SoVote

May/5/22 6:18:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-237

For dental care, it is about paying the bills, not giving— An hon. member: There is no debate.

19 words

May/5/22 6:18:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-237

Madam Speaker, I would remind the House that even if the bills are paid, dental care is part of the health care system and therefore a provincial jurisdiction. This is therefore not the place for that debate. We are all for people receiving dental care. It makes no sense that people cannot afford dental care or have to choose between oral health and food or rent because they do not have enough money. By the same token, we want seniors to be well cared for in long-term care facilities, and we want everyone to benefit from pharmacare. If we want to talk about that, I invite my hon. colleagues to step down and run for the National Assembly or their legislative assembly to talk about this legislative measure in the right place. The role of members of the House of Commons is to determine whether we will provide them adequate funding or not. According to my notes, the government member said that, with this bill, all we are trying to do is reduce the central government's power. He is talking about the national government, but for us, our national government is the National Assembly in Quebec City. He spoke about weakening the federal government's role, even though it continues to overstep and expand its reach. To do things in its own way, our national government in Quebec City tries to work within its areas of jurisdiction as established by the Constitution. We now see Ottawa cutting its share of funding and increasing the number of standards. That is exactly what the government member told us. That was his direct response. What is then Ottawa's vision in the face of my nation's right to exist? The federal government will continue to suffocate us with standards and keep shoving them down our throat. This means my nation will not exist on its own, it will have to become part of the whole. As we saw in the budget, if we want to discuss funding, we must first discuss standards. It is about standardization. There is therefore less room for my nation in this federation. The member was talking about hip surgeries. Is it up to Ottawa to be talking about hip surgeries when this falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces? It makes no sense. It is pretentious and paternalistic. As I was saying, this is a boss-employee relationship. This is not just coming from separatists. Quebec's entire health care community has rejected this. I thank the members from the Conservative Party for their speeches and for showing up in such large numbers, considering that this an important evening of debate for their party. I do not think that a royal recommendation is required for Bill C‑237. I will not have the time to speak to this in great detail, but, essentially, we are not asking for new funding to be allocated. We are asking for the existing funding to be reallocated. This is not about allocating the money to another objective. When Quebec has a comparable program, the money is transferred and, presumably, it will be used to fund the same service. We are not adding anything or diverting the funding. Therefore, in my opinion, a royal recommendation is not needed in this case. I have good arguments in support of this. First, I would like to point out that the bill presented by the dean of the House does not require any new spending. Second, it does not change the transfer amounts, nor does it change the names of the recipients or how the funding is allocated to them, and it does not change the purpose of the transfer. For example, the Canada health transfer will still be dedicated to paying for health care. The same is true for other transfers that are allocated to a province if it has a program whose objectives are comparable—that is the key word—to those of a federal program. It does not force the executive's hand, which retains the latitude and discretion required to transfer the funds. That prerogative remains in place. The executive will decide whether the province has a comparable program and will determine whether the province is complying with the conditions set out in the Canada Health Act. Finally, precedents are on my side. I do not have time to go into detail, but there have been many bills that have changed the normative framework without having any financial implications per se. None of them required a royal recommendation. In the end, the House recognized my nation, which speaks French. Now it must follow through on that recognition. The government is attempting to do so in a modest way, to follow through on this recognition in a modest way with a modest bill. What we are hearing is that all the federalist parties are going to vote against it. That gives us a good idea of our options for our collective political future.

838 words

All Topics

Mr. Shafqat Ali (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

May/5/22 6:23:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-237

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on this private member's bill, Bill C-237, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act. As proposed, this bill would do two things. It would allow any province to withdraw from a federal program in provincial jurisdiction if comparable programs exist, and it would exempt Quebec from the criteria and conditions that must be met in order to receive a full cash contribution through the Canada health transfer. Before I get into the concerns that the government has with these amendments, let me very quickly provide a little history of the Canada Health Act. The act was passed unanimously in the House of Commons in 1984 and represents a broad consensus among Canadians and their federal, provincial and territorial governments that access to insured health services should be based on medical need and not one's ability to pay. Since then, the act has been considered the gold standard of federal spending power being used to set national objectives in an area of provincial jurisdiction. The act, in conjunction with the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, does so by establishing broad criteria and conditions that provinces and territories must fulfill to receive full cash contributions under the Canada health transfer. Provincial health insurance legislation and regulations, including those of Quebec, meet and in some cases go beyond the requirements of the Canada Health Act. That leads me to the first concern our government has with this proposed legislation. By accepting this legislation and exempting Quebec from the Canada Health Act's conditions, we would weaken the foundation of Canada's universal health care system. The act establishes the objectives and values underlying universal health care. For provinces to receive full Canada health transfer payments, provincial health insurance programs must be in compliance with five broad principles: universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility and public administration. Provinces have not requested that these conditions be repealed. Moreover, I would like to remind the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois that since the creation of the Canada Health Act, Quebec has broadly complied with the act's principles. Indeed, the discretionary penalty provisions of the act, which give the government discretion to withhold the Canada health transfer contributions from provinces in contravention of the five principles, have never been used. There have been some instances of non-compliance in Quebec and other provinces, with respect to extra billing and user charges, where mandatory deductions under the Canada Health Act have been applied. It is also important to note that the principle of asymmetric federalism renders the proposed amendment to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act unnecessary for Quebec. As part of the 2004 Health Accord, the federal government and the government of Quebec signed a bilateral agreement on asymmetric federalism. Under this agreement, Quebec supported the overall objectives and general principles set out by first ministers while respecting Quebec's desire to exercise its own responsibilities in planning, organizing and managing health services.

512 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/5/22 6:30:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-237

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

30 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/5/22 6:30:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to come back to my question for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change from a few weeks ago on Bay du Nord. Let me start by sharing the reality of where we are. If we want at least a 50% chance of staying below 1.5°C, which scientists have shared is what is required for just a chance at a livable future, and if Canada were to do its fair share of what we know remains for the global carbon budget, 86% of Canada's proven fossil fuel reserves need to remain unextracted. Fast forward to April 4, when the most recent climate report came out, and scientists made clear it was now or never if we wanted to limit warming to 1.5°C. It was called an “atlas of human suffering” and a “damning indictment of failed climate leadership”. The chair said half measures were no longer an option. The UN Secretary-General described the report. These are his words. He said: Climate activists are sometimes depicted as dangerous radicals, but the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels. Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness. Some government and business leaders are saying one thing, but doing another. Simply put, they are lying. And the results will be catastrophic. Just a few days later, the government had its first big climate credibility test: whether to approve Bay du Nord. It is a deepwater oil drilling project 500 kilometres off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, 1,200 metres below the surface. We expect that it has up to one billion barrels of oil. Combusting that oil is equivalent to 100 coal-fired power plants for a year, and production would not even start until 2028. I was told by the minister in our previous conversation that there is this net-zero condition. It will be net-zero by 2050. What good is that if we have already burned all the oil by then? The added trick that is often not mentioned is that it is expected that much of this oil would be exported. Of course, this is a global carbon budget. When we do that, it may not show up in our domestic target, which even on its own is not sufficient to do our fair share, but it has the added illusion of not affecting our emissions, when in fact it is directly contributing to the global climate crisis that we are in. No one is saying, myself included, that we need to shut down oil and gas industries tomorrow and turn off the taps, but what we do need is an immediate investment in the economy of the future: an investment in workers. Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, we know has some of the highest wind energy potential in North America, so why are we not investing in those workers today? Why are we not investing in their future and their retraining? We know that this new fossil fuel infrastructure that has been proposed is what has been described as moral and economic madness. Let me remind the parliamentary secretary in closing that Canadians expect more. Last fall, a full 66% of Canadians polled shared that they expected more ambitious climate action. My question tonight is this. Why is the government continuing to approve projects like Baie du Nord, knowing full well the majority of Canadians expect so much better?

590 words

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

May/5/22 6:34:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend from Kitchener Centre for his eloquence, passion and commitment to the environment, which I share. I would highlight to him that over the past six years the Government of Canada has invested over $100 billion and introduced over 100 measures in support of climate-related commitments. Since 2016, the Government of Canada has been working with the provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, industry and civil society to implement the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. This plan outlines over 50 concrete measures to reduce carbon pollution, help us adapt and become more resilient to the impacts of a changing climate, spur clean technology solutions and create good jobs that contribute to a stronger economy. In addition, the Government of Canada has made significant progress to implement the strengthened climate plan “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy”, which was released in December 2020. The plan builds on the pan-Canadian framework and includes a suite of new measures to reduce emissions, supported by an investment of $15 billion. In June 2021, the Government of Canada adopted legislation to enshrine its commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 into law. The Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act provides a durable framework of accountability and transparency to deliver on this commitment by establishing a transparent process to plan, assess and adjust the Government of Canada's efforts to achieve our national targets based on the best scientific information available. On March 29, 2022, the Government of Canada introduced “2030 Emission Reduction Plan: Clean Air, Strong Economy.” This is the first emissions reduction plan released under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act and is supported by $9.1 billion in new investments. The plan reflects economy-wide and sector-by-sector measures and strategies to reduce emissions while creating jobs for workers and opportunities for businesses. The plan also reflects input from thousands of Canadians, businesses, indigenous peoples, communities and governments. These actions will enable Canada to achieve its enhanced nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and put us on a path to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. We have made great progress in implementing federal climate actions and we will continue to ensure a healthy and prosperous net-zero future for all Canadians. Our government recognizes the importance of the oil and gas industry in our energy mix while Canada moves toward a net-zero emissions economy by 2050. This is why we are committed to working with industry, provinces, indigenous partners and Canadians to define and implement the cap on oil and gas sector emissions. Following consultations, the cap will be designed to lower emissions at a pace and scale needed to achieve net zero by 2050. Further, regulations to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40% to 45% by 2025 were completed in December of 2018. In 2021, Canada also joined the global methane pledge and was the first country to commit to reducing methane emissions in the oil and gas sector by at least 75% below 2012 levels by 2030. I will finish up with—

540 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/5/22 6:38:44 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

6 words

Mr. Mike Morrice

May/5/22 6:38:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while I respect the parliamentary secretary, if approving the Baie du Nord project is what accountability looks like in Canada's climate policy, then we have a problem. Yes, much of what he said is true, and he did not mention Baie du Nord in his response. There is $9.1 billion in the emissions reduction plan, and I am cheering that on, but at the same time, there is $7.1 billion between now and 2030 in a new fossil fuels subsidy, a tax credit for carbon capture and storage, which again only further locks us into going in the wrong direction. When we talk about Baie du Nord, we see why this talk of a cap on emissions is insufficient. We can cap emissions all we want, but if we are not going to look at production, if we are not going to be honest about the reality of the need to leave some reserves in the ground for a livable planet for our children, nothing else really matters.

173 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

May/5/22 6:39:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the federal assessment of the Bay du Nord project has been led by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada since 2018 and is subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. The environmental assessment considered a wide range of impacts, including those on fish and fish habitat, marine mammals, sea turtles, migratory birds, species at risk, environmentally special areas, commercial fisheries, direct greenhouse gas emissions, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, and the health and socio-economic conditions of indigenous people. In fact, the agency consulted 40 potentially impacted indigenous groups from Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec.

109 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

May/5/22 6:40:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, last week, I asked the Liberals when they would end their cruel travel ban on the Canadians the government has branded as unacceptable. In response, the Minister of Transport completed a Liberal hat trick, with three misleading statements in one answer, a feat only a Liberal could be proud of. His first misleading statement was another attempt to play wedge politics with COVID shots. The Liberal Party desperately wants to import American politics into Canada. The Liberals have won fewer votes than the Conservatives in the last five out of six elections. They know they cannot beat our party, so they try to pretend they are running against a different party with different policies. The minister knows that everyone in this chamber has had at least two COVID shots, and no one in this chamber has spoken against the shots. The minister should apologize for this but he will not. He has swallowed too much of his own hubris. When the Liberals decided to politicize COVID shots, they began to believe their own talking points. They forgot COVID shots are the means to an end, not the end itself. The minister next misled Canadians when he claimed that the Liberals are doing whatever they can to protect Canadians. This is from a government that initially told people not to wear masks because it would increase the chance of eye injuries, and a government that called anyone racist for suggesting the border be closed. Finally, for his third misleading hit, the minister claimed he is just following the science. This is perhaps the most grievous example of disinformation being pushed by the government. The government has been taking the name of science in vain for the last two years. The Liberals intentionally conflate the science behind developing and testing COVID shots with a political policy of banning people from boarding planes and trains. The challenge the government has is that it cannot even get its science right. Prior to dropping most pre-arrival testing for fully inoculated Canadians, there was a requirement to show up with either a recent negative test or, and this is key, a positive test result from the previous 180 days. The Canada Border Services Agency seems to understand that proof of previous infection lowers the risk of transmission. Maybe somebody there could explain it to the Ministry of Transportation. While the courts have found limiting the transmission of COVID allows for reasonable restrictions, the government still must follow the section one test laid out by the court. If the goal is to limit the spread, the government must prove this policy is related to the goal of limiting the spread and not a punitive measure for those who will not comply with the Prime Minister’s dictates, which goes to the heart of the question. Why is the Prime Minister’s test for acceptability whether or not someone has had two COVID shots and not immunity? While COVID shots may be the safest way to achieve an immune response, they are not the only way. After firing people from their jobs, denying them social assistance, and calling them every name in the Liberal handbook, some Canadians still have not gotten the jab. Clearly, no amount of coercion or duress will work. If the Liberals truly and honestly believe their own rhetoric about protecting Canadians, they would move to an immunity-based approach to risk management. That they still have not shifted based on the latest scientific evidence proves they care more about punishing a small minority than protecting the vast majority. I challenge the parliamentary secretary to ignore his department-drafted talking points and honestly tell Canadians how this policy is still reasonable after all we have learned about the science of waning immunity.

632 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

May/5/22 6:44:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a sincere privilege to be here in the House for a late show, and since I know that the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has strong connections to the Dutch community in her riding, I would like to wish her a happy Dutch Liberation Day and also say hello to my dad, Joe, whose family arrived here on October 15, 1953. We are very proud of our Dutch heritage, and I know they are in Renfrew County as well. While provinces and territories are easing public health measures, we know that COVID-19 continues to circulate in Canada. Throughout the pandemic, our government has taken clear and decisive actions to ensure the safety and security of Canada's transportation system, its employees and its users. Federal vaccine mandates were implemented in the fall of 2021 for federally regulated air, rail and marine transportation sectors to pursue key objectives, including to ensure the safety and security of the transportation system, passengers, transportation employees and the public by delivering protection from infection and severity of illnesses in workplaces for all travellers; to increase uptake for better and broader societal protection; and to play a leadership role in protecting the health and safety of our workplaces, our communities and all Canadians. Vaccination is one of the most effective tools we have for combatting the pandemic and protecting our transportation network. It is important that Canadians stay up to date with their vaccinations and receive a booster when they are eligible. This will help them protect themselves and others against serious illness. Vaccination is an important layer of protection. Although the vaccine does not provide complete immunity against infection, it prevents us from falling seriously ill. Vaccination can also reduce the need for potential hospitalization. Data from recent weeks show that across the country unvaccinated individuals are still three times more likely to be hospitalized than individuals vaccinated with two doses, and they are six times more likely to be hospitalized than those who have received an additional booster dose. The incentive for a vaccine is clear. It protects us from severe illness and it lessens the burden on our health care systems. We need to take into account several factors when considering vaccine mandates. These include the global and domestic epidemiological situation and the benefits and longer-term consequences of these measures. We continue to monitor the emerging evidence around vaccine effectiveness and the spread and impact of COVID-19 in Canada to inform our vaccination strategy. In the mean time, we know that multiple layers of protection, including vaccination, protect against severe health outcomes from COVID-19. Getting as many Canadians vaccinated and boosted as possible and continuing to adhere to individual public health measures is expected to help us get through this phase of uncertainty and support Canada in managing COVID-19.

477 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

May/5/22 6:47:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, sadly, the parliamentary secretary did not take me up on my offer to speak honestly and directly with Canadians. Instead, we received talking points, which clearly ignore the challenge the government has in justifying a cruel, inhumane, and blatantly unconstitutional travel ban on Canadians whom the Prime Minister has labelled as unacceptable. The member even managed to make the same misleading claims as the minister. No, the member opposite is not following the science. He is engaged in politics. This ban is clearly unconstitutional because there is a less restrictive policy available. Rather than discriminate on the basis of COVID shot status, the government could follow the science on the basis of immunity. I say “could”, because I doubt they will do something that politically unpopular. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters to the government is protecting its electoral ambitions.

149 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

May/5/22 6:48:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I decided not to stand up on a point of order when the member opposite accused me of being dishonest, but I think we all have a number of words at our disposal and good vocabularies in the House, and calling somebody dishonest across the floor is unparliamentary and uncalled for. We are all doing our jobs here, and I think we can appreciate that we all have a role to play. The Public Health Agency of Canada continues to examine short- and long-term vaccination strategies, including opportunities to promote confidence in vaccines and address the barriers faced by individuals and communities across Canada. Canada's COVID-19 vaccination efforts, which include vaccine education, outreach and accessible programs with provinces, territories and indigenous partners, have benefited Canadians significantly. Vaccines, including boosters, are key to managing emerging variants, preventing severe illness and death, supporting our health systems, and continuing the path to living with COVID-19. They will also be an important part of Canada's long-term recovery.

171 words

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)

May/5/22 6:49:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this evening I am returning to a question I asked respecting the Correctional Service of Canada prison farms located at the Joyceville and Collins Bay institutions. On April 8, I asked the following question of the Minister of Public Safety: ...even though no contract has yet been signed to use the milk from its proposed 2,200-goat prison farm, the government continues to build dairy facilities at the Joyceville and Collins Bay institutions. Given the absence of a contract, it is strange the government continues to act and to spend as if it still plans to use prison labour to produce goat milk for export. The minister responded by saying the following inter alia: ...the Correctional Service of Canada has indeed awarded a contract in Joyceville.... Of course, we will make sure that this contract complies with all of Canada's international obligations. Now, this response surprised me, as I doubt that it is possible in practice to have an industrial farm producing an export product with prison labour that successfully conforms to the strict requirements of international law. It is certainly impossible to do so while actually producing a positive revenue stream or profit from that facility. With these thoughts in mind, on April 29, I asked in the House to see the contract. The parliamentary secretary helpfully provided me with that contract or, more correctly, with the offer for tender for the contract earlier this week, so I thank her. It is a $10-million contract for, according to the tender offer, “a large purpose built dairy cattle barn including office spaces, a manure holding tank, livestock holding areas, parlours, nurseries, refrigerated milk storage...to accommodate a milking herd of approximately seventy...cows.” In her response in the House to my April 29 question, the parliamentary secretary also made the following refreshingly clear statement: “while Correctional Service was considering goat milk production, it is no longer under consideration. Correctional Service Canada does not intend to do any goat milk production.” Now, that is clear and definitive, and my human rights concerns would have been set at ease, were it not for the following fact. Right after I was provided with that answer, one of my constituents asked Correctional Service Canada's media relations team to confirm the answer, and on May 3, my constituent received a response that currently they don't have any goats, that there are no plans under way and that, as previously mentioned, they will reassess the situation at a later date. Now, this is a good deal less definitive and it leaves the door open for CSC to return to a plan that it clearly does not want to abandon: to use prison labour in a commercial dairy operation. I want to believe the parliamentary secretary, and I hope that her statement, the definitive one, will be CSC's policy moving forward, but I think what is needed is something additional: a clear policy statement from cabinet or in the form of an order from the minister that it is impermissible for Correctional Service Canada to reassess the situation, informing the agency that it is government policy that the industrial goat operation is officially and permanently dead. Finally, and this is the question, given the parliamentary secretary's comment and the commitment that the goat operation is no longer under consideration, could she explain why the current construction of the cow dairy facility includes the roadway and utilities for the future goat farm that remains in the engineering plans and why the current construction includes a manure lagoon sized for 2,200 goats?

607 words

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

May/5/22 6:54:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am delighted that my hon. colleague has a new-found interest in the penitentiary agriculture program, also known as “prison farms”. It is a shame he was not as vocal on this issue when the previous Conservative government implemented mean-spirited cuts to corrections that scrapped this effective and popular initiative. I want to thank the constituents of Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston and surrounding ridings who were so vocal in their advocacy to reopen the farms at Joyceville and Collins Bay. I am proud of our government's decision to reinvest in correctional programming that we know leads to effective rehabilitation and a reduction in recidivism. By investing in the penitentiary agriculture program, we are helping offenders gain and develop the appropriate skill sets to find meaningful employment. We have the statistics. Offenders who find jobs are three times less likely to return to custody for a new offence. Meaningful employment contributes to enhanced public safety through increased reintegration and the reduction of recidivism. I had the privilege of visiting the dairy farm at Collins Bay in November. I met with the head of CORCAN, CSC employees and inmates who were participating in the dairy farm program. I have visited a number of prisons since being elected to this place. I can think of few experiences that were more meaningful than engaging with the offenders who were participating in this program. These men were naming baby calves and bottle-feeding them and were well on their way to transitioning to a life free from crime. One individual, who had a forthcoming parole hearing, had already secured employment at a farm nearby, outside of London, Ontario. The Government of Canada will continue to support initiatives that have been proven to reduce crime and keep our communities safe. I also wish to address the question that was raised by my colleague. I want to clarify that the Correctional Service of Canada currently does not have any goats within its program and does not have any agreements with third parties, either domestic or international, for the sale of goat milk. Simply put, there are no contracts because there are no goats. The operations at Joyceville and Collins Bay are currently focused on the full implementation of dairy cow operations and enhancing other aspects of the program. The Correctional Service of Canada will continue to engage with community members and stakeholders, and proceed with other aspects of the program and its dairy cow operations. This includes the construction of a new barn at Joyceville Institution. I want to assure the member opposite that all agricultural operations are being implemented in accordance with provincial and federal government legislation, and in accordance with industry standards. That includes the issue of inmate pay. As a founding and active member of the International Labour Organization, the Government of Canada takes its international obligations very seriously. We have ratified all of the ILO's fundamental standards that pertain to prison labour, and we continuously work to meet its strict conditions. I would be delighted to return to Collins Bay with the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston so that he can see how powerful an effective correctional program is. I can promise him that he will meet not only a herd of friendly dairy cows, but the offenders who love them.

560 words

Mr. Scott Reid

May/5/22 6:57:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I may very well take the parliamentary secretary up on that very kind offer, which she has also made to me privately. I do want to say, however, that in her response she abandoned the clarity that she showed on April 29, and moved to the fuzzy language used by the Correctional Service of Canada, which I presume wrote those remarks for her, leaving open the opportunity to move to an industrial goat operation. All of the conditional language about having no plans right now, owning no goats right now and so on is unsatisfying. What would be satisfying is a clear policy statement that we will not have any goat operation in the future. I hope the parliamentary secretary, and perhaps future minister, will be able to say definitively that this is the case and repeat the clarity she showed on April 29.

146 words

Ms. Pam Damoff

May/5/22 6:58:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I take pride in making sure that my remarks are my own, so I want to make sure the hon. member knows that the department did not write about my visit with the dairy cows. I will repeat that there are no goats and therefore no contracts. I am a little confused about what the hon. member has an issue with. Is it the goats? Is it the fact that offenders are learning farming skills with dairy cows? When I visited CORCAN and spoke to the head of CORCAN, they had renovated one of the barns to accommodate cows because they were not moving forward with goats. I am happy the hon. member is interested in corrections. I hope he is supportive of the dairy farming that is going on. I will reiterate that there are no goats and no contracts.

143 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/5/22 6:59:43 p.m.
Watch

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)

37 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 65