SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 117 - Oct/25/22

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Oct/25/22 5:23:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a shame that it seems my colleague is required to deliver such an eloquent education on some of the basics of the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian monarchy. I am glad that he did so and had a chance to wax Walter Bagehot. I felt he did not quite get to the end of where he wanted to go with that part of his speech, so I will give him a few moments to expand on any point that might have been lacking for lack of time.

92 words

Mr. John Nater

Oct/25/22 5:23:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think of the phrase “be careful what you wish for” because it might actually happen. The member for Calgary Rocky Ridge raised Walter Bagehot, and I think all Canadians would be well served to read about the traditions of our parliamentary system. I think too often the House is seen as a museum, but this is an active place of discussion. It is an active place of debate. If we look at our Canadian traditions and where they came from, we should never see this place as a museum of democracy. This place ought to be an active debating chamber, an active place to debate issues of the day. When we talk about defining and differentiating those two parts, as Bagehot talked about, that is one of the points I want to focus on and make sure we raise all the time. This place will never be a museum of democracy.

156 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/25/22 5:24:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it really is a pleasure to put a question to the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, who is, as ever, knowledgeable and thoughtful in putting forward his views. I am very grateful to him for stressing that when we take our oath as members of Parliament to His Majesty, we are taking an oath to Canada, not to any one person. In the past, I took my oath to Her Majesty the Queen. I was not making an oath to one individual but to Canada, and that oath is important. I also think it was very helpful to canvass what it would mean if we changed our system of government, which is what this motion proposes. Briefly, I will say that I grew up in the United States and watched what I think is human nature to elevate even elected people to royal status and to venerate not just the elected president but his wife as the first lady and even the whole family and the royal dogs. I note that it has always been to this point the pronoun “his”. Would the hon. member agree that human nature is better served by having a monarchy that is ceremonial rather than venerating average human beings who are elected?

213 words

Mr. John Nater

Oct/25/22 5:26:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is the ceremonial element of the monarchy that allows it to be separate and apart from the political day-to-day hustling we see in this place and across the country. I think it is important that we have a distinction between the head of state and the head of government. It allows political actors to do their jobs while remaining a dignified part of the monarchy, represented here in Canada by the Governor General.

78 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/25/22 5:26:30 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:26 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. 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 Drummond.

76 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

Oct/25/22 5:27:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/25/22 5:27:28 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 26, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on a point of order.

47 words

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

Oct/25/22 5:27:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-290

Madam Speaker, I will be responding to a point of order and a question of privilege. One of them will take longer than the other. I am rising on a point of order in response to the Speaker's statement on September 26, 2022, respecting the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, standing in the name of the member for Mirabel. I will not comment on the substance of the proposal, but I would like to put forward a submission that the bill would seek to authorize spending for a purpose that is being significantly altered. In 2005, when the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was promulgated, it was accompanied by a royal recommendation. The royal recommendation was required because it set the mandate, purpose, objects and qualifications for a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoing in the public sector. In 2006, Parliament adopted a bill that amended the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to strengthen protection for whistle-blowers, including through the creation of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal. The creation of the tribunal and its mandate was seen as a new and distinct charge upon the consolidated revenue fund and was accompanied by a royal recommendation. Bill C-290 seeks to significantly alter the mandate of the public servants disclosure protection regime. The first change relates to whom the regime applies. Section 2 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act defines “public servant” as: public servant means every person employed in the public sector, every member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and every chief executive. Bill C-290 would add an entire new class of persons who would be subject to the regime. Subclause 3(3) of the bill states: public servant means every person employed in the public sector, every person retained under contract to perform services for the public sector, every member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and every chief executive. Even the factual summary of the bill acknowledges that this proposed change represents an expansion of the mandate. The summary states: This enactment amends the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to, among other things, expand the application of the Act to additional categories of public servants Allow me to highlight other changes proposed in Bill C-290 that would alter the mandate of the regime and the duties and functions of the commissioner and the tribunal. Clause 6 would extend the protections provided under the regime to former public servants, which is not contemplated in the act. Clause 4 of the bill seeks to expand the types of wrongdoings to include new elements, namely the abuse of authority and political interference, and removes requirements such as the individual applying in good faith. Clause 30 would remove the definition of “investigation”, which is set out in section 34 of the act. It states: If the Commissioner is of the opinion that a matter under investigation would involve obtaining information that is outside the public sector, he or she must cease that part of the investigation and he or she may refer the matter to any authority that he or she considers competent to deal with it. By proposing to remove section 34 of the act, the bill seeks to expand the mandate of the commissioner to obtain information that is outside the public sector, which, under the act, is clearly outside the scope of the commissioner's duties and functions. Bill C-290 also seeks to amend subsection 19.3(1) of the act to remove the ability of the commissioner to refuse to deal with a complaint if the complaint has been adequately dealt with or could be more appropriately dealt with according to the procedure provided for under an act of Parliament other than this act or a collective agreement, or if it was not made in good faith. Clause 24 would add a new responsibility for the commissioner to assess internal disclosure procedures in organizations and to review disclosure procedures upon request or on his or her own initiative. Clause 19 of the bill would also add a new function for the tribunal by removing a power conferred upon the commissioner in the act. Clause 19 states: A complainant whose complaint is dismissed by the Commissioner under section 20.5 may apply to the Tribunal for a determination of whether or not a reprisal was taken against him or her and, if the Tribunal determines that a reprisal was taken, the complainant may apply for an order respecting a remedy in his or her favour and an order respecting disciplinary action against any person or persons...who took the reprisal. Bill C-290 seeks to significantly alter the mandate of the public servants disclosure protection scheme and the duties and functions of not only the commissioner but the tribunal in a manner not authorized under the act or any other act of Parliament. Page 834 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative. I believe this is the case with Bill C-290. The amendments proposed would significantly alter the objects and purposes of the public servants disclosure protection regime in a way that exceeds the royal recommendation originally obtained when the statute was enacted and the royal recommendation attached to amending legislation.

979 words

All Topics

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

Oct/25/22 5:37:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am responding to the question of privilege raised on Friday, October 21, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle respecting comments made by RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki. There is a long and important tradition of the House to take members at their word. The Minister of Public Safety has consistently stated that neither he nor his staff ever directed RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki to ensure the release of the models of firearms that were used in the mass casualty incident that took place in Nova Scotia. The weight of the member opposite's argument is that the RCMP commissioner noted she had a text message from the Minister of Public Safety that he would like to speak with her and that she knew exactly what the minister wanted to discuss with her. This is simply conjecture. The RCMP commissioner is a highly qualified individual but she is not a mind reader. This clearly demonstrates the weakness of the argument put forward by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. The Minister of Public Safety has confirmed in this House that neither he nor his staff directed the RCMP commissioner to do anything. The RCMP commissioner has testified that she was never directed to do anything by the minister or his staff. What the member has brought to this House is nothing more than conjecture and innuendo. There are no facts that contradict statements made by the minister or by the RCMP commissioner. As a result, I submit that conjecture should never be a sufficient ground to find a prima facie question of privilege. I believe that is the case in this situation. I therefore submit that this matter is a question of debate not supported by facts and that it does not reach the high bar required to find a question of privilege. Madam Speaker, I appreciate your time, and that is it with regard to my points. The only thing I would add is that I suspect you might find it is the will of the House to call it 5:41 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.

356 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/25/22 5:37:33 p.m.
Watch

I want to thank the hon. member for the information provided. We will certainly take it into consideration. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:41 p.m.? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): We have a point of order from the Minister of International Trade.

57 words

All Topics

Hon. Mary Ng

Oct/25/22 5:38:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, during the vote to concur in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I inadvertently voted in favour. I had intended to abstain, and I wanted to inform the House of this information. I would ask for unanimous consent to change my vote to an abstention.

52 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/25/22 5:38:24 p.m.
Watch

We have heard the hon. minister. All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): It being 5:41 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

57 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Oct/25/22 5:39:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-283

moved that Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (addiction treatment in penitentiaries), be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Madam Speaker, as this is my first time making a speech in the House since a tragic incident in British Columbia, I would like to first take a moment to pay tribute to the RCMP constable whose life was sadly taken while serving in Burnaby in the line of duty. The late constable was a member of the detachment’s mental health and homeless outreach team, and she served in the role for three years. I have no doubt of the immense impact she had in her community. I am here today to rise and speak to my first private member's bill, Bill C-283, the “end the revolving door” act. This legislation proposes to amend the Criminal Code of Canada and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to expand the sentencing options available in our justice system and to assist those whose lives have been ravaged by addiction. When I was first elected, I knew I wanted to do something for those suffering from mental health challenges and/or addiction. My team and I researched this topic, looking for possibilities within federal jurisdiction to make a difference. Thanks to the member for Kootenay—Columbia, I was able to pick up his work and research where he left off at the end of the previous Parliament. I thank him for his prior work on this legislation and for speaking to it today as well. The effects of the revolving door in our justice system for those with mental health and addiction issues are felt in communities across Canada. There is surely not one member in the House who would not consider this an issue in their community. In Kelowna—Lake Country, desperate people suffering from severe addictions and mental health challenges are entering and exiting our justice system without the proper curative treatment they need to heal. As a result, they return to my community, and others across the country, only to repeat the same cycle of behaviour that, for many, will see them re-entering the justice system and those same penitentiaries again and again. The effects of this have been widespread. Residents have valid safety concerns, businesses deal with crime and safety issues and first responder resources are strained. Crime numbers show law enforcement spends a lot of their time focusing resources on those with mental health and addiction. Courts are backlogged with reoffender cases. Small businesses have to foot the bill for damage. People are injured, or worse, and families are torn apart. We do not know if my private member's bill, Bill C-283, would have made a difference in each situation, but we need to do something. If we get the actions proposed in this legislation implemented and there are differences being made in people’s lives and in communities, surely this could be expanded in other ways. The need for legislative action is imperative. A 2015 study by Correctional Service Canada showed that, at admission to federal custody, 70% of men and 77% of women offenders had a substance use issue. Similarly, a review of the National Parole Board files revealed that about 73% of offenders who were returned to custody had abused substances while on release. They also revealed that substance use had contributed to the termination of their release. Municipal leaders are calling for action, including the BC Urban Mayors' Caucus. They state that their cities' businesses are “facing break-ins and other challenges, as a result of increasing social disorder and challenging behaviour from people in crisis.” We need to do something, and we need to take action. This need for legislative action on mental health and addiction for those in the justice system is clear. Parliament has already taken action to focus on recidivism, in other words, the revolving door. The House of Commons came together to unanimously pass legislation from my colleague, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, to establish a framework to reduce recidivism in Canada. Bill C-283 seeks to continue this work by assisting addiction treatment in federal penitentiaries where people in need can receive the curative treatment they desperately need. We know that the heroic work of addiction professionals already within penitentiaries operating under existing programs is vital, but the results show more focus and additional action is needed to heal those suffering from mental health and addiction problems. The ability to sentence offenders into a dedicated addiction treatment facility operating inside an existing Correctional Service of Canada facility would help support their work. No one piece of legislation can serve as the panacea for those with addiction who enter the criminal justice system. I believe this legislation can offer an important tool to help reduce recidivism, address our mental health and addiction crisis and improve the public safety of our communities. In that effort, my bill would first empower the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada to designate all or part of a facility as an addiction treatment facility. Such a facility would need to come together with the government's support and with input from experts in addiction and recovery. I do not seek to prescribe the shape of how this facility should operate, as this would be up to the experts who work in this field. Second, this legislation would amend the Criminal Code of Canada to support a two-stream sentencing process. While both would have the same sentence time, certain convicted individuals who demonstrate a pattern of problematic substance use and meet certain parameters at the time of sentencing could have the judge offer them the choice to be sentenced to participate in a mental health assessment and an addictions treatment inside a federal penitentiary while they serve their sentence. Through this sentencing process, offenders would still receive meaningful consequences for their actions but would also receive curative treatment, leading to a path of reducing the risk of reoffending; in other words, ending the revolving door. This year I have had the pleasure of speaking with many stakeholders who work in addiction treatment and criminal justice reform. I want to take a moment here to thank them for those eye-opening meetings and for the important work they undertake every day. Some work directly with addicts on the streets; some work inside in the prisons; some are affected by the actions of those being incarcerated, and some are trying to help others simply because of their own lived experience. There is a lot of support to move this end the revolving door act forward to be studied at the Standing Committee on Public Safety. I want to share just a few comments. Marlene Orr, the chief executive officer of Native Counselling Services of Alberta, which works to heal the disproportionate number of indigenous Canadians in our justice system, states that the introduction of Bill C-283 is important, as it is a firm step forward in addressing the issue of addiction and its relationship to crime and recidivism. She says equipping Correctional Service Canada with the legislative authority to address the drug crisis in an institutional setting provides the service with meaningful tools to help Canadians address addiction and its relationship to crime. Anita Desai, president of the National Associations Active in Criminal Justice, an alliance of Canadian groups dedicated to the work of criminal justice reforms, said that substance misuse, dependence and criminal justice are quite linked and Canada is in serious need of more tools in the tool box. She went on to say she believes Bill C-283, the end the revolving door act, has the potential to create some of those tools. Teri Smith, president of the Business Improvement Areas of B.C., says that as the organization that represents more than 70 downtown and main street districts across B.C., collectively comprising hundreds of thousands of businesses and tens of thousands of employees, they are supportive of Bill C-283, and that this private member's bill serves to address one component of the broader issue of safety, crime and vandalism by supporting critical addiction treatment supports and services for individuals in need within federal correctional institutions. These are businesses in the ridings of members of Parliament from all over British Columbia, including from downtown Vancouver and on Vancouver Island, who have federal elected representatives across political party lines in the House. Let us all work together to address the complex mental health and addiction crisis here in Canada by reforming sentencing, improving addiction treatment in penitentiaries and offering a message of hope to communities, families and those suffering. I ask for support from all members of Parliament for my private member's bill, Bill C-283, the end the revolving door act.

1494 words

All Topics

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Oct/25/22 5:49:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-283

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech and for her work on this issue. I know that she is coming at this from a genuine place of concern for those with addictions and substance abuse issues. I wonder if the member could explain to the House why she chose to exclude certain individuals from being included in what she sees as treatment options when they enter prison.

70 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Oct/25/22 5:49:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-283

Madam Speaker, I am not sure, specifically, what the member is referring to. Maybe we could talk at a later date. Basically, the way the legislation works is that it would be up to the judge at the time of sentencing to determine, based on someone's past track record, if they would be eligible for this type of option. I also just want to point out that it would be up to the individual who is being sentenced to approve of that. This is something the person would have to agree to in order to go down that path. The feedback I have had from many people who work in the criminal justice system is that they say quite often there are a lot of individuals who want to go down this path, but as of right now there is just not the opportunity.

145 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Oct/25/22 5:50:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-283

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for trying to bring forward solutions to the crisis we are facing, the mental health care and substance use crisis the country is facing. We know the United Nations' Nelson Mandela rules provide that the quality of health care provided to incarcerated persons must be equivalent to that available to the general population. That is not happening right now. That is clear. I am also concerned, as my Liberal colleague was, about the fact that this bill might prevent people who want help from accessing it. In its current form right now, the bill proposes to exclude individuals convicted of certain offences, including drug trafficking offences, from its scope. This ignores individuals who have substance use disorders who become involved in substance trafficking. Maybe my colleague could explain why they are excluded in the current form of this bill, because it excludes a lot of people who need help.

157 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Oct/25/22 5:51:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-283

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his concern on this important issue. I think that comment is really important for the committee. That is why it is really important to get this legislation to committee. That is something that certainly could be looked at in more detail, as to what we have in here so far and perhaps what other opportunities there are. I look forward to those further conversations.

71 words

Mr. Rob Morrison (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC)

Oct/25/22 5:52:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-283

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the great speech and an awesome bill. I am just wondering about small businesses and whether you did some outreach on the effect this would have on small businesses and what they are encountering today with the challenges we are having with the opioid crisis, the damages and things like that.

58 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/25/22 5:52:31 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind the member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair, not directly to the member.

23 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Oct/25/22 5:52:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-283

Madam Speaker, absolutely, that was part of the premise when this came up. We have a lot of issues in our communities that are more prevalent than they were even five years ago. We have these situations that are playing out in our communities. We need to take a step back and look at potentially why and what we can do to make a difference. As I have said, we have done a fair amount of research at the federal level. There are only certain areas that we could go down. This is one area that is very concrete and is within federal jurisdiction. Hopefully it could make a difference to those individuals, and then also the communities that they go back to. As I mentioned with some of the statistics in my intervention, there really is a revolving door. That is also why we chose to call it this. There is a lot of recidivism. If we could help those people, it would also help the communities they go back to.

172 words