SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 121 - Oct/31/22

Oct/31/22 3:09:49 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

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Oct/31/22 3:10:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That the House: (a) reiterate its unconditional support for Iranian women who are peacefully demonstrating for their rights in Iran; (b) condemn the killings, intimidation, and acts of violence initiated by the Iranian state against protesters who support the women's liberation movement in Iran; and (c) call on the United Nations to withdraw Iran from its Commission on the Status of Women.

89 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Oct/31/22 3:10:49 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member 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.

36 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Oct/31/22 3:12:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑9. Call in the members.

44 words

The Speaker

Oct/31/22 3:25:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

19 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Oct/31/22 3:25:14 p.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.

21 words

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.)

Oct/31/22 3:26:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas respecting its participation in the 6th Gathering of ParlAmericas' Open Parliament Network. The virtual sessions were held on March 9, 15 and 22, 2022.

54 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Oct/31/22 3:26:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-216

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to table a petition today on behalf of constituents from Comox Valley, Courtenay and Cumberland in my riding and those of my colleague from north Vancouver Island. The petitioners cite that 27,000 Canadians have died since 2016 due to preventable drug poisoning resulting from a toxic drug supply. The war on drugs has resulted in widespread stigma toward those who use controlled drugs and substances, and it has allowed organized crime to be the sole provider of substances. Problematic substance use is a health issue and is not resolved through criminalizing personal possession and consumption. They call on the Government of Canada to reform drug policy to decriminalize simple possession of drugs listed in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, something that is recommended by the expert task force on substance use; provide a path for expungement of conviction records for those convicted of personal possession; with urgency, implement a health-based national strategy for providing access to a regulated safer supply of drugs; and expand trauma-informed treatment, recovery and harm reduction services and public education awareness campaigns throughout Canada.

190 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Oct/31/22 3:28:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is on behalf of Canadians from across Canada who are concerned about the Liberal Party's platform promise to revoke charitable status for pro-life organizations such as pregnancy crisis centres. They note that the Liberal government tried this once before with the Canada summer jobs grant program. They aim to raise awareness and ask the Government of Canada to ensure that charitable status it not politicized.

79 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Oct/31/22 3:30:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the second petition is from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the damaging noise levels of firearms. The petitioners are calling for the Government of Canada to recognize traditional hearing protection. They recognize that Canada is the only G7 nation that does not recognize the legal use of suppressors. They call for the Government of Canada to allow sound moderators to reduce noise pollution and noise complaints in communities with gun ranges, in rural and farm communities and in areas that use firearms for recreational activities where hunting and sport shooting are legal. They note that sound moderators facilitate a significant increase in the humane husbandry of game animals, livestock and pets as hunting companions and that hearing damage is significantly reduced when these items are used. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to take a stand and empower Canadians to be responsible for their own health and safety by removing the prohibition on sound moderators from the Criminal Code of Canada; to allow the legal acquisition, possession and use of sound moderators on firearms by all licensed firearms users in Canada; and to call on the provincial and territorial governments to amend their prohibitions and allow Canadians to use these devices.

208 words

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

Oct/31/22 3:30:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of constituents from Saanich—Gulf Islands who are very concerned about the status of old-growth forests. This petition focuses on the different aspects of the importance of old growth in terms of climate, indigenous rights, biodiversity and the dwindling number of old-growth forests, particularly on Vancouver Island and along areas of Fairy Creek, which is slated for logging. The petitioners call on the government to work with provinces and first nations to halt the logging of endangered old growth, to fund protection of old-growth ecosystems and to support value-added forestry initiatives that get Canadian wood to Canadian mills instead of being shipped overseas as raw logs. They oppose the use of whole trees for wood pellet biofuel production, yet another climate fraud.

136 words

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

Oct/31/22 3:31:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 761 and 763.

13 words

Oct/31/22 3:31:49 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 761—

Questioner: Alistair MacGregor

With regard to the conviction of Brock Graham for the murder of Patricia Ducharme, BC Court of Appeal, decision R. v. Graham, docket number CA023190, and RCMP File #North Vancouver 1993-22222 Oct. 12, 2005: (a) why was Patricia Ducharme not warned that she was living with an extremely dangerous suspect in a murder case; (b) does the negligence of this case fall on the RCMP or the federal government; and (c) since this issue was raised in the House of Commons on March 27, 1996, to then minister Herb Gray, what has been changed in RCMP organizational policy or the federal Privacy Act that will better ensure Canadians’ safety in similar instances?

Question No. 763—

Questioner: Arnold Viersen

With regard to Canada’s participation in Interpol’s notice system since November 4, 2015: how many green notices were issued by Canada, broken down by (i) year, (ii) type of criminal activity referred to, (iii) the country to which the notice was issued?

955 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/31/22 3:32:05 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

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

Oct/31/22 3:32:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 760, 762, 764 and 765 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

27 words

Oct/31/22 3:32:05 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 760—

Questioner: Louise Chabot

With regard to the issuing of passports by Service Canada and by passport offices at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: (a) how many passport applications were submitted and how many passports were issued, broken down by month and year, since January 1, 2011; and (b) how many public servants or full-time equivalents worked to deliver this service, broken down by month and year, since January 1, 2011?

Question No. 762—

Questioner: Michelle Rempel

With regard to the mandatory random COVID-19 testing for air travellers arriving in Canada resuming on July 19, 2022: (a) what are the total costs of these services to the government; and (b) what are all the details regarding the contracts signed for these services, including, for each, (i) the name of the vendor, (ii) the value of the contract, (iii) the start and end dates, (iv) the description of the services provided, (v) the date when the contract was signed, (vi) the address of the vendor, (vii) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process?

Question No. 764—

Questioner: Arnold Viersen

With regard to extraterritorial offences in the Criminal Code since 1990: (a) how many charges have been laid by year; and (b) what are the details of each instance in (a), including the (i) type of offence, (ii) outcome, (iii) country in which the offence took place?

Question No. 765—

Questioner: Tony Baldinelli

With regard to the purchase of Canadian flags or lapel pins depicting the Canadian flag or the Canadian coat of arms, which were manufactured outside of Canada, since January 1, 2020: (a) what specific merchandise was purchased, broken down by individual item; and (b) what is the breakdown of the purchases listed in (a), including the (i) item description, (ii) price per item, (iii) country of origin for manufacturing, (iv) quantity purchased, (v) total amount of expenditure, (vi) reason no Canadian manufacturer was chosen for the purchase?

312 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/31/22 3:32:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

12 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/31/22 3:32:10 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Oct/31/22 3:32:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the environment has always been a major concern for me. The environmental situation in Quebec, Canada and around the world is evolving at a frantic rate, so it is high time that the House reviewed the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In my speech, I will explain why the act needs to be modernized. I will talk about some of the concerns that have been raised by environmental groups and about some of the concerns that I had when I read the bill. I will also bring up some questions that I hope we will be able to answer when the bill is studied in committee. In case members do not already know, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S‑5 in principle. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act has not been reviewed in 23 years. That was literally in the last century. I can safely say that many things have changed since then: technological advances; the planned obsolescence of everything we consume; the major growth of natural resource development to meet the exploding world population and the exploding levels of consumption around the world; and climate change, which is causing increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events and natural disasters. This legislation therefore needs to be modernized. However, I would like to raise a few important points. Bill S-5 does not review the entire Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That, in my humble opinion, is a flaw. Every section of the act should be reviewed to ensure that it is consistent with today's realities and the changing world we live in, as well as our aspirations for tomorrow. Quebec must be able to make decisions as a mature and responsible nation, especially when it comes to its environment and territory. All of Quebec's politicians feel that way, and they expressed exactly that on April 13, 2022. On that date, politicians from all the parties represented in Quebec's National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion asserting the primacy of Quebec's jurisdiction over the environment. Too often, when the time came to advance environmental justice or strengthen environmental protection in Quebec, Quebeckers were disappointed by the Canadian government. They have been disappointed by decisions and a vision that were more in line with those of an oil state than those of a state aware that it must legislate to leave a healthy environment for future generations. That is why we will be meticulous about ensuring that the amendments we make not only meet the expectations of the people we represent, but also guard against the federal government once again interfering in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. In its preamble and its clauses, the bill sets out to create a right to the environment, yet the senior government officials who told parliamentarians about Bill S‑5 when it was introduced admitted that, contrary to the Liberal government's claims, the bill does not achieve that. In order to achieve that goal, we need a government that is sincere and courageous, a government that will invite its partners in the federation to a round of constitutional talks aimed at adding this right to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that everyone can truly benefit from a healthy environment. That means opening up the Constitution. Enough with the lip service. We are done with that. In fact, here again, Canada should follow Quebec's example. Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which was enacted in 2006 and is now 16 years old, states, “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law.” Unlike the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Quebec charter is quasi-constitutional in scope in the political context of Quebec. It is plain to see that Quebec does not need Canada's help to promote and protect the fundamental rights of Quebeckers. Canada needs to follow Quebec's lead. The bill also includes the notion of vulnerable populations, although it never properly defines the term. Reading between the lines, we believe that it refers to first nations. That said, children, pregnant women, seniors, people with immune deficiencies and people with chronic diseases or cancer are also among vulnerable populations, regardless of their skin colour or religion. Does the bill include them in its definition of vulnerable populations? We are still waiting for the answer. I am glad to see that studies on toxic substances will be done and that they will take into account something that many groups and citizens have been fighting for for decades. The aim is to limit the use of vertebrate animals to situations where other research techniques cannot in any way be used to determine the toxicity of a substance. This is a good step forward. The bill needs to take into account the recommendations that have been made by health and environmental groups for decades, as well as the recommendations made by the chemical industry partners involved. However, some questions came to mind when reading the bill. The need to study the impact of the accumulation of a substance comes up many times, but there is no mention of studying the effects of a combination of toxic substances. What I mean by that is that some substances are not very toxic or not at all toxic on their own, but they can become very dangerous when combined with other substances, and there is no mention of that in the bill. It would be a good idea for the bill to address the impacts of these combinations. I noticed that the bill repeals the sections pertaining to the virtual elimination of substances. I wondered why that was so, and I understood that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development felt that the virtual elimination approach was dysfunctional. That being said, I think that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater here. Just because the act is dysfunctional does not mean that it is all bad. It could be improved. Why is it not being improved? Furthermore, in several places in the bill, the wording setting out the duties of the Minister of the Environment and other relevant ministers is not forceful enough. Several clauses say that the minister “may” do something instead of saying that the minister “shall” do something, that he must take measures. I think that conducting studies and publishing reports should be a duty, not just a power. Lastly, the bill implies that the minister must report annually on the implementation of the framework. Other reports and studies can or must also be completed by the minister. Why not use a group of organizations or independent researchers? By using independent services, even supporting university research, we could ensure consistency in data collection and greater attention to improving mandates and research and study topics, while ensuring the impartiality of the data. In conclusion, Bill S‑5 has many highly technical components. These components deserve to be carefully analyzed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in order to ensure that the modernized act will truly allow the federal government to assume its own responsibilities with regard to protecting the environment, while respecting the protection of the public and the environmental sovereignty of Quebec and the Canadian provinces. I am sure that my colleague from Repentigny will do exemplary work in committee on this issue.

1261 words

All Topics

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

Oct/31/22 3:42:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, what is in Bill S-5 is very encouraging. It is the essence of recognizing that there is a right to a healthy environment for Canadians. What I really like about the legislation is that would put in place the fact that Canadians can request that a substance be assessed. Obviously, there will be a lot of details that we have to follow through. No doubt that will come up at committee in some of its discussions. We can talk about indigenous reconciliation when we think about UNDRIP. That is been incorporated into Bill S-5. There are issues surrounding animal testing. No doubt it is substantial legislation, but what I like is the fact that it appears that virtually all members of the major political parties in the House support its passage at second reading. Does the member not agree that we will be able to really get down to a lot more work on the bill if we see it go to the committee stage?

169 words