SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/30/22 7:26:16 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

11 words

All Topics

May/30/22 7:26:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-18

Madam Speaker, I guess that one stung a little. I apologize. I will get back to the subject at hand. What is happening in the federal Parliament right now is that the House leader for the opposition is not doing his job. Because, quite frankly, the Conservatives are leaderless other than him right now, his job— An hon member: Thank you. I am the leader. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, finally the member for Barrie—Innisfil has informed Canadians that he is leading the Conservative Party of Canada. It certainly is interesting to know that because Canadians have been wondering, as have I and so many other people, but to know that the member for Barrie—Innisfil is now the de facto leader of the Conservative Party of Canada truly is eye-opening and refreshing. It certainly would explain the hostile nature of the House and the way it is deliberating. Back to my point, the job of the House leader for the Conservative Party, the official opposition House leader, is to coordinate his MPs to make sure they play a constructive role in developing better policy for Canadians, which will impact their lives and make their lives better, and the one policy we want to talk about so much is a policy that they ran on in the last election. They ran on the supports in Bill C-18, but they were not interested in— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

245 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/22 7:28:05 p.m.
Watch

Order. There is some yelling on this side of the House and some participating when there should not be, and I would just let members know that there will be 10 minutes of questions and comments, so if they have any thoughts or questions, they can jot them down, and they will get an opportunity to ask questions and make comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

65 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/30/22 7:28:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I was saying was that the Conservatives' job here is to help inform policy and to make policy that is better for Canadians. What do they have before them? It is not only a policy the government feels would be better for Canadians, but a policy that the Conservatives ran on, a policy that they are interested in and a policy they saw as beneficial, at least during election time. Then, they lost the election, and suddenly they are no longer interested in these policies for Canadians that they ran on. The opposition House leader instructed his MPs to put forward a concurrence motion earlier today, which burned three hours of House time. We have spent three hours debating a concurrence motion of a report that this Parliament's ethics committee did not even produce. It did not do the research. It did not study it, and it did not create the recommendations. The Conservatives literally grabbed the report from the last Parliament and retabled it as their own in this one, then they moved a concurrence motion on it, which is rare on its own, let alone on a report that was not even from a committee in this Parliament. After the opposition House leader did that, he asked the question earlier through the member for Calgary Shepard about more debate time and wanting more debate, notwithstanding the fact that they had already filibustered the motion we had to give them that. Members might remember Motion No. 11. That motion was about giving the House more time to debate issues, because the Conservatives were concerned that they were not getting enough time, but then they filibustered Motion No. 11, which was to give them more time. Now, the member comes forward and moves another motion still within the motions proceedings we are in during the daily Routine Proceedings, just to kill more time. If it is, indeed, true, and the member for Barrie—Innisfil is the de facto leader of the Conservative Party now— An hon. member: You are the only one saying that. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, no, I am not the only one saying that. As a matter of fact, I said it earlier. I will respond to their heckles, if they want—

383 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/22 7:30:51 p.m.
Watch

Order. Again, if members have questions and comments, they should wait until it is the appropriate time. The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is rising on a point of order.

34 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/30/22 7:30:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands fully knows well that the leader of the Conservative Party—

20 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/22 7:31:06 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry, but that is not a point of order. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

19 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/30/22 7:31:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier I was giving my speech in the House and I said that it appears the member from Barrie—Innisfil, the opposition House leader, is the leader of the party. He said, “Thank you. I am the leader.” He said that. I only picked up on his own words. An hon. member: I said I was House leader. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, was he being facetious? It is quite possible, but I would suggest that he only be serious in the House so we make sure we have all the right information. That is what he has done here. He has now introduced another motion in an attempt to burn more time, so that we cannot debate the important issues that Canadians have. It is ironic. Now they are heckling me and asking me to stop talking, but the irony is that this is the same individual who, only moments ago, asked why we could not talk more. He said that we need to talk more and that we need more debate. The incredibly rich hypocrisy from the member for Barrie—Innisfil and Conservatives generally speaking is absolutely breathtaking. I see the games they are playing and the manner in which they are conducting themselves, and they are not interested in anything that is their job. When I was in an exchange in the previous debate with the member for Regina—Lewvan, he even said that they were going to keep bringing forward issue after issue in the hope that Canadians would eventually get to the point where they say they do not trust the government. That really stuck with me because it highlighted what the Conservative objective and agenda is here. It is not to do their job. The Conservatives' job as Her Majesty's loyal opposition, as they like to call themselves, is to make— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

321 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/22 7:33:32 p.m.
Watch

Again, it is not yet time for questions and comments. I would ask members to respect the fact that there is someone else who has the floor who has been recognized. If they wish to be recognized, they can either wait for questions and comments, or wait for the next time I call for debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

59 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/30/22 7:33:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-18

Madam Speaker, I say that they like to call themselves that because they want to assume the role, but they do not know how to do it. It is a pretty basics politics 101 course to figure out what the job of the opposition is. It is not to put up roadblocks and to prevent things from coming through. There was another really interesting part that came out of the previous debate with the member for Regina—Lewvan. When I asked him if it was not his job to make policy better and said that all he was doing was putting up roadblocks to stop legislation from getting through, his response to that was that they could not let bad legislation go through. That is not how it works. They are entitled to their opinion on the legislation. They are entitled to put forward their ideas. They are entitled to try to make the legislation better, but at the end of the day, the way that democracy works is that, if the majority does not agree with them, then we move on. That is how democracy works. However, the Conservatives do not know what the role is in the House. Their role is not to be obstructionist and to put up a roadblock in front of every single issue. Their role is to come forward and to propose ideas, and to try to convince others, a majority in the House, that their idea is better, and to advance that objective. As I said earlier, the irony here is that the issue we are talking about right now, Bill C-18, the one the government has tabled to actually discuss, the one the Conservatives keep filibustering, is an issue that they ran on in the election. It is an issue that they support. Even the issues the Conservatives support, they are refusing to let move through. I find it extremely—

321 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/22 7:36:04 p.m.
Watch

It being 7:36 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House. The hon. member will have eight minutes the next time this matter is before the House.

56 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/22 7:37:36 p.m.
Watch

The question is on the amendment. Shall I dispense? An hon. member: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of amendment to House] If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. House leader of the official opposition.

69 words

Mr. John Brassard

May/30/22 7:37:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is correct. I am the House leader, and I request a recorded division.

16 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/22 7:38:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-18

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 31, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

28 words

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)

May/30/22 7:38:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question I raised earlier this month with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety. I asked her why she had contradicted her minister on the subject of the closure of the slaughterhouse or abattoir at the Joyceville penitentiary. She made no attempt whatsoever to actually answer this question, so here we are again this evening. Let me explain where the contradiction lies between the responses given by the parliamentary secretary and her minister. It starts with the minister's response on April 8 to a question posed by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, who said: ...the prison farm in Joyceville, Ontario, is also the home to a provincially inspected abattoir that serves eastern Ontario farmers.... The facility operator will be retiring.... Will the Minister of Public Safety offer that licence to another operator, or will the abattoir be closed? To which the minister responded inter alia, “my hon. colleague raises a specific issue with regard to licensing. We are engaging with him, and we will continue to do so.” By contrast, the parliamentary secretary told the House this on May 18, “I have been there”, in other words, to Joyceville, “and to my knowledge, there is no slaughterhouse.” In question period on May 20, two days later, I pointed out that the parliamentary secretary's comment, “would appear to contradict the response given on April 8...by her minister, who stated that the existing slaughterhouse would remain in operation.” At the least, it was a matter of dialogue. I then asked the parliamentary secretary this question: “Has the parliamentary secretary just announced that the slaughterhouse has been shut down and will not be reopened?” After all, that is what she appears to be saying. The parliamentary secretary responded to this by saying, first, that I have only just started asking questions on this issue recently, second, that the Harper government was mean-spirited on corrections issues and, third, that the rehabilitation of prisoners is good for the community. All of that is no doubt very important information, but none of this helps us to learn whether the slaughterhouse at Joyceville has shut down and will not be reopened, which was the question. Therefore, I will ask it again, but this time I will use the words employed by my colleague from Leeds—Grenville back in April. Will the Minister of Public Safety offer the licence at the Joyceville penitentiary to another operator or will the abattoir be kept permanently closed?

439 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/30/22 7:41:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank both you and the member opposite for the opportunity to speak about this important issue. This evening, I wish to address a few points that have been made recently in the House pertaining to the penitentiary agricultural program, commonly known as the prison farms. To start with an issue that has been brought up a number of times, I will reiterate, first, that at this time, Correctional Service Canada does not possess any goats, and there are no contracts for the sale of goat milk. Second, after the last exchange with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, she asked for more information on the rehabilitative nature of the employment programs run by Correctional Service Canada. She was informed that research undertaken by Correctional Service Canada, dating back to at least 2014, demonstrated rehabilitative effects and positive reintegration outcomes for offenders who participated in these programs, as they were able to develop meaningful skill sets. These findings also noted that offenders who were able to find employment in the community were less likely to reoffend. The statistics are very clear. In fact, offenders who find jobs in the community are three times less likely to return to custody for a new offence. Third, I want to address an allegation that was raised the last time the member opposite spoke during Adjournment Proceedings. The allegation made was that CORCAN is slave labour. I want to be very clear: Offender employment programs operate under the principle of free consent and do not occur under the threat of penalty. In accordance with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, inmates receive pay for participation in correctional, education and employment programs, which contribute to their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. An inmate's level of pay is reviewed at least once every six months, and their pay level may be adjusted based on the ability to meet the requirements of each pay level. I wish to advise the member opposite that throughout the pandemic, Correctional Service Canada also took steps to ensure inmates had more funds on hand to keep in touch with their loved ones. This was done by temporarily waiving food, accommodation and telephone deductions. These operations are being implemented in accordance with applicable provincial and federal government legislation and practices, and in accordance with industry standards. Canada, as a founding and active member of the International Labour Organization, also continuously works to meet its strict obligations that pertain to prison labour. I will also address the nature of these operations. CSC continually re-evaluates its operations based on consultation with stakeholders and sustainability. Lastly, on the issue of the abattoir, offenders who participate in the employment program through on-the-job training in any area do so voluntarily. This includes the abattoir, where inmates can choose to apply to participate in vocational training. This is not mandatory. Each time the lease is up for renewal, CSC considers the options relative to continued operation and does so regularly. It will continue to engage with appropriate community members and stakeholders. I should remind the member that there are many farmers in his riding, in the riding of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes and indeed in my riding who rely on this abattoir. Disrupting the operation of it will seriously impact their livelihoods.

562 words

Mr. Scott Reid

May/30/22 7:45:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is very refreshing. It is actually a substantive answer, unlike the random insults we got from the parliamentary secretary. I appreciate that. I am not sure all the information is correct, but I think the member has answered the question. It sounds like the slaughter facility will remain open. For that, I thank him. With regard to the comments about slave labour, I have some responses made by inmates to a prisoner feedback form that was circulated. Some 56 responses were received. Inmates were asked about the for-profit model that was being considered for the prison farm. One inmate responded, “Shutting down CORCAN will also shut down federally sponsored slavery.” Another one said, “They presently are slave labour for one company or another. Inmates do not want a for-profit model.” I will ask the member another question, and I appreciate the fact that he is giving me some substance here. Is it the case that a for-profit model for the prison farm is absolutely off the table?

177 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/22 7:46:19 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the member that he is not to point out that he has a survey. He lifted the survey up as he was speaking. I want to remind him that he can read from the survey, but he cannot point to the survey. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

54 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/30/22 7:46:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the member cherry-picks his data and just goes after one survey response or another survey response, I am pretty sure he can get any answer that he wants. However, if he looks at those survey responses in their totality, he will see that, overwhelmingly, the program has demonstrated that it serves inmates well. I would encourage him to watch the documentary, much of it filmed in his riding, called Til the Cows Come Home. It was made during the previous Conservative government and is about what they were doing to prison farms that many inmates relied on so heavily. In that documentary, he will also hear testimony from inmates who talk about the positive contribution the program gave to their rehabilitative process.

126 words

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

May/30/22 7:47:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for months now, my Conservative colleagues and I have risen in the House to ask the government to lift the federal mandates. Since February, the government has voted down three different opposition motions, and maybe four today, calling for a plan to end federal mandates, including just this afternoon. When I asked a question on May 5 about federal mandates and federal public servants, I was told that the government “followed advice from public health experts” and that when “circumstances change, we adjust these measures”. I will remind members of the House that Canada’s chief public health officer was saying back in February that all existing public health measures needed to be “re-evaluated” so that we can “get back to some normalcy”. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Spain and Denmark have removed restrictions and mandates, yet here in Canada, four million Canadians are still not able to take a domestic flight, travel by train to see loved ones and just do what they please. Canadians who are able to travel are living a nightmare with delays at border crossings and airports. Planes are sitting on runways hours on end as travellers have to deal with slow processing times due to glitches and delays with the ArriveCAN app. The Liberal government’s outdated COVID-19 protocols and continued use of this app are not only causing extreme delays and missed connections, but hurting the aviation and tourism industries, the very industries that were hit first and the hardest when the pandemic struck. Recently, I surveyed my constituents about the ArriveCAN app and over 80% say it should not remain in use. I hear on a daily basis about how federal restrictions and mandates are causing travel delays, which are hurting businesses in my riding now and will continue to hurt businesses as people are choosing to yet again delay travel plans for not wanting to deal with airport headaches. Why is the government persisting with its political theatre, which is having severely negative impacts on the well-being of Canadians who are just trying to live their lives? When the vaccine mandate for federal public servants was implemented, it was said there would be a review after six months. It has now been seven months and the review has not taken place. How long does a review take? To conclude, the government has repeatedly refused to provide evidence that supports the continued enforcement of these mandates, which leads us to simply believe these are punitive and vindictive measures aimed at dividing Canadians. Why is it that Canadians can pack themselves into a sporting arena and go to restaurants, movies, live theatre and music concerts, but the very small number of unvaccinated federal public servants are still not allowed to return to work? Why are unvaccinated Canadians still not able to travel, and why is the Liberal government not able to explain why? I will end on a very quick note. On Saturday, I attended the May Day festivities at Bradner Hall. It was the first time in three years it had the event. When I was there, like many of my constituents and people who live in the Fraser Valley, I met someone who worked at one of the federally regulated trading facilities at one of our ports. I asked the community member if the federal government had ever imposed a vaccine mandate at a federal port. He said no, the government did not enforce its own policies at federal ports. The answer is really quite simple. The government did not impose its own mandates at federally regulated ports because it knew the impact it would have on the flow of goods in our country. Here again is another example of the hypocrisy of the Liberal government as it relates to mandates. There is one set of rules for travellers, another set of rules for public servants and another set of rules for people working at ports. Why can the government not just lift the mandates, let people live their lives and provide some consistency? Our economy needs it and Canadians need it.

697 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 77