44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 18, 2022 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the senators and members who have gotten involved, directly or indirectly, in tackling the issue of human trafficking, slavery and forced labour in Canada and Quebec and elsewhere in the world. I sincerely thank Senator Miville‑Dechêne, in particular, for her commitment. I do not think my colleagues will hear me thanking senators in the House very often. I am, however, capable of doing so, because what we are talking about today is so important.
The bill we are debating sets out what we need to do to make our supply chains more ethical and to rid them of the scourge of forced labour and child labour. Not many members in the House had to listen to testimony from Uighurs who fled China. I participated in the study conducted by the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. I had to look into the eyes of these victims who lived under a totalitarian regime. I struggled to hold back tears as they described the abuse they suffered at the hands of those tormenting and exploiting them in Xinjiang. I was speechless as I listened to their stories. Then, I was forced to tell them that Canada is doing nothing to deter their tormentors and exploiters. The most optimistic among us would say that we are not doing much, but the truth is that we are doing nothing.
Less than a week ago, I tabled a motion about recognizing the genocide being perpetrated by the People's Republic of China against the Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in East Turkestan. Although no one could claim to be unaware of the situation, my motion was rejected by many Liberals, who refused to even let me read it. The status quo is a powerful thing. That is why this bill is so necessary. Even if it is incomplete, as my colleague said earlier, it is a first step that must be taken.
Very early on, as children, we are taught that making a purchase is not a trivial act. It is a decision. It comes with significant power: the power to choose. However, in order to choose, we need to be fully informed and make sure that we compare the available options. That is why, when we choose between two items, we want to know where they come from, how much they cost. When we choose between two foods, we want to know how much they weigh, how many calories they have. For some things, however, it is not that simple.
This might seem obvious. We know that anything made in Canada is made by paid workers, not forced labour. Unfortunately, not everything sold in Canada comes with that certainty. Even though we live in a modern state with progressive labour laws and an aversion to all forms of slavery, believe it or not, a consumer cannot take it for granted that a given sweater or pair of gloves was not made by a person forced to work, not even here.
Given everything we know about China and similar regimes, it is high time we made sure that no product tainted by forced labour shows up on store shelves in Quebec or Canada. The people who elected us to represent them expect us to at least try to make progress on this issue. Unfortunately, Canada often lags behind on these issues. Let me share one example. While the Americans block entire containers of goods and demand proof that they are not the product of forced labour, we wait for the phone to ring. We wait for a call from border services saying that they have evidence of forced labour for a given container from Xinjiang. That is when it is seized. How ridiculous.
While Parliament knows that a genocide is happening in Xinjiang and has acknowledged it, Ottawa waits for a phone call. While members of the House, including myself, have heard disturbing testimony about forced labour, Ottawa waits for a phone call. While international experts and our neighbours act consistently in the face of well-documented facts, Ottawa waits for a phone call.
Worse still, I can say that a shortage of telephone operators is not the problem. Last fall, the Canada Border Services Agency seized, for the first and only time, a shipment of clothing produced using forced labour. No big alarm bells are ringing. Meanwhile, the United States has intercepted over 1,400 shipments. If that is not proof of the inefficiency of the Canadian system and the need to improve it, I do not know what is.
The problem does not start at the border; it starts with our companies. Consider for example the genocide in China. Canadian companies are among the top five investors in the Xinjiang region. Canadian companies are not only failing to control goods from forced labour, they are actually encouraging and participating in modern slavery. The problem is obviously not limited to China, but this is a clear example. The truth is that Quebeckers and Canadians are unaware of the extent to which successive federal governments have allowed the problem to escalate, as though supply chains built on forced labour did not affect us. Guess what? They do affect us.
For 2020 alone, World Vision estimates that 7% of goods imported to Canada were produced by child labour or forced labour.
If we believe the actions that have been taken to date, or rather, the one action that has been taken to date, Quebeckers and Canadians ought to be reassured, but that is not at all the case.
The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill for the simple reason that it will lead to greater transparency on the measures companies are taking or not taking to combat the use of forced labour, whether in Canada or abroad.
Bill S‑211 would create an inspection regime and confer additional powers on the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, including the power to require an entity to provide certain information about its application of the legislation. Each year, the minister will also have to table in each House of Parliament a report on the measures taken to prevent and reduce the risk that forced labour is used.
All of that is good. This is progress, but obviously it is not enough. We have to do what the Americans are doing and reverse the burden of proof if we want to discourage forced labour. We also have to coordinate with our other allies on several other related issues. What are we currently doing about the ineffectiveness of border services, about businesses that are underpaying their staff, and about those corrupting local authorities? We are doing nothing. It is unavoidable: The House will have to take an overall look at corporate due diligence.
Bill S‑211 is a step in the right direction, but only as we wait for the rest of Canada's laws to be given more teeth. If anyone in the House believes that we need do no more than what is in this bill, I would advise them to speak to the Uighurs or any other peoples who are victims of exploitation. I would advise them to go to speak to activists fighting western mining companies that abuse their power to violate human rights, usually under the Canadian flag. I would advise them to speak to the people at the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, which does an outstanding job of informing elected representatives and citizens.
I hope that in their interventions, my hon. colleagues will not forget that voting for Bill S‑211 is not a sign of leadership, but just the bare minimum they must do to be able to look in the mirror. I know that I have mentioned this dozens of times, but when I get up in the morning, the first thing I see is a little note that says: “Who do you work for?” I work for the people who gave me a mandate to represent their values and their interests to the best of my abilities.
Quebeckers believe in fairness. As kids, they learn that they should not do to others what they would not want done to themselves. They know that it is important to surround themselves with people who respect each individual's human rights. They want their elected officials to walk the talk, to be consistent and to fight for what is right.
Frankly, our public policies fall short of what we project on the international stage. This bill brings us closer to that level, but it is hardly worth bragging about. It is not as binding as the due diligence laws that already exist or are being debated in European parliaments. This bill is the bare minimum, as I was saying, and we will have to move in the same direction as the Europeans and pass human rights due diligence laws. Requiring accountability is a start.
We will soon have to enforce real, harsh requirements to change bad practices. By tolerating the commission of, or even participation in, human rights violations of any kind, we are complicit in actions that are against the law in Canada. This would also provide a solution to the limitations of import controls, which can no longer be ignored, and would prevent consumers from purchasing products manufactured through modern-day slavery.
I urge our hon. colleagues to support the demands of 150 civil society organizations from around the world, which have published model due diligence legislation. Much of the work has already been done. Now we just have to rise to the occasion. We need to act, we need to be effective and, above all, we need to be fair.
1633 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, again, I would like to thank the member for bringing this important legislation forward. I have listened to my colleagues in the House today, and I am struck by the fact that so many of us are working so hard on human rights legislation and trying to move further, trying to do more and trying to make things happen faster for people around the world who are suffering injustice; particularly injustice that is happening at the hands of Canadian companies.
I feel hope when I see that there are members from all parties who are working on this. I feel encouraged by the words I have heard from my colleagues. However, I do want to say that as a member of the opposition, my role is to continue to push and to continue to ask the government to do more. While I will be supporting this legislation, when it goes to the foreign affairs committee I will be proposing many recommendations and amendments, because while I am happy that this legislation is coming forward and it is timely and necessary, in typical NDP fashion, I do not think that this legislation goes far enough.
Around 11% of the world's child population, 168 million children between the ages of five and 17, are forced to work or denied the opportunity to go to school. According to Article 32 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, child labour should be protected from economic exploitation and any harmful work. Furthermore, the article declares that “state parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to ensure the implementation” of restrictions.
We know, for example, that research conducted in 2016 found that over 1,200 companies operating in Canada at the time were importing goods that were at high risk of being produced by a child or through forced labour. The majority of these companies disclosed very little, if any, information on the policies, practices and processes they had in place to address these rules.
As parliamentarians, we need to think about what we would do to make sure that these people are protected, and we have an obligation to ensure that Canadian companies are held to account. We know that Canadians treasure our reputation as human rights defenders. We treasure our reputation as playing a role in the world where we recognize human rights: we call them out and we stand for them. Unfortunately, that has not been the reality in many parts of the world for some time. I am, as I said, encouraged that we are coming back to a place where we are looking at some of these issues.
Bill S-211 is a starting point. I think that has been said in the House already, and I will repeat that. It is a starting point. It means that the federal government can lead companies to improve and expand capacity to address supply chain risks as corporate governance standards are increased over time. However, an effective bill to address forced labour and other human rights abuses would require companies to prevent harm from happening, and not just file an annual report. It would require companies to change their behaviour and do due diligence, and not just report it. It would give victims of abuse access to remedy, and not just let the companies continue business as usual.
As it stands now, Bill S-211 needs to be revised so that it actually can help prevent forced and child labour rather than simply act as a diversion. Members may think that I am speaking cynically. I have to say that I feel that my cynicism is somewhat justified. Prior to being elected in the House, I worked in civil society. I worked very hard on human rights for people around the world who suffered at the hands of Canadian mining companies.
I have watched the Conservative government, and I have watched the Liberal government put in place legislation to supposedly help protect indigenous groups, women and those who are marginalized from the impacts of bad corporate actors that are predominantly, as I said, in mining and textiles.
Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals did a good job of that. Neither of those governments put in place an ombudsperson who could do the job. The talk was there and the words were there, particularly from our current government, but none of the action was there.
I brought forward a piece of private member's legislation that I certainly hope people in this House would support. It would ask that the CORE ombudsperson have the ability to compel testimony.
This legislation, and I know it is a beginning step, is weaker than the NPD's proposed legislation on human rights and corporate responsibility. My colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, brought forward Bill C-262. My bill is Bill C-263. These bills are what is truly required if Canada is going to walk the talk on human rights. Mandatory human rights due diligence legislation, as proposed in Bill C-262, is the global best practice. It takes what we have learned from France, Germany and Norway, what is now being proposed in the European Union and what ought to be Canada's stated end goal.
As I said, I am going to bring forward amendments, but I have some concerns about the implementation. The member from the government mentioned earlier that there is work being done because there are things in ministers' mandate letters. Unfortunately, none of that work has happened.
Every day, there is genocide happening against the Uighur people. We have not acted on that in this place. Those mandate letter commitments have not been followed through on. Every day, we talk about it in the House, express outrage and send thoughts and prayers, but when it actually comes down to doing the work to stop the products made with slave labour, we have not done that at the government level yet. The mandate letters have not been fulfilled.
As I said, Canadians so strongly believe in the need for human rights legislation. They so strongly believe in the importance of protecting human rights. Of course we are happy to see this first step. Of course this is an important piece for us. New Democrats have always called for the end of child labour and forced labour. Of course we want to ensure that products imported into Canada are not produced with forced or child labour. Of course we want to make sure that companies are reporting on the measures they are taking to prevent and reduce risk.
We have worked long on that file, as New Democrats. As I said earlier, we proposed strong legislation. Members from the New Democratic Party have stood in this place and brought forward ideas and legislation. They have pushed to have the CORE ombudsperson. They have pushed to have some of these things done in a more sustainable and more effective way.
I will be working with CNCA, the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability. I will be working with civil society. I will be working with a number of different groups that focus on corporate accountability, and I will be bringing forward the amendments they are proposing to strengthen this legislation and to make sure that what we actually pass, what we actually bring forward, will do the job that needs to be done.
If we are given the tools in this place to hold the government to account, if we are given the tools to hold business and Canadian companies to account, we can actually make a difference. We can actually protect people around the world. We have that obligation. We are running out of time.
While I thank the member for bringing this forward, this bill is not complete. I look forward to working with him and many others to make sure that this is a much more complete bill.
1329 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill S-211 and be part of this in-person and virtual love-in, although I have to say that my good colleagues, and they are good colleagues, from the NDP and the Bloc have been a bit stingy with giving us their love.
As some in the House will know, I forwarded a similar bill to this a few months ago. As luck would have it, this bill by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne rapidly worked its way through the Senate. It quickly became apparent that the best way to get the legislation passed was to support this bill.
I do not think it really matters whether the bill originated in the Senate or in the House. Either way, I am happy to support the senator and my fine colleague for Scarborough—Guildwood, who is really the father of this legislation. I am more like the second cousin, twice removed.
An hon. member: The grandfather.
Mr. Marcus Powlowski: The grandfather. I thank the member for that comment.
This bill is obviously about trying to ensure that companies’ supply chains are void of forced labour or child labour. I do not think it is at all surprising that we need such laws given the nature of capitalism, given the global nature of business and given the fact that the rule of law in many countries is rather weak.
The nature of capitalism is certainly that companies want to maximize their profits. How do they do this? There are really two ways, generally. They can increase the amount they ask for a product, but in a competitive world there are limits to how far they can go with that. However, they can also decrease the cost of production.
If my company makes suits and I sew my suits here in Canada, I would want to ensure that each of the components that goes into making those suits is as cheap as it can be for the requisite quality that people are looking for.
That may mean that the cloth is from China, but perhaps the liner is from Indonesia. Maybe the buttons are from Mexico. This is a supply chain. Certainly, each of the companies in the supply chain has its own supply chain. For example, although the cloth may be from Shanghai, the cotton actually comes from Xinjiang province and perhaps the dye comes from Hebei province.
Again, in order to maximize profits, companies want to make sure that in each step of the supply chain, they are getting the best bang for their buck. It is in order to maximize their profits. Buying the cheapest option often means they are going to buy a product from a country where labour is cheap, but in such countries, labour standards are often poor if not non-existent. The police and judiciary may be corrupt, inefficient or just not that interested in upholding the interests of the poorest members of society.
If this is combined with unscrupulous employers, and the fact that there are often large numbers of very poor people, it creates a ripe environment for the evolution of forced labour and child labour.
What constitutes child labour is a question I am not going to go into. Forced labour can be different things. Certainly, it can be the Uighurs placed in prison or internment camps in China and forced to work in their factories. However, more common is something called debt bondage.
Debt bondage is when an employee, often from a very poor country, has to pay sometimes thousands of dollars to a third party to get a job, sometimes in a slightly wealthier country. The employee, not having any money, cannot pay back that third party, so the debt comes out of their wages. As a result, they may end up working for years, often in horrendous conditions, in order to pay back that debt.
If they do not like it, often it is tough luck. They have a debt and they have an employer who may not be averse to using violence and/or keeping their travel documents, which makes it hard to leave.
Let me say that I think the vast majority of Canadians would not support this kind of unscrupulous practice and would not knowingly buy products made by either forced labour or child labour. However, as my colleague for Scarborough—Guildwood has said, we often do not know what kind of labour practices go into the products we buy. I do not know who made my suit or who made my shoes. Furthermore, I think the reality is that a lot of companies and consumers do not really want to look too deeply into the labour practices of the companies that make the products. Herein lies the problem and the need for this law.
Let me say that it is not only the pursuit of the almighty dollar that leads to these problems. Sometimes it is government action. Forced labour may sadly be the result of coercive government action. For example, it is estimated that over a million Uighurs in Xinjiang internment camps or prisons are likely used for forced labour.
The International Labour Organization estimates that 25 million people globally are victims of forced labour, and 150 million children are victims of child labour.
Let me summarize. Many products in supply chains come from poor countries. People there, who do not make a lot of money, make those products, and in a lot of those countries either forced labour or child labour exists. The simple fact is that we often do not know which companies use these deplorable practices, which is again the reason why we need this law. The essence of this legislation is something called supply chain transparency legislation, which requires companies to publicly disclose their efforts to prevent forced labour and child labour. Not only is there a requirement to send reports to the government, but there is also a requirement to make these reports public: to put them on the companies' websites and also to include the reports as part of their annual financial statements.
Notably, there is no actual requirement to totally eliminate forced labour or child labour, but there is a very strong requirement that companies say and reveal publicly what they have done to check whether there are such practices within their supply chains, and to say what they have done to address the situation. I know some, who may no longer be here, may say that this legislation is too soft, but I would suggest that this legislation goes a far way in addressing this issue: I think consumers, shareholders and stock markets will not look very favourably upon companies that do not address this issue.
I know that I, as a Canadian, and most Canadians, would not want to either buy products from, or own shares in, a company that does these practices.
I have been talking about companies, but as has already been mentioned, this act imposes the same requirement on the government, and that is only fair. If the government wants to impose a requirement on a company in the business world, it is only fair that it imposes the same requirement upon itself.
We have heard tonight that this bill does not go far enough, and so be it. Perhaps that is true. I certainly agree that the devil is in the details, but this is a vote at second reading to get this to committee where those things can be discussed and debated.
It is certainly important to act. Certainly a lot of other countries have, such as the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Australia and Germany. I have to say that I did not know Bob Nault was involved in this to begin with, but I am honoured to be following in his footsteps as a fellow citizen of northwestern Ontario in getting this legislation done. Good for Bob Nault.
Thankfully, child labour and forced labour are either rare or do not exist in Canada. This is mostly a problem in developing countries. All Canadians deplore such practices, and would be shocked to know that buying the things they buy may actually help to perpetuate this problem. Although we, as legislators, do not have the ability to legislate in other countries, this fine legislation by Senator Miville-Dechêne and the member for Scarborough—Guildwood will make a difference and help some of the world's most destitute people to make their lives a little better.
I would like to thank the members from all parties. I really appreciate the fact that this has such wide support. It is really nice to see.
1458 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I too will add my voice to this debate. I want to thank Senator Miville-Dechêne for her hard work in steering this bill through the committee twice. We serve as co-chairs of the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. From the inception of this group back in 2018, four co-chairs, including the member for Shefford and the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, have worked together across party lines to raise awareness about modern slavery and pushed for changes to Bill S-211. We succeeded in convincing both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party to add this kind of legislation to their platforms in the last election, and I want to thank all of my colleagues for their hard work on this.
I want to acknowledge the relentless work of the member for Scarborough—Guildwood for pushing this issue in the House for a long time: Like William Wilberforce, whom he referenced in his speech, he has been introducing legislation like this for years in this place since long before some of us were elected and perhaps even before some of us were born. He never gives up on securing the freedoms of others. I want to thank him for his hard work, as well.
There are many things that divide us. Ending slavery should not be one of them, so I urge all of my hon. colleagues to support this bill.
245 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/18/22 7:09:16 p.m.
- Watch
There being no further debate, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood now has the right to reply.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues who spoke tonight. I particularly appreciated that our friend from the Bloc got over his aversion to the Senate. Good causes require drastic action.
This has been a long journey. It was a four-year journey. For others, it has been longer than that. At this point, it is an achievable bill. It is something that we can get into legislation. I buy entirely the arguments that colleagues are making about improvements. Certainly, on the support for the improvements, I hope it is there and we will carry on with the harmonious state of the House at this point.
Before this radical harmony breaks out any further, I think I should sit down and we can go back to our usual business. I thank my colleagues and appreciate everyone's hard work.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/18/22 7:10:35 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/18/22 7:11:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 1, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
28 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/18/22 7:12:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am returning to a question that I raised and that had an unsatisfactory answer by the Minister of Public Safety, who is responsible for Corrections Canada, relating to the prison farm proposals for Joyceville and Collins Bay.
CORCAN, Corrections Canada, has indicated an intention to establish a for-profit prison farm, with initial plans to establish a 12,000-goat commercial operation to produce baby formula for export. The parliamentary secretary assures us that this has been taken off the table and that only cattle would be present. I am not sure she is correct about that, by the way, but the issue of it being a for-profit operation has not been dealt with by the government.
The prison farm was defended by the minister in his response to my initial question on two grounds: first, that it builds employment skills for inmates, and second, that it builds humane life skills and characteristics among inmates. Both of these are incorrect. The first of them is contradicted by CORCAN itself.
I am looking at the French version of a document in which the CEO of CORCAN was making a presentation at an international conference. It states, and this is my English translation, that they could not establish any link between offender participation in working in prison farms and obtaining employment upon release. The original in French is as follows.
They were unable to demonstrate a direct link between offender involvement while incarcerated and obtaining employment upon release.
That is from the document put out by CORCAN.
With regard to the soft skills or human skills that, the claim is made, are developed for the prisoners, contradiction comes from prisoners themselves. Inmates believe that a clear and unambiguous not-for-profit model would make the farms a much more humane place.
I thought it might be helpful to read from a survey that was circulated to inmates in 2021 by a group called Evolve Our Prison Farms, and to read some of the responses.
Prisoners were asked, “Do you believe CORCAN's new prison farms have the best interests of inmates in mind?” Over 90% who responded said no. The second question was, “Would you like to see the prison farms (a) proceed as they are; (b) shut down; (c) transition to a not-for-profit purpose?” Eighty per cent favoured that option.
The comments are very revealing about the so-called humanity of what we see in this training and employment model. I am quoting from one of the forms. It says, “Private businesses should not benefit from inmates' labour. These kinds of things lead to the privatizing of prisons for profit. Inmates would be forced to work in unsuitable conditions instead of truly being able to get a chance to rehabilitate.”
Here is a second one: “I don't believe that CORCAN Industries per se has the best interests of inmates in mind. It is nothing more than slave labour. Shutting down CORCAN will also shut down federally sponsored slavery.”
Here is a third response, from a third inmate: “They presently are a slave labour force for one company or another, nothing at all to do with caring or rehabilitation.”
I will stop there.
548 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/18/22 7:16:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am just going to be very blunt. I cannot believe we are back here again, talking about goats. I have repeatedly told the hon. member that there are no goats. There are no contracts.
I will reiterate that he should go and visit the dairy farm. He should actually speak to the head of CORCAN, as I have done. He should actually speak to the inmates there, as I have done. Then maybe we could have a conversation about whether this program is beneficial or not.
I would like to ask the hon. member where he was when his government mandated corrections to cut hundreds of millions of dollars under the Conservative deficit reduction action plan, DRAP. Under DRAP, the former Conservative government closed all of the prison farms, despite evidence of their value and support from the surrounding community. It got rid of fresh food and real milk, prepared on site to give inmates job skills, and implemented food service modernization, which introduced cook-chill food and powdered milk. Prisons had to get rid of the infrastructure needed to store and prepare fresh food and real milk.
Our government has reinvested in the penitentiary farm program, our prison farms for offenders at Joyceville and Collins Bay. I am proud of that, and I will take no lessons from the Conservatives about their approach to corrections.
Canadians may be wondering why our government has not reversed all of the mean-spirited cuts of the previous Conservative government, and it is because it is a lot easier to cut and slash programs than it is to build them up and invest in the infrastructure that the previous government literally removed from corrections kitchens.
Some of the other mean-spirited cuts the hon. member's government made under DRAP were a reduction in non-essential dental service, and the closure of hundreds of psychiatric hospital beds. It reduced funding for the pilot on alternate dispute resolution, reduced library services and closed the corrections addictions research centre. It imposed new food, accommodation and telephone deductions on inmates' pay. The previous government also thought it was a smart idea to eliminate incentive pay for work in prison industries, so while I welcome the member's new-found commitment to offender pay, I do wish his advocacy extended back to when he was in government.
I will never forget sitting in a committee when one of my hon. Conservative colleagues asked the correctional investigator why inmates should be paid at all. The correctional investigator looked at him and said it was so he could mail a birthday card home to his child, perhaps. We could tell by the look on his face that the Conservative member had never even considered that possibility.
What is abundantly clear is that the Conservatives' “tough on crime” cuts are vindictive and were created to further punish those already incarcerated. That does not lead to better safety; in fact, it worsens outcomes.
When it comes to cuts to corrections, the Conservatives brought in mandatory minimum sentences and increased the cost of a pardon from $50 to over $600. They were not protecting public safety; they were just ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those sentenced to federal prisons are released.
I will repeat my offer for the third time to the hon. member to actually visit Joyceville and Collins Bay, to meet with the offenders, to meet with the staff, to talk to CORCAN in person, to see the successful dairy farm that is operating there, and to see for himself the good work that is being done. I will say again, there are no goats; there are no contracts, and there is no goat milk being shipped to China.
627 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/18/22 7:20:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would very much like to take up the parliamentary secretary on her kind offer. The parliamentary secretary has talked about all the cuddly activities that take place, bottle feeding, calves that have been recently birthed, and so on. That is not when I want to go. I want to go on a Thursday, when there is slaughter activity going on, and I want to make sure I can see what it is like for the inmates to be involved in that.
Will the parliamentary secretary allow me to go on a Thursday, so that I can see that activity? It should be a yes or no answer to that question. I would also like to take along, if I could, a person from Evolve Our Prison Farms to witness this as well. This is a person who has corresponded extensively with the inmates on this issue. Can I do that, yes or no?
Finally, the parliamentary secretary spoke eloquently about the importance of inmates getting adequate pay. I take it that that means she is now stating that the government supports giving inmates market pay, or is she insincere about that? Yes or no, is there full pay for inmates when they are doing market-related work?
210 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/18/22 7:21:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member is putting words in my mouth. I have been there, and to my knowledge, there is no slaughterhouse. Perhaps the hon. member should be going down there. As a member of Parliament, he knows full well that he has the ability to visit any prison in Canada any time he wants. He does not need my permission or anybody's permission to go there.
In terms of taking other people with him, I do not know about that, but as an MP, he has the ability, and has had it the whole time he has been elected, to visit. Why has he never visited there himself to see, instead of standing here time and again to ask me about corrections, when he has not cared for the whole time he has been elected?
Mr. Scott Reid: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is inappropriate for the member to impute motives. At no point did I impute motives to her. How can she assert that I do not care?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): There are no points of order or questions of privilege during Adjournment Proceedings.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/18/22 7:22:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I begin my remarks by recognizing the hard-working people who live in the Ontario riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for their confidence in me as their federal member of Parliament. They are the reason I will not waver in my determination to build a better Canada.
Earlier this year, I asked a very simple and direct question to the Prime Minister regarding the inappropriate use of Canada's women and men who serve in Canada's armed forces to spy on their fellow citizens. Rather than answer in a clear and forthright manner, the Liberal government once again responded with a propaganda technique that Russian madman Vladimir Putin uses to misinform the Russian population about the genocide taking place in Ukraine.
The propaganda technique I am referring to is illuminated in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as accusation in a mirror. Accusation in a mirror, or AIM, is the rhetorical practice of falsely accusing others of conducting, plotting or committing precisely the same transgressions as one plans to commit against them.
The claim, by the Prime Minister and his senior members in the Liberal Party, that members of the “Freedom Convoy” were racists, misogynists and unacceptable is a textbook example of accusation in a mirror: dehumanizing and demonizing that comes by labelling certain groups in society as undesirable.
Canadians can see the hypocrisy in the Prime Minister accusing others of being racist, as he did today during question period, when the Prime Minister himself enjoys dressing up in costumes and in blackface to make fun of other people's cultures and skin colour.
The accusation-in-a-mirror propaganda technique has been used in non-genocidal and other forms of persecution committed against Jews, Blacks and first nations, among others. He had the audacity of using AIM in this instance to claim conspiracy theories and to hide the misdeed that is actually taking place.
This is not to be confused with IMVE: ideologically motivated violent extremism. IMVE is the term used by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to identify members of the radical ultraleft who burn churches, violently destroy public infrastructure, attack oil workers with axes in British Columbia and plant car bombs with the express intent to maim and kill, as in the recent incident in Montreal. The fact there have been no arrests for these recent activities would reveal a double standard of the Prime Minister and members of his government and where their sympathies lie.
The Prime Minister called members of the "Freedom Convoy" misogynists, homophobes and racists. He did so out of ignorance, hate and the absence of evidence. The Prime Minister accused my Conservative colleague of using “misinformation and disinformation... and conspiracy theories”. That the flight took place is fact; not conspiracy theory.
This fact was confirmed by the Department of National Defence after it was forced to respond to media reports. What an incredible coincidence it was that the day the “Freedom Convoy” began to arrive in Ottawa there just happened to be, according to the government, a preplanned so-called training flight to test top-secret surveillance equipment.
After a clumsy attempt by DND to first disassociate itself from the spy surveillance flights, DND was forced to issue an apology as more information about the spy flight became known. DND claims it instructed the spy plane to refrain from flying over downtown Ottawa during the truckers' strike action.
Canadians then learned that, as an excuse to get around the DND directive to stay away from the skies over the “Freedom Convoy”, Canadian special forces military leaders reportedly used a private defence contractor's military plane to conduct the spy operations. The modified small passenger plane that was conducting spying was outfitted with surveillance equipment allowing for the interception of cell phone calls, radio transmissions and other communications—
655 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/18/22 7:26:43 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/18/22 7:26:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when we stand here in the House of Commons and talk about military equipment such as ships, jets and even boots on the ground, what we are really talking about are national defence security capabilities. These are the tools that make it possible for the Canadian Armed Forces to carry out the missions that are critical to the defence of Canada. To carry out those missions, our military must maintain a state of constant readiness. Being operationally ready means training.
This government expects and depends upon the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to do what they need to do to maintain their mandated state of readiness and expertise. Having the right personnel properly trained to use equipment, technology and tools is critical to readiness and to our national defence and security. With this in mind, I would like to address the hon. member's question about the Canadian Armed Forces training flight that took place at the same time as the protest on Parliament Hill this past February.
This training flight was undertaken to maintain essential qualifications on airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance-related equipment. It was planned well prior to the protest taking place on Parliament Hill and relied on an existing contract to facilitate. The training was planned as part of an annual training requirement and the aircraft was booked in advance. I can confirm for the House that the training exercise and the protest on Parliament Hill were entirely unrelated.
Canadian Armed Forces members undertake such training to support their operations abroad. In fact, airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities are strictly governed by Canada and international laws. Canadians should be heartened to know that our Canadian Armed Forces members train routinely in and around communities across the country and indeed around the national capital region as well. We should expect no less if we want a military that is ready to defend our country and our way of life.
During the flight in question, this training exercise took place in the vicinity of the national capital and did travel over the downtown core. The objective was to meet annual training requirements and certification, and there was nothing extraordinary about it. Training with airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities can occur at other times of the year as well. There is nothing unusual about those flights either.
We know from experience that when training gets cancelled there is a negative impact on certifications, qualifications and, by extension, operational readiness. That is why the training went ahead. We must ensure our Canadian Armed Forces members are ready in this time of evolving global uncertainty. This means making sure that we have the right equipment and the right training to meet their skills on the platforms they need to be trained on when they need it.
I thank the members of the Canadian Armed Forces who stand on guard for this country each and every day defending our freedom and our democracy.
499 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/18/22 7:30:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, anytime the Prime Minister or other members of the NDP-Liberal socialist coalition utter the words “conspiracy theory”, their intent is to fictionalize their own conspiracy theories to hide the truth.
Using the Canadian military to spy on its own citizens is a very dangerous act. If the NDP-Liberal socialist coalition the Prime Minister leads actually believes in the transparency and accountability necessary for a functioning democracy, it would provide all the data and flight logs from the spy flights. Let Canadians decide what the truth is.
Did the government spy on its own citizens without the legal or moral authority to do so? The Prime Minister and his socialist coalition partners must be held accountable for their actions.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/18/22 7:31:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we demand a lot of our military. We have seen CAF members undertake atypical tasks, such as setting up vaccine distribution systems, supporting health professionals in long-term care facilities and supporting humanitarian efforts, but above all else, our military must stand ready to defend Canada at home and abroad. That means maintaining capabilities, including highly specialized technical surveillance systems that protect our forces when the government sends them into harm's way. It means ensuring that we can move massive volumes of personnel and equipment throughout Canada and around the world. It means conducting humanitarian and search and rescue missions across vast landscapes from coast to coast to coast.
We demand a lot from our military members, and they deliver. The reason they deliver is because they are trained to deliver. I thank all members of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces for their commitment to keeping Canadians safe and protecting the interests of Canadians abroad.
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/18/22 7:32:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am here to express, once again, the frustrations of people with disabilities as they continue to wait for a Canada disability benefit act. We know they face too many challenges that are only increasing with the rising cost of food and the skyrocketing prices of homes and rents.
COVID-19 has exacerbated the obstacles people with disabilities face every day, and with the addition of immunity risks as the mask mandates are lifted, just going out into the community for food or medical appointments is no longer an option for some. The price of PPE is even difficult to manage.
The government must act now to bring the Canada disability benefit bill to the House. Last week, a motion to get this bill to this place without delay was passed with unanimous consent, and with the addition of the Senate being supportive, there is no longer any acceptable reason to withhold tabling a bill.
The government has an obligation to uphold the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to ensure dignity and full equality for all. This includes necessary income supports. Dire financial circumstances are the reality for too many people with disabilities, and the longer they have to wait for the promised Canada disability benefit, the more they are being abandoned by the Liberal government.
I have heard from the minister that getting the Canada disability benefit is difficult based on the logistical challenges of the federal data systems. I have tabled a motion in committee, which was supported by all, to begin solving that. It cannot be a barrier.
The reason for delay appears to be just a lack of prioritization. The Liberal government has not prioritized persons with disabilities. People with disabilities need to be prioritized. They have waited too long.
Right now, based on a moment of unity in the House just last week, the disability community is hopeful. We must respond to that hope, and the government must not disappoint again.
Since 2015, the Liberals have spoken about the importance of lifting people with disabilities out of poverty, yet their actions do not match those words. It is beyond time for the government to do better.
I am asking again today for the government to tell the House when the Canada disability benefit bill will come to the floor, and to confirm that it will come to the House before we rise in June.
405 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/18/22 7:35:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam for her tireless advocacy on behalf of persons with disabilities. She has been a great champion and also a great partner in the House, as well as in working together on the HUMA standing committee.
Improving the lives of persons with disabilities is a key priority for this government, and that is why since 2015 we have made a series of concrete commitments backed by more than $1.1 billion in funding to support persons with disabilities.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted inequalities and gaps in our social system, as the member rightfully pointed out in her speech. We took immediate action and in September 2020, we began to develop Canada's first-ever disability inclusion action plan. The plan has four pillars: financial security, employment, accessible and inclusive communities, and a modern approach to disability. In the spirit of “nothing without us”, we have been working and will continue to work closely with the disability community on the design and future evolution of this plan.
Budget 2021 included nearly $131 million over two years for the enabling accessibility fund. It also included $12 million over three years for consultations on reforming the eligibility process for federal disability programs and benefits, including the disability tax credit. As part of the plan, our government is moving forward with an employment strategy for persons with disabilities.
Budget 2022 proposes funding of more than $270 million over five years through the opportunities fund. This important investment in the employment strategy would increase labour market participation for persons with disabilities and it would make workplaces more inclusive and more accessible.
In addition, budget 2022 proposes $25 million over the next five years to support the production of accessible reading materials for Canadians with print disabilities. This funding would help ensure that persons with print disabilities can read and learn without barriers.
We know that Canadians with disabilities face unique challenges, including disproportionate levels of poverty. That is why the creation of a new Canada disability benefit is a top priority and a key priority of this government. The Canada disability benefit will be developed in consultation with the disability community, as well as the provinces and territories. It is a key cornerstone of the disability inclusion action plan.
Once implemented, this benefit will help lift hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities out of poverty. The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion is committed to reintroducing the Canada disability benefit legislation in the House as soon as possible.
I would like to thank the member once again for her question. Her constituents and persons with disabilities are well served by her tireless advocacy.
458 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
