SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 213 - Jun/14/23

Jun/14/23 5:04:11 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 1458—

Questioner: Daniel Blaikie

With regard to the Canada Dental Benefit, broken down by federal electoral district since the program's inception: (a) what is the total number of applications (i) received, (ii) approved; (b) what is the total dollar value of payments delivered to eligible applicants; and (c) how many children, in total, have been helped by the program?

Question No. 1461—

Questioner: Ryan Williams

With regard to expenditures on chauffeur-driven vehicles or similar types of car and driver services for ministers, exempt staff, or senior government officials, since January 1, 2018, excluding expenditures associated with the government's fleet of executive vehicles: what are the details of all such expenditures, including, for each, the (i) start and end dates of the vehicle usage, (ii) amount, (iii) individual for whom the vehicle was used, (iv) pick up location, (v) destination, (vi) type of vehicle, (vii) vendor?

Question No. 1462—

Questioner: Ryan Williams

With regard to the public service: (a) how many employees occupy or have been assigned more than one physical office on government property; (b) of the employees in (a), how many are (i) executives, (ii) other employees; and (c) for each employee in (a), what is (i) their title and classification, (ii) the number of offices they have, (iii) the buildings and cities where their offices are located, (iv) the reason for having multiple offices?

Question No. 1463—

Questioner: Louise Chabot

With respect to the Canada Summer Jobs program: (a) for each of the 338 ridings in Canada (i) how much money, how many positions and how many hours of work were allocated for fiscal year 2023-24, (ii) how much money, how many positions and how many hours were requested for fiscal year 2023-24, (iii) what is the numerical difference between the amount of money requested and the amount of money received, (iv) what is the numerical difference between the number of positions requested and the number of positions granted, (v) what is the numerical difference between the number of hours requested and the number of hours granted; (b) in mathematical terms, and with all variables defined, what was the formula used in fiscal year 2023-24 to determine the funding granted to each riding; and (c) what share of the overall funding, in percentage and dollar terms, has been paid to ridings in Quebec, broken down by fiscal year since 2006-07?

Question No. 1464—

Questioner: Gord Johns

With regard to the communities which comprise the federal electoral district of Courtenay-Alberni, since fiscal year 2018-19: (a) what are the federal infrastructure investments, including direct transfers to municipalities and First Nations, for the communities of (i) Tofino, (ii) Ucluelet, (iii) Port Alberni, (iv) Parksville, (v) Qualicum Beach, (vi) Cumberland, (vii) Courtenay, (viii) Deep Bay, (ix) Dashwood, (x) Royston, (xi) French Creek, (xii) Errington, (xiii) Coombs, (xiv) Nanoose Bay, (xv) Cherry Creek, (xvi) China Creek, (xvii) Bamfield, (xviii) Beaver Creek, (xix) Beaufort Range, (xx) Millstream, (xxi) Mt. Washington Ski Resort, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (b) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the regional districts of (i) Comox Valley Regional District, (ii) Nanaimo Regional District, (iii) Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District, (iv) Powell River Regional District, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (c) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the Island Trusts of (i) Hornby Island, (ii) Denman Island, (iii) Lasquetti Island, broken down by fiscal year, and total expenditure; (d) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the (i) Ahousaht First Nation, (ii) Hesquiaht First Nation, (iii) Huu-ay-aht First Nation, (iv) Hupacasath First Nation, (v) Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations, (vi) Toquaht First Nation, (vii) Tseshaht First Nation, (viii) Uchucklesaht First Nation, (ix) Ucluelet First Nation, (x) K'omoks First Nation, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (e) what is the infrastructure funding of Pacific Rim National Park, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (f) what is the funding of highways, including, but not limited to, (i) Highway 4, (ii) Highway 19, (iii) Highway 19a, (iv) Bamfield Road, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; and (g) what other infrastructure investments are provided through the funding of national parks, highways, the Building Canada Fund, Infrastructure Canada, the Gas Tax Fund, Small Crafts and Harbours, BC Ferries, etc., broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project?

Question No. 1468—

Questioner: Shelby Kramp-Neuman

With regard to the government's executive vehicle fleet for ministers, since January 1, 2019: (a) what is the make and model assigned to each minister; (b) were there any changes to the assigned vehicle for each minister, and, if so, on what date did it change; and (c) what was the mileage driven on each vehicle, broken down by year?

Question No. 1469—

Questioner: Shelby Kramp-Neuman

With regard to polling conducted by or on behalf of the Privy Council Office since January 1, 2022: what are the details of all such polling, including, for each poll, (i) who conducted the poll, (ii) the start and end dates, (iii) the number of participants, (iv) the complete results of the poll, including the questions asked and the responses received, (v) the type of poll, (vi) the value of the contract related to the poll?

859 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/14/23 5:04:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.

17 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/23 5:04:16 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.)

Jun/14/23 5:04:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, once again I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand at this time, please.

26 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/23 5:04:31 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: Before we go to orders of the day, I believe the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock is standing on a question of privilege.

36 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC)

Jun/14/23 5:04:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-311

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning the offensive and unparliamentary gesture the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader, Senate, made toward me last evening during private members' hour. The facts are well known already. Put bluntly, he gave me the finger. It is my belief that this constitutes a prima facie contempt and should be taken up by the House as such. Hansard shows the sequence of events and comments that led to the incident during the debate on Bill C-311, the violence against pregnant women act. I argued that the government had lost credibility on the matter of women's rights, in part because it had failed to stand up for the victims of Paul Bernardo. As members know, this killer and serial rapist targeted female teenagers and traumatized our nation. In my speech, I referenced a unanimous consent motion that the member for Niagara Falls brought to the House. The motion reads as follows: ...that the House call for the immediate return of vile serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo to a maximum security prison, that all court-ordered dangerous offenders and mass murderers be permanently assigned a maximum security classification, that the least-restrictive-environment standard be repealed and that the language of necessary restrictions that the previous Conservative government put in place be restored. In my remarks, I stated that the member for Kingston and the Islands was a member who denied consent.

245 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/14/23 5:06:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is really important, when the member is rising on a question of privilege, to understand what actually took place yesterday, and the member is talking about a dispute over— Ms. Raquel Dancho: This is debate. Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay: I am speaking to that. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: I was being respectful for the member—

68 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/23 5:06:47 p.m.
Watch

Order. Order. Let us please get to the point of order that we are trying to hear.

17 words

Let
Us

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/14/23 5:06:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the member is talking about a dispute over the facts, and she is misrepresenting what actually was said by the member for Kingston and the Islands. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

37 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/23 5:07:03 p.m.
Watch

Order. I will let the hon. whip for the Conservatives speak, and I will go to the hon. parliamentary secretary afterward. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

30 words

Secretary

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/14/23 5:07:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks, I stated that the member for Kingston and the Islands was the member who denied consent. I did so because I was in the House when unanimous consent was asked for. I sat directly across from the member and heard him deny consent, as did many other House officers and members near me. I recognize that the member has every right to defend himself and can dispute me in the course of debate. However, his response went far beyond debate. He said, “This member should apologize, because she is lying right now.” He then walked out of the House. This remark caused significant disorder. I immediately rose on a point of order to file my objection to his use of an unparliamentary term. The member returned during my remarks, and he proceeded to shout over me, making it difficult to express my point of view. He then offered a half-hearted and insincere apology. I say “half-hearted and insincere” because his next action was to make a face at me and give me the middle finger. At that point, he walked out of the House again. His aggressive gesture is representative of language that is strictly forbidden in the House. Many members saw this aggression. Notably, the member for Vancouver Kingsway and the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies confirmed that they saw this action in their own points of order. I took the floor again to call for the member to be sanctioned in the strongest way possible, including being ejected from the House. The Chair informed the House that he did not see the gesture in question and would review the tapes. That step is no longer necessary, because the member for Kingston and the Islands returned to the House again, admitted that he made the gesture and then followed that with another insufficient apology for what he described as “displaying [his] frustration”. He did not adequately take—

337 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/23 5:09:32 p.m.
Watch

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Waterloo.

12 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger

Jun/14/23 5:09:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take away from the opposition whip's time, but I want to acknowledge, as the member just stated, that the member for Kingston and the Islands did apologize. In this place, we have a tradition where we take members at their word and—

51 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/23 5:09:52 p.m.
Watch

That again falls into debate. Let us have those comments after the member for South Surrey—White Rock completes her statement, when I will be more than happy to recognize other members. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

42 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/14/23 5:10:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, he did not adequately take responsibility for his actions. He should apologize to me, the Chair and the House. In the circumstances, and upon some reflection on the matter, now that we are out of the heat of the moment, I truly believe that with his misogynistic bullying and insults, the parliamentary secretary was trying to obstruct me from making and completing my speech. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 107, states: In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed. Assaulting, threatening, or insulting a Member during a proceeding of Parliament...is a violation of the rights of Parliament. Continuing at page 108, it states: Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference. This is a long-standing and well-established principle in the law of parliamentary privilege, tracing its roots back to the April 12, 1733, resolution of the British House of Commons, which states, “That the assaulting, insulting or menacing any member of this House, in his coming to or going from the House, or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament, is a high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and an high crime and misdemeanour.” Bosc and Gagnon observe the following at page 109: In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member’s claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament. On May 1, 1986, at page 12847 of the Debates, Speaker Bosley held: If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege. While I did complete my speech, I have to say it is very disturbing, distracting and disruptive to have to finish a speech after being put through that escalating ordeal by the member for Kingston and the Islands. I say that as someone who has spent a career as a litigator. Certainly, the giving of the finger is improper behaviour at the least, and with the context it was given in last evening, it was intended to be of a threatening or intimidating nature. In fact, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, second edition, defines giving the finger, at page 555, as “mak[ing] an obscene gesture with the middle finger raised as a sign of contempt.” A “sign of contempt” is the literal definition. It is certainly unparliamentary, and I would argue that it is contemptuous, behaviour. No matter how we cut it, it is unacceptable conduct in any professional setting. I must say, I have never experienced this in my professional career to date. While I do not believe we have ever had a Speaker's Ruling on a member giving another the finger, Bosc and Gagnon explain, at page 112: It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of [contempt]. At page 81, they state: There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege: tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its officers. They continue: The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly. Indeed, on June 7, 2021, at page 8034 of the Debates, the Speaker found a prima facie contempt concerning our former colleague, Will Amos, who, while attending the House virtually, urinated into a coffee cup. I would note the wording from that ruling. It states: In response, the member for Kingston and the Islands agreed that it was a deplorable and unacceptable incident, while also pointing out that the member for Pontiac had accepted full responsibility and that he had stepped aside from his parliamentary secretary responsibilities and from his committee responsibilities in order to obtain the appropriate assistance. For that reason, he was again apologizing on his behalf. Further in the ruling, it states: I obviously take note of the apology from the member for Pontiac. He recognized that his behaviour was completely inappropriate and confirms his commitment to obtain the necessary assistance. Nevertheless, the Chair is required to determine whether the alleged facts are a breach of the rules governing contempt and thus merit priority consideration. That is the case here. Just as in those circumstances two years ago, I believe that the misogynistic bullying and offensive gestures by the member for Kingston and the Islands must absolutely be called out. They rise to the threshold requiring your intervention, Mr. Speaker, and this House's disposition through a privilege motion. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, should you agree, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

954 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/23 5:16:39 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for her intervention. Just to add to what happened last evening, after the member had come back in, I think I was pretty stern in telling him that he had to unreservedly admit and apologize. I am just going to read Hansard. He said, “Mr. Speaker, I admit that what the members are indicating that I did, I did do. I unreservedly apologize for displaying my frustration that way.” Knowing the information that was provided, we will go back and come back with a ruling. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

100 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/14/23 5:17:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I read through that apology again, as I said, out of the heat of the moment, which was very disorderly and chaotic in this place. What the member apologized for was using that expression to express his frustration. He did not apologize to me, the House or the other members, and that is quite different.

57 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/23 5:17:42 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for that. We will come back with a ruling.

13 words

Ruling

Hon. Carla Qualtrough (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.)

Jun/14/23 5:19:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-22

moved: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, the House: agrees with amendments 1, 4 and 5 made by the Senate; agrees with the Senate proposal to make any necessary consequential changes to the numbering of provisions and cross-references resulting from the amendments to the bill; respectfully disagrees with amendment 2 because it raises significant constitutional concerns by seeking to regulate the insurance industry specifically or contracting generally, both of which fall within provincial jurisdiction; proposes that amendment 3 be amended to read as follows: “New clause 10.1, page 4: Add the following after line 5: “Appeals 10.1 Subject to regulations, a person, or any other person acting on their behalf, may appeal to a body identified in regulations made under paragraph 11(1)(i) in respect of any decision (a) relating to the person’s ineligibility for a Canada disability benefit; (b) relating to the amount of a Canada disability benefit that the person has received or will receive; or (c) prescribed by the regulations.””.

217 words

All Topics

Hon. Carla Qualtrough (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.)

Jun/14/23 5:19:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-22

She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the government's position on the proposed Senate amendments to Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act. I do so on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples. I will begin by thanking senators for their attention to this bill, especially the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for their study, which resulted in six amendments to the bill and seven observations. Each time I have risen in the House on Bill C-22, I have begun by declaring that no person with a disability in this country should live in poverty, yet many do. Approximately 23% of working-age persons with disabilities in Canada live in poverty, and many are in deep poverty. The history of how this came to be in a country with as much promise and opportunity as Canada is one of exclusion, marginalization and discrimination. This history, and the resulting financial insecurity and poverty, which is a lived experience of many persons with disabilities in Canada, is the backdrop for Bill C-22, and it is why we are here today working together to create a new federal benefit for low-income, working-aged persons with disabilities. At its core, the Canada disability benefit is about poverty reduction and financial security. There is a significant gap in our social safety net for persons with disabilities. The Canada child benefit disability supplement is available until age 18 and old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are available after age 65, but there is nothing in between. However, just as the guaranteed income supplement did for seniors and the Canada child benefit did for children, the Canada disability benefit would lift persons with disabilities out of poverty. Bill C-22 is framework legislation by design. The Canada disability benefit would be established and implemented through Bill C-22, which is a legal framework to create the benefit and a subsequent regulatory process through which the specific details will be established. This reflects our commitment to the disability community and recognizes the leading role that provinces and territories play in providing supports and services to persons with disabilities. Now I will move on to the amendments. There were six amendments sent back from the Senate. As was said, the government agrees with amendments 1,4, 5 and 6, and proposes that the House accepts these amendments as is. These amendments enhance Bill C-22 in that they add clarity, precision and specificity. We also agree with amendment 3 with a minor amendment. Amendment 3 would add a new clause, clause 10.1, related to appeals. While Bill C-22 provides for an appeal process to be created by regulation, this new clause gives a right to appeal in two specific areas: benefit ineligibility and amount. The government proposes that this Senate amendment be further amended to clarify that other decisions may also be appealed. This would avoid a future legal interpretation where grounds for appeal are restricted to the two specified areas of ineligibility and amount. I thank the Senate for its thoughtfulness on this important issue of administrative justice and trust that it will consider the government's proposed amendment appropriate. Now, I will spend some time on the final amendment, Senate amendment 2, as the government's proposed response to it is to respectfully disagree. Amendment 2 would amend clause 9 of Bill C-22, which concerns the way benefit payments are to be treated in situations such as bankruptcy or insolvency. Amendment 2 would add that benefit payments “cannot be recovered or retained, in whole or in part, under the terms of any contract, insurance plan or similar instrument”. I understand that the intent of this amendment is to address the situation where provincial benefits or insurance payments are at risk of being clawed back or reduced as a result of a payment of the Canada disability benefit, effectively leaving the recipient no better off and potentially impacting secondary program and service entitlements. The issue of clawbacks is perhaps the most common concern raised by the disability community. We heard it here in the House as well. The disability benefit and support landscape is incredibly complex, and varies significantly across the country. There are different eligibility criteria in every province and territory, different definitions of disability, different treatments of other sources of income, different reduction rates, etc. As a result, we have to be mindful of the potential direct and indirect impacts that additional income in the form of the CDB could have on provincial or territorial benefit and service entitlements. Since day one, we have been clear that this is supplemental income, meant to be in addition to provincial and territorial income supports and other forms of income. It is not replacement income. It is not employment income or employment earnings. We explored ways to address these concerns through legislation. The challenge is that both contracting generally and the insurance industry fall within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. This is why no such provision exists in any other benefit legislation in Canada, not for the Canada child benefit, OAS or GIS, CPP, or the Canada workers benefit. While the federal spending authority allows the government to create such a benefit, it does not allow the federal government to attach conditions in areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as the regulation of insurance companies. Knowing this, we have worked very closely with provinces and territories on benefit interaction. Provinces and territories have expressed gratitude for early engagement. There is consensus that the CDB is intended to be supplemental income, not replacement income, and make people better off. They share our view that the best way of optimizing benefit interaction is by working together. We have a detailed federal-provincial-territorial work plan that all jurisdictions have agreed to. Once this bill becomes law, we will begin the formal negotiations on agreements with the provinces and territories. We have also engaged with the private insurance industry. The feedback we have received from the industry is that they would not choose to offset or claw back income that is considered social assistance or a poverty reduction measure. Once again, the CDB is not replacement or employment income. Once this bill becomes law, we will continue to work with private insurers throughout the regulatory process. Simply put, the government disagrees with this amendment because we believe it raises significant constitutional concerns. Both the regulation of private insurance and contracting generally fall within provincial jurisdiction. If we went ahead with this amendment, the likelihood of an individual or organization bringing forward a court challenge would be very high. This would create significant uncertainty and could impact the regulatory process, which could in turn impact benefit delivery. This could very well delay benefit payments. Furthermore, I am concerned that there would be serious implications for federal-provincial-territorial relations. It is likely that the provinces and territories would see this provision as an encroachment on their jurisdiction. This could undermine the work that we have accomplished to date. Therefore, while I understand and share the Senate's concerns around clawbacks, the way to address this issue is to continue with the process that is already under way, not through this amendment to Bill C-22. The Senate amendments we are proposing to accept further strengthen Bill C-22 and do not limit the government's commitment to a quick, regulatory process. The amendment we are proposing to not accept, respectfully, raises constitutional concerns and could significantly impair our relationships with provinces and territories, and ultimately delay benefit delivery. I thank the senators for responding to the disability community's concerns. Both the House and the Senate have improved this bill. The Canada disability benefit is the result of decades of relentless advocacy on the part of the disability community. This benefit is the culmination of the work of every self-advocate, every activist, every parent, every ally, every organization, everyone who has fought to have disability rights recognized. I said at the beginning of my remarks that we are here, working together, on this. We have come together on this bill already, and today we did it again. We are on the cusp of doing what every single one of us in this place came to Ottawa to do, which is to help people, make their lives better and right historic wrongs. Today, we are literally making history.

1443 words

All Topics