SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 200 - May/18/23

May/18/23 3:40:17 p.m.
Watch

Is there a standing order that has been contravened? If you can start with that and then prove why, that would be wonderful.

23 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

May/18/23 3:40:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe we can disagree on policy matters without resorting to derogatory name-calling and referring to other members as murderers.

23 words

The Speaker

May/18/23 3:40:33 p.m.
Watch

That is a good point to bring up. What the hon. member is saying is that we do not call each other names in this chamber, and I want to remind everyone not to call each other names. The use of the term he referred to, as far as I am concerned, is to call someone a name. The hon. member has brought up a point that is very valid. Calling each other names does not lead to good debate. It is more a schoolyard type of action we do not want to have in the chamber. I want to remind both sides, for the rest of the very emotional debate that will be taking place tonight, or whatever debate we are having in the House, not to call each other names or make up names for each other. I am sure members do it with affection for each other, but it is not allowed in the chamber. I thank the hon. member for Milton for bringing that up.

169 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

May/18/23 3:41:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to the vote that just occurred. Apparently, there were two members who voted with their app but no photo appeared, so we would like clarification on the validity of their vote, and this is for future context as well. It was the member for Fredericton and the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

68 words

The Speaker

May/18/23 3:42:18 p.m.
Watch

In consulting with the table, I understand that this normally has to be brought up before the results are announced. That is why the whips have the information, and they are supposed to get back to us with that, but what we are going to do is look into it and find out exactly what was there. In future, if someone's photo was not clear, I would ask them to bring it up as soon as we stop, because once I stop, we usually go to the next step, which is asking for the results of the vote. That is normally when it would be brought up during the vote.

111 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

May/18/23 3:43:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the current rules allow a period of time when each of the whips can inform the Speaker and the House of any problems arising during a vote. These problems should have been raised when you asked members to report any problems that occurred during the vote. I think the Standing Orders are very clear in this regard.

66 words

The Speaker

May/18/23 3:43:57 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member. He said it much more eloquently than me. I hear noise from the other side. I do not know if it is coming from the hallway or the lobby. It seems to have stopped. I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 26 minutes. I believe we have the Thursday question.

66 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

May/18/23 3:44:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, just before we go back to our ridings for a week, after a five-week marathon where we sat until midnight several times, I think that we can pat ourselves on the back for the work that we have done and the efforts that we have made on behalf of our constituents in our ridings. I would like the government leader to tell us what we can expect the week we return from our ridings, because most of us will already be back in our ridings tomorrow. Will we have work? Will we have enough resources in the House and for committees? Will we have enough resources to do our work? Most importantly, what does the government have on the agenda upon our return to the House?

129 words

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.)

May/18/23 3:45:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5 Bill C-42 Bill C-40

Mr. Speaker, when we return the Monday after the week in our ridings, the agenda will include debate at third reading of Bill S‑5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Tuesday and Thursday will be opposition days. On Wednesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C‑42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act. On Friday, we will begin debate on Bill C‑40, miscarriage of justice review commission act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law. I would also like to take this opportunity to inform members that we have posted the position of law clerk and parliamentary counsel in the House of Commons. I encourage members to share that job posting so that we can be sure to find a permanent law clerk as soon as possible to support the important work that we do as parliamentarians. Again, we have done the process in French and English. With that, I would like to wish all parliamentarians a wonderful constituency week. I know that we are going to be busy in our ridings.

188 words

Mr. Ben Lobb

May/18/23 3:47:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I do not bring points of order up very often, but I just had a phone call from the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies. There was a little confusion about his vote, with the picture not coming up on his mobile app. He is in his riding, and he is participating in dealing with the fires that are up there. I think it is already clear that his vote was recorded as a no, but that is just a little context as to why it was maybe a bit of a problem in his geography.

110 words

The Speaker

May/18/23 3:47:36 p.m.
Watch

Yes, we already said that we would look into it, and we will get back to the House with some kind of an answer on that. The hon. Minister of Official Languages is rising.

34 words

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor

May/18/23 3:47:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention part of the important work for next week. If you would allow me to continue, I want to make sure all members of the House are fully aware of the work to be done when we return. Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Monday, May 29, for consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under the Department of Finance in main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024. Furthermore, in relation to this upcoming debate, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House, during the debate on the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) on Monday, May 29, 2023: (a) the time provided for consideration of the Main Estimates in committee of the whole be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each; (b) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with one or more other members; and (c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

214 words

Consideration

The Speaker

May/18/23 3:49:06 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion please say nay. Agreed. The House has now heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

35 words

Nay
Opposed

The Speaker

May/18/23 3:49:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-281

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised yesterday, May 17, by the parliamentary secretary to the government House Leader regarding an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs and International Development during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-281, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. The parliamentary secretary explained that the committee adopted an amendment to clause 2 of the bill that creates a new obligation on the minister to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy. According to the parliamentary secretary, this amendment proposes a new concept that exceeds the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading. The parliamentary secretary argued that, for this reason, the amendment in question should be struck from the bill as reported by the committee. When this amendment was proposed at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the committee chair ruled the amendment inadmissible on the grounds that it was beyond the scope of the bill. The decision was challenged and overturned. The committee then debated the amendment and adopted it. When considering legislation, the House and its committees are guided by specific procedural rules that have been long established. In relation to the scope of a bill, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following on page 770: An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill. Bill C-281 does amend several acts, and it does create certain new obligations on the minister in relation to human rights. However, after a close reading of the bill, the new responsibilities for the minister are limited to specific areas, including communicating with families of prisoners of conscience and producing formal responses to House and Senate committees. After careful consideration, it is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment creates a new obligation requiring the designated minister to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy. The Chair of the committee correctly concluded that the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill, as it introduced a new concept not envisioned in the bill when it was adopted by the House at second reading. When a committee considers a bill at clause-by-clause, the committee chair must ensure that the proceedings on the bill conform to the procedural rules governing the consideration of amendments to bills. This includes ensuring that the committee’s review of the bill falls within the scope and principle as established by the House at second reading. When a committee fails to adhere to the will of the House as it pertains to bills, it oversteps its authority, as delegated to the committee by the House. Speaker Milliken said it well when, on May 11, 2010, at page 2650 of the Debates, he explained: As has been frequently noted, the Speaker’s involvement in committee matters is limited except in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority. The adoption of amendments that are beyond the scope of a bill is such a case.... While some members may be of the opinion that a different bill, perhaps broader in scope, ought to have been introduced, I must base my decision on the bill that actually was introduced and approved by the House at second reading. As such, the Chair rules the amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development null and void and orders that it no longer form part of the bill as reported by the committee. The Chair also orders a reprint of the bill at the earliest opportunity for use by the House in its consideration of subsequent stages of the bill. However, given that the House is scheduled to consider Bill C-281 at report stage later this day, so as not to disrupt the business currently before the House, report stage will proceed based on the version of the bill as reported back from committee, with the understanding that when the bill will be reprinted, the text of the inadmissible amendment in question, at clause 2, will not be included. I thank members for their attention.

738 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

May/18/23 3:56:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the motion that we are debating today, I get the impression that no one is budging from their position. When I was teaching I used a book as an analogy. If I describe a cover and the person across from me describes the other cover, we will not have the same description. However, in the end, what matters are the pages between those two covers. Here, the objective is to find and implement everything we can to help people who have an addiction, whether that is services, protected sites or safe supply. I would like my colleague to talk about the importance of health transfers for ensuring adequate service delivery to people who are addicted.

118 words

Mr. Brendan Hanley (Yukon, Lib.)

May/18/23 3:57:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, which is very important. I am pleased that we are in the process of implementing bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories, including the Yukon territory, which I represent. I also want to ensure that mental health and addictions services are a priority in these agreements.

55 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/18/23 3:57:58 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I appreciate the member's willingness to make sure that more indigenous peoples get the supports they need. A couple of weeks ago, I met with members of the Kluane First Nation, which has been seeking supports and assistance from the federal government for quite a few years now. Could the member describe what supports are being provided in this kind of area for places like the Kluane First Nation?

71 words

Mr. Brendan Hanley

May/18/23 3:58:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, given the disproportionate impact that first nations people in Yukon are feeling from the toxic drug crisis, that is a very important question from the hon. member for Nunavut. I am in conversation with Kluane First Nation and many others to help support their needs and their requests, such as on-the-land treatment and more wraparound social supports, including not only mental health counselling availability but also prevention. The territorial government is also involved in these discussions.

80 words

Mr. Wilson Miao (Richmond Centre, Lib.)

May/18/23 3:59:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise in this chamber today to speak on this motion. In my riding, the community of Richmond Centre, I have heard of many heartbreaking incidents. Michael, an artist, an empath and a gentle, compassionate young individual passed away at age 26 from a tainted supply of drugs. Curtis was an intelligent, caring and adventurous person. He was 36 when he passed away from drug overdoses and poisonings. Countless incidents like these happen in British Columbia and across Canada. It breaks my heart to see mothers, fathers, friends and families lose their dearly loved ones. Last year, in Richmond, 29 people died of drug poisoning, and 2,314 died in British Columbia. On CBC news today, it said that in British Columbia 206 people were suspected to have died of toxic drugs in April alone this year. Let us talk about the link between mental health and substance use. We know that mental health and substance use is affecting more and more Canadians and requires collaboration across all levels of government as well as with other partners in our community. It is for that reason that, in 2021, Canada’s first-ever ministry of mental health and addictions was created, and showed the interconnected nature of mental health with substance use. It has also highlighted our government’s commitment to take action through an integrated approach on these issues that have significantly impacted individuals, their families and communities. It is important to stress that mental illness and substance use often go hand in hand. People with mental illnesses are twice as likely to have a substance use disorder compared to the general population. Substance use can also increase the underlying risk of mental health issues and can exacerbate the symptoms of existing mental health issues. In fact, 50% of people in treatment for substance use also live with mental illness. We know that childhood trauma, low income, lack of access to stable housing, discrimination, racism, and the historical and ongoing effects of colonization and the residential school system on indigenous communities all play a major factor. There are many challenges faced by Canadians experiencing mental illness and harms from substance use. These include a lack of available services and supports close to home, care that is not comprehensive or responsive to an individual’s needs, and the experience of stigma and discrimination, both in seeking care and in society. Youth and young adults, indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and those identifying as LGBTQ2S+ are among those Canadians impacted the most. As a result of unmet or under-addressed mental health and substance use needs, individuals and communities face significant health, social and economic burdens. This includes paying out of pocket for services, increased emergency department visits and public safety concerns. Our government has long recognized that Canadians with mental health and substance use needs require ongoing supports to meet a complexity of needs. We have seen the record of the Conservatives on this issue. They stand up in the chamber and use stigmatizing language to try and play politics with this issue, and act like they are not misleading Canadians with a bias or one-sided perspective on this crisis. Canadians have spoken of the complexity of these mental health and substance use issues, and how often they are interconnected with other social issues, such as homelessness. For example, we know that up to 75% of women experiencing homelessness also experience mental illness. In British Columbia, 67% of people experiencing homelessness or housing instability identified substance use issues, and 51% identified mental health as a concern. Accessing appropriate housing options that provide ready access to needed wraparound supports can be a significant challenge, due to housing shortages and maintenance issues with existing housing; insufficient community-based, trained provider capacity; and silos between health, housing and social sectors. This is why our government is investing in affordable housing for Canadians, including $4 billion through the rapid housing initiative, aimed at quickly creating new affordable housing for individuals who have severe housing needs and are at risk of being homeless. Ensuring Canadians have access to housing, social supports and the health services they need is a major preoccupation of municipal and community leaders. Our government is working with them, and with the provinces and territories, to break down silos, so Canadians can have access to the integrated supports they need. We are also committed to working with indigenous governments and communities to support access to a comprehensive range of evidence-based, culturally appropriate and trauma-informed services and supports needed to support mental health and substance use issues that individuals are facing, including the opioid overdose crisis, and to advance whole-of-society approaches to these issues. Through the mental wellness program, Indigenous Services Canada is providing supports for substance use prevention, harm reduction, treatment and aftercare, psychosocial wraparound services and trauma-informed health supports to indigenous communities. In addition, our government has provided targeted supports for innovative community-based projects that address mental health and substance use issues. The opposition members will stand up and say that the government is not putting resources into treatment, but since 2017, we have invested more than $400 million in over 380 projects through the substance use and addictions program to support community-based organizations. In 2018, our government committed $150 million over five years to address the opioid crisis through the emergency treatment fund, which also had funds cost-matched by provinces and territories: over $300 million in funding for substance use treatment across Canada. This shows how much we are putting into treatments and how we should not be taking lessons from a party that wants to revert to Harper-era policies. Tackling the opioid overdose crisis requires a holistic and integrated approach that focuses on mental health and well-being. That is what this government has been doing, so that Canadians can be resilient and healthy now and into the future. Enough is enough. We will not be able to bring loved ones home if they are dead from toxic supplies. This is a fight that we must triumph. This is a non-partisan issue, and we will prevail with collaboration with provinces, territories, municipalities and local community organizations, such as, in my riding, the Richmond Addiction Services Society, Turning Point Recovery Society and Pathways Clubhouse. I want to thank the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions for her continuous championship on this matter, and all the first responders, frontline workers and health care workers for all they do.

1091 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

May/18/23 4:08:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting. Earlier in the House we heard about vaping numbers going up. What we know in this opioid crisis is that the Liberal government is installing vending machines for high-potency drugs in Vancouver and Victoria. I wonder if the member opposite might think that it would be appropriate to give free vaping products in high school vending machines.

63 words