44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 28, 2022 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity to hear this question of privilege and would like to get back to you with some comments. If you would be so kind as to give us a couple of days to do that, it would be greatly appreciated.
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this to our attention and the NDP reserves the right to reply.
20 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we have duly noted my colleague's comments and we reserve the right to reply or respond at a later date.
23 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I thank everyone for their interventions. We will take this under advisement and come back to the House as soon as possible.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Health; the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Persons with Disabilities.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 4:59:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology entitled “How Can Canada Remain a Leader in the Global Quantum Marathon?”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 5:00:13 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
moved that Bill S‑5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, be read the first time.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 5:00:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, presented on Monday, June 20, be modified to append the dissenting opinion of the Bloc Québécois.
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 5:00:53 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
37 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 5:01:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about brain stem glioma. This incurable disease is the leading cause of brain tumour death in children.
Together with my colleagues, the member for Toronto—Danforth, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, the member for Sault Ste. Marie and the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, I am presenting a petition signed by more than 13,000 people.
The petitioners are calling on us to designate May 17 of each year as national brain stem glioma awareness day in order to raise awareness about this disease, give hope to Canadian families, ensure that there is enough research funding and save young lives.
On behalf of Isabelle and the little warrior, Florence, let us unite for the young children who suffer from this rare disease.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 5:02:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to present petition e-3940, which has been signed by over 800 Canadians who are calling on the Liberal government to cancel the planned fertilizer reduction policy.
Canadians understand limiting fertilizer would decrease food production and, therefore, further increase the cost of food at a time of record inflation. They also know limiting fertilizer would increase the costs to farmers and hinder economic growth. This also comes at a time when Canadians are using food banks at record rates.
Canadians want their government to stand up for Canadian farmers and cancel the fertilizer reduction plan. I wholeheartedly support them.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 5:03:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and present a petition on a burning issue for my constituents, which is the plight of Pacific salmon. It is a species on the brink.
Petitioners call on the Government of Canada to remove the conflict of interest found within the Fisheries Act, which calls on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as a promoter of salmon aquaculture and also a regulator of salmon aquaculture.
They call for the mandate of DFO to be specifically the promotion of sustainable fisheries and protecting the habitat of salmon. Petitioners call on the government to implement all the recommendations of the commission on salmon of Mr. Justice Cohen and also to ensure the government lives up to the Liberal election promise to get these toxic fish factories out of the water.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 5:04:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of a number of my constituents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
Specifically, they are identifying that, on April 29 of this year, the Liberal government introduced an order to provide further restrictions on licensed firearms owners, specifically via a shadow registry. They point out that the previous gun registry cost taxpayers over a billion dollars, and they point out that this unfairly targets Canadian firearms owners who possess legitimate possession and acquisition licences and restricted possession and acquisition licences. They are already the most vetted and daily-screened Canadians, and it is proven statistically that they are much less likely to commit a crime than non-PAL or RPAL holders.
They, therefore, call upon the government to immediately repeal the order that was passed on April 29, 2022.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 5:05:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 5:05:30 p.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 5:05:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand at this time.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 5:05:41 p.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, recently the Chair sought the members' views on whether my bill about public sector integrity, Bill C-290, might require a royal recommendation. The Chair did not specify which part of the bill warranted its intervention, but I surmise that two sections merit analysis.
There is clause 5, which states that the chief executive must provide support to the public servant making a disclosure.
There is also subclause 3(3), which gives contract employees the same protection offered to public servants who disclose wrongdoing in the public sector.
In my view, these provisions do not generate any expenditures that would not be covered by an existing royal recommendation, and that is what I intend to argue today.
I would like to begin by saying a word about Bill C-290. It amends the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to make it more effective. That legislation, as members will remember, was passed in the wake of the sponsorship scandal and was intended to provide protection to public servants who disclose wrongdoing in the public sector.
In many cases, only one person within the machinery of government becomes aware of wrongdoing, illegal acts, abuse of power or political interference in decisions that should be up to the non-partisan public service. The purpose of the act is to protect public servants who blow the whistle from reprisal and to create an institution responsible for enforcing the act, the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, that public servants can go to for help.
Even though the act was passed more than 15 years ago, it has not produced the expected results. In fact, the federal government has one of the worst whistleblower protection regimes in the world, according to the International Bar Association.
Add up the numerous flaws throughout the act, and it is basically useless. For example, because the definition of wrongdoing is too narrow, many disclosures are not protected by the act. If a public servant makes an unprotected disclosure, their complaint will be rejected, the act will not protect them from reprisal, and their anonymity cannot be guaranteed either. Furthermore, if the whistleblower's complaint is admitted and an investigation is launched, the act does not clearly protect witnesses.
In the case of an internal investigation conducted by a person in a position of authority, this is understandably problematic. It is these flaws that my public sector integrity bill aims to correct.
This brings me to clause 5, which specifies that the chief executive must provide support to a public servant who makes a disclosure. Although the bill does not specify the nature of the support, it is quite clear that it is not financial support. The bill provides for no new financial support, period. The support referenced in clause 5 would involve, rather, things like information, referrals, guidance or advice, all of which are part of the normal duties and functions of executives. In short, we need to ensure that when public servants see wrongdoing, they know their rights, they know where to go, and they are not left to fend for themselves.
This brings me to subclause 3(3) of my bill. It amends the definition of “public servant”, adding “every person retained under contract to perform services for the public sector”. Subclause 3(5) adds that the government cannot terminate a contract as a result of a disclosure. This provision does not generate any expenditure that is not already foreseen, and here is why.
First, the current act already contains provisions about contracts. Under section 42.2, the government may not “withhold any payment that is due and payable in respect of any...contract”. It may not “terminate any contract...by reason only that the other party to the contract or any of that other party's employees has...provided information concerning an alleged wrongdoing”.
Furthermore, a disclosure is not considered a reasonable ground for refusing to enter into a new contract. The problem is that the definition of contract is restrictive. According to the act, contract “does not include an agreement by a public servant, or by a person appointed by the Governor in Council or by a minister of the Crown, to perform the duties to which their employment or appointment relates”.
A construction company that reports wrongdoing at a federal government work site is protected, yet a person hired under contract to provide a service to the government on a temporary basis may not be covered. Because that person meets the definition of a casual worker under the Public Service Employment Act, I gather that they are excluded because they carry out the duties of a public servant but do not enjoy the other protections that public servants have because they are a casual worker.
One example is someone who is offered a three-month contract with the Canada Revenue Agency during income tax season. Because they have no job security, people with precarious status are precisely the ones who need protection the most.
It should be noted that they are not completely unprotected at this time. They are afforded some protection through their contract, which is binding on the Crown. That is how it works right now. Under contract law, which is governed by the Civil Code or by common law, the government cannot unilaterally modify or terminate a contract in an arbitrary manner. This is already the case.
The government's financial commitments are those set out in the contract, whether or not Bill C-290 is passed, but the remedy for contractors who experience retaliation is a civil suit. Bill C‑290 simply changes the administrative process following a complaint.
If Bill C‑290 passes, contractors will be able to file complaints with the commissioner and they will remain anonymous. The complaint will go through the process and the contractor can expect to see an investigation that will result in an end to the wrongdoing. In the event of reprisals in the form of termination of contract, the contractor can seek assistance from the commissioner, who will then reach out to the government, if appropriate, saving contractors from having to sue in court to enforce the provisions of their contracts. This does not, however, change the terms of the contract or the financial obligations thereof.
In short, Bill C‑290 in no way alters any of the government's contractual obligations. These obligations are already binding in civil court and must be met under part III of the Financial Administration Act. Bill C‑290 in no way changes those obligations. It will not generate any expenditure beyond what is already set out in the existing legal framework. It changes neither the amount of the expenditure, nor its terms or any associated conditions. In conclusion, I do not feel that it requires royal recommendation and I am confident that the Chair will come to the same conclusion.
1171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I thank the hon. member for Mirabel for his speech on this point of order.
15 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 5:13:46 p.m.
- Watch
I wish to inform that House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 81 minutes.
The hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am really honoured to rise again in this place to discuss Bill C-29, a bill that intends to establish the national body for reconciliation. It is one that I think has been called for for a long time.
I really want to adjust folks' imagination about what reconciliation should be. When we imagine what reconciliation is in our country, we should imagine a country where indigenous people, first nation, Métis and Inuit truly have an opportunity to be themselves and excel in their own domains. What we are seeing, however, is a government that is insistent on going as slowly as possible in ensuring that these basic dignities and rights are truly recognized.
When we think about how little we have done in the last seven years with this government, it is astonishing to survivors who are at the point in their life where they have now told their story. They thought that after telling the truth of their own experiences with residential schools, the sixties scoop and the current CFS system, things would truly change.
It is unfortunate that this is the reality facing indigenous people today. There are more children in care now than were taken during the residential school period. There are more children continuously living in poverty, without food and in many cases without even shelter and water. These are the conditions of indigenous people in my communities, which are Métis, and in Inuit communities and first nations communities right across the country.
Best estimates put the government at 13 completed calls to action out of the 94. For seven years the government has had an opportunity to address these systemic problems, and Indigenous people are begging the question: Does the government truly care?
Let us back up seven years. The Prime Minister said that the most important relationship to the government would be with indigenous people. What is happening to our relatives is truly a shame. It is an abomination given that these survivors have given so much. The reciprocity that is needed now needs to move mountains, not pebbles, which is currently on display by the Liberal government.
Indigenous people deserve so much more. My hope is that we can reach deep into the understanding of this country to find lessons deep within. I am not the first indigenous member of Parliament to be in this place talking about these things. Louis Riel, at the time when he was elected, was unable to even stand in this place to talk about justice for our people.
Now we have struggled and climbed in this place in order to deliver what we hope is a message to the government that it is not going fast enough and that people are dying, our relatives, day after day while we wait. At the top of the government's agenda is to finally establish the national body for reconciliation, but this is after seven years. It is unacceptable.
The New Democrats will support this bill, but rest assured, indigenous people will not stop until there is truly justice that accounts for the lost resources. From coast to coast to coast, Canadians have to realize and every member of Parliament must realize that they stand on indigenous land, with thousands of years of history. It is a matter of dignity and respect for where we truly are.
When we are a guest in someone's house, we do not go in, steal everything and wreck the place. However, what we are seeing with massive pollution, whether it is in Fort McMurray tailings ponds or the ring of fire, and with indigenous children is that indigenous people are continually pushed to the fringes of what should be a time for true justice.
Survivors have put their stories forward and have shed tears, bringing out the pins and needles stuck deep within their heart to share with Canadians a true fact: that this country has harmed indigenous people even though it was not all that long ago, just a few generations, that we made a great treaty with one another. Where I am from is known as Treaty 6. To be betrayed so greatly and have no potential for justice for residential school survivors, as some of the perpetrators of that violence are still at large, is a real pain that indigenous communities have. They know that the people who hurt them in those schools are still walking the streets.
The Canada I want to be a part of and the Canada I think everyone deserves, particularly indigenous people, must recognize the basic human rights of indigenous people. It must recognize that indigenous people are the stewards and landowners of this place. This is Turtle Island, and I hope all members can find deep within themselves that truth, which is that when they come here to this place, North America, Turtle Island, they should come with dignity and respect for the original landowners. That means having true reciprocity. The things people get from being in this place are the things we must give back. It is a matter of dignity for indigenous people. This is where we are in Canada.
I am pleased to see this bill finally be presented, but I am so disheartened at the rate at which we are moving. This is not fast enough, and I challenge the government to move quicker.
902 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
