Quorum has been maintained, and we will go back to the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

30 words

Context: House Hansard - 71 - May/13/22

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Michael Barrett)

May/13/22 12:40:34 p.m.
Watch

I would ask the member to stop for a moment. We have a point of order from the member for Perth—Wellington.

23 words

Context: House Hansard - 71 - May/13/22

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

May/13/22 12:18:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-223

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and present a petition signed by Canadians from across the country in support of Bill S-223. I would like to flag the ongoing advocacy on this issue by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. As previous petitioners have noted, Bill S-223 seeks to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking, and would make it a criminal offence for a person to travel abroad and receive an organ taken without the consent of the person giving the organ. It is very important to note that this bill has passed the Senate unanimously three times and passed the House unanimously in 2019 in the same form as the current bill. With debate beginning today, it is imperative that all members support this bill so we can end this reprehensible and dangerous practice.

141 words

All Topics

May/12/22 1:28:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is very simple. It is a question of content created by individual Canadians who have seen that the government has taken unprecedented steps to, frankly, intervene when it does not like what Canadians are saying. We saw that with the government trying to quash dissent with its use of the Emergencies Act, as one example. We need to be on guard against that, but when info ops are being perpetrated on Canada by a foreign government, and Canadians are not speaking out within their rights in a democratic framework against their own government, those are two very different things. We need to study this. We need to examine what foreign governments are undertaking in Canada. Specifically with respect to this motion, we need to find out the full breadth of what the CCP is doing, and what that should look like for our future involvement with them here in Canada.

153 words

All Topics

May/12/22 1:25:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a really important question. It speaks to the work that parliamentary committees can do. It also speaks to the importance of transparency: A parliamentary committee was demanding answers when the government of Canada had done a lot of business over successive years with this company, the WE group, that said it was there to help Canadians and help young people. It would not exercise basic levels of transparency when, frankly, ordered to legally by Canada's Parliament and by members of the House of Commons. It is unacceptable. Frankly, it cannot go unanswered. We know now that they are undertaking a very likely expensive PR campaign to try and rewrite history, and maybe clean up their image. Frankly, it is a very telling lesson on what we can do as Parliament, but also that more work still could be done because we certainly did not get all the answers that we were legally entitled to, as the people's representatives here in Canada. Canadians deserve better than what they saw from the WE organization.

178 words

All Topics

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

May/12/22 1:14:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the opposition day motion that we have before the House with respect to reinstating a committee to look at our country's relationship with China. I would be remiss not to first mention, during Asian Heritage Month, the more than six million people of Asian heritage who live in Canada and who have enriched our country with their unique cultures, languages and traditions. Asian Canadians have made countless contributions to Canada in medicine, music, literature and business, and I could go on. Asian Canadians have blessed Canada and added to the incredible richness of our diverse and wonderful country. I hope they have already been mentioned today, but if not I will mention some noteworthy Asian Canadians and their contributions to our country, such as Douglas Jung, the first Chinese Canadian MP; another proud Asian Canadian, Bev Oda, the first Japanese Canadian MP; and a friend of mine, Nelly Shin, the first Korean Canadian MP. All of them have one terrific thing in common: They are all Conservatives. There is an interesting nexus, when I talk about the contribution of these folks. While we talk about the need for this committee, I will say that Ms. Shin, a former hon. member of this place, and several colleagues and candidates were targeted in the most recent election by agents of the Chinese Communist Party. They were subjected to an organized campaign of disinformation and misinformation, perpetrated on Canadian soil and online platforms in an attempt to destabilize the community, and in particular to punish some Asian Canadians, such as Ms. Shin and Mr. Kenny Chiu, for having the courage to speak out against the communist regime in China. Not only does the CCP target MPs of all parties; it also targets students and new Canadians with threats, harassment and intimidation. This is one of the reasons why this committee is so important. This committee did a great job in the last Parliament of looking at all aspects of the relationship between Canada and China. I would note one of the reasons why this committee's creation has not been pressed to this point is because of the limited lack of resources that we have in the House of Commons and the emerging opportunity that comes with the programmed wind-up of the special committee on Canada and Afghanistan. In the context of the resources that we have, it would be good to engage the House resources and members of the House on this committee. I have heard in the debate today, which I have been listening to, thoughtful comments from all sides of the House. Does the committee undermine the work of other standing committees, such as the foreign affairs committee? I would have to say no, because those committees are seized with other important issues and their agendas are full through June, when they are busy getting reports prepared, but also through the fall. This issue of Canada's relationship with China, and with the government of China, is a big one. It is incredibly important. I want to talk about a couple of reasons it is so important. I would be remiss not to mention the contrast between Canada and countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. The contrast is this: Those four countries have all identified a national security risk from Huawei, a company that is effectively controlled by the Communist Party of China, and has banned it from their 5G networks. Those four countries have a particular relevance to Canada, because they are our partners. They are our allies in the Five Eyes partnership. The focus of that partnership is national security and the sharing of information. We have a consensus forming with four of the five, but the government has not taken action with respect to that. Based on the evidence that we have seen out of those other countries and what we have heard in this country, even at the special committee on Canada-China relations in its previous iteration, which is that we need to ban Huawei from our 5G network, it speaks to the larger issue of Canada's relationship with China. We have heard comments and questions from other members about previous engagement with China under previous governments. We have heard testimony at committee that the reality, the global picture and the actors within the CCP are very different today than they were even a few years ago. If decisions were taken in previous years that some members in this place feel should be re-examined, as I have just outlined with respect to a decision on Huawei, this is all the more reason why members in this place should see this motion passed. Speaking of the issue of information technology, the involvement in our ever-evolving and growing digital world by companies with an interest controlled out of Communist China, I would hearken people back to a time when, in Ottawa, we had a very proud IT sector and a globally recognized company that was on the cutting edge of IT. It was a huge employer: Nortel Networks. Nortel Networks, we know, fell victim to infiltration and theft of intellectual property by agents of the Government of China. It had devastating effects on IP in Canada, devastating effects on employment and, frankly, devastating effects on that sector in this country. I also should note that the House has recognized, and that the world is waking up to, a reality that I do not think we have talked about before. It speaks to the need to further magnify the role that China is taking, and what business we want to do with that country. It is the ongoing genocide perpetrated by the Communist government in China against the Uighurs and Turkic Muslims. We cannot turn a blind eye to that. This should colour much of our relationship and potential future dealings with China. We know that with the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, China has signalled a very close relationship with Russia, and a comprehensive strategic partnership. Mr. Putin described it as “a relationship that probably cannot be compared with anything else in the world”. That should send chills up and down the spines of people around the world, and certainly of all members of this place. I have to mention that we saw, in the last Parliament, the effects of having state agents operating in this country: Foreign agents were operating in this country. We saw that with the Winnipeg labs. State actors from China were being expelled from this country. We saw much drama in this place. Precedents were set. Actions were taken that had not been taken in 100 years. We were looking for truth and transparency for Canadians. There is more work to be done, and I think it is so important when we live more in this global society, that we have our eyes wide open about who our partners are, who are friends are, who our allies are, where there are risks and where there are threats. We can do that while being respectful of the important contributions of Asian Canadians and Chinese Canadians, and of Chinese people who want to come to Canada, live here and contribute to our wonderful country. However, we cannot be strong on the world stage without first knowing the fullness of our relationship with the CCP here at home, and that is why the Canada-China committee must be reconvened.

1259 words

All Topics

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

May/12/22 10:26:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills for his great explanation and presentation on the need for this committee. He referenced, in his answer to the previous questioner, the need to provide the government some help on a policy with respect to Huawei, hopefully to ban Huawei from Canada's 5G network. What other policies should the committee inform the government on? What other existential issues is Canada or the world facing with respect to risks in the Indo-Pacific and our relationship with the People's Republic of China?

98 words

Context: House Hansard - 68 - May/10/22

Context: House Hansard - 68 - May/10/22

May/10/22 7:15:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canadians are looking for some certainty. I appreciate that there was uncertainty two years ago, when we did not know, but now we know an awful lot. We also know, and the parliamentary secretary knows, that I come from a community that has a higher vaccination rate than nearly any other place in the country. The people in my community are looking for some certainty from the government. Is it reading the tea leaves or is it reading the numbers? Is one of the factors that it is using to keep these measures in place the number of fatalities that it is attributing to COVID-19? If that is the case, it should be transparent and tell Canadians. Is there a set number of booster doses that needs to be administered before it is going to lift the mandates? It needs to tell Canadians that. In the absence of that, it looks like it is just throwing darts at a dartboard and guessing at what it is going to do next, or worse, making decisions based on political factors instead of on scientific factors. Again, I will ask the parliamentary secretary, and I am genuinely looking for an answer here: When does he think that they are going to lift the mandates?

214 words

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

May/10/22 7:07:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening to take the opportunity, on behalf of Canadians who are wondering, to ask the government when it will end the mandates. I have asked this question a few times in here, and I knew that my remarks this evening would draw a big crowd in the government benches, and rightly so. There should be a lot of attention on this from government members and from backbenchers of the governing party, because we are two years into this pandemic and we know an awful lot more about COVID now than we did in March 2020. What we are looking for from the government is the same thing that we have been calling for, which we have formalized in motions in this place: the benchmarks that need to be hit for federal COVID mandates to be lifted. This was an entirely reasonable position for us to take several months ago. However, the government has failed to provide them, so now our position is for the government to catch up to the science and end the mandates. The opportunity to furnish Canadians with the information that the government is using to keep the mandates in place has come and gone. Now the government needs to catch up. It needs to catch up with the chief medical officers of health in the provinces across the country, who have put in place plans and lifted mandates. It needs to catch up with our allies, such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, and the list goes on. Some of the mandates that we have in place here were never put in place elsewhere, but they remain in place. They are extremely restrictive and include domestic requirements for taking flights and trains in this country and for continuing work in a federally regulated job or in the public service. The vaccine mandates that the government put in place, as we have heard from the minister on more than one occasion, have served their purpose. They drove vaccine rates up. If that was the raison d'être and it has been successful, then let us hang up the “mission accomplished” banner and end the mandates. This is what we have been looking for. What are the epidemiological factors that the government has been relying on to keep the mandates in place? Are they based on waste-water surveillance? Are they based on vaccination rates? Are they based on regional or provincial case counts? We do not know and when we have asked, the government does not seem to know. We have even heard from the top doctor at the Public Health Agency of Canada that it is not her decision when to lift the mandates. I therefore have a couple of questions, and I expect that my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, is going to offer a response. My questions are as follows. Whose decision is it to lift the mandates? What are the benchmarks that are being evaluated for them to arrive at their decision to end the mandates? On what day or date does he reasonably expect that the mandates will be lifted? Canadians deserve to know.

541 words

Context: House Hansard - 67 - May/9/22

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

May/9/22 2:32:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it used to be thought here in Canada that if people worked hard, made good choices and saved, they could be homeowners, but under the Liberal government housing prices have increased by 100%. Millennials and working Canadians have watched the dream of home ownership slip through their fingers. Never has a government spent so much and congratulated itself more while doing so much damage to the dreams of Canadians. When will the Liberals climb down from their ivory tower, admit their policies have failed and fix the broken housing system they have created?

95 words

May/6/22 1:15:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, to the request from the hon. parliamentary secretary, the previous chair occupant already ruled and spoke to this. As he said, the requirement is that the camera must be on for a member to be counted toward quorum. That was said, and I am sure that if you check with our good folks at Hansard, they will confirm that was the ruling of the chair occupant on a previous quorum call today. I would also note that while the parliamentary secretary—

84 words

All Topics

May/6/22 12:35:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke, the hon. gentleman from New Westminster—Burnaby, did say that I misinformed the House, and I would respectfully ask, in light of the verification offered by the table officers and by the Chair, that an apology be offered for having alleged that I misled the House.

54 words

All Topics

May/6/22 12:33:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, it is not a lack of understanding. Members in the chamber are able to see the other members who are physically in the chamber. Not to discount the number of members who are online, but that number is in fact seven, not “dozens” as my hon. colleague said. There is no way for members in the House to verify that. That is why I respectfully requested that the Chair verify quorum.

75 words

All Topics