SoVote

May/6/22 1:15:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, to the request from the hon. parliamentary secretary, the previous chair occupant already ruled and spoke to this. As he said, the requirement is that the camera must be on for a member to be counted toward quorum. That was said, and I am sure that if you check with our good folks at Hansard, they will confirm that was the ruling of the chair occupant on a previous quorum call today. I would also note that while the parliamentary secretary—

84 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 1:16:18 p.m.
Watch

We are getting into debate. We will definitely look into this. I am not going to make a ruling on it today, but I will certainly bring it to the attention of the Speaker, and we will come back to the House with a proper definition of quorum and what counts as quorum. The hon. member is rising on the same point of order.

64 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

May/6/22 1:16:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the member for Winnipeg North on his remarks regarding the rules. He should know the rules; he is in government. I think you should check those rules and clarify them.

36 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 1:16:51 p.m.
Watch

I have just given an answer to that. We will look into it and come back to the House with a definition of “quorum”. The hon. member for Whitby may resume his debate.

35 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

May/6/22 1:17:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was riveting, but I am glad to get back to the matter at hand. Obviously, the Conservative Party has—

23 words

8212
Glad

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 1:17:15 p.m.
Watch

The hon. Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario is rising on a point of order.

20 words

Hon. Helena Jaczek (Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, Lib.)

May/6/22 1:17:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage. Furthermore, I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 409 to 417.

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Whitby, Lib.)

May/6/22 1:18:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, it is great to speak a bit further to the reason that Bill C-5 should not be hived off into two, contrary to the Conservative motion that we are debating on a Friday afternoon, which is unfortunate given the fact that there is important government business to finish, business of the nation, to implement Canada's budget for 2022. To get back to the matter at hand, I was just talking about how the Harper government was adding mandatory minimum penalties, and all the while, the evidence was clear that they were ineffective and racist in their application. In fact, Black offenders comprised a disproportionately high percentage of offenders admitted for non-violent firearms offences. Twenty-five per cent of offenders admitted for weapons trafficking and 42% of offenders admitted for firearms trafficking were indeed Black. MMPs limit the ability of sentencing courts to fully take into account the myriad of social, economic, cultural, institutional and historical factors that create the conditions for criminality. These factors are disproportionately experienced by Black, indigenous and other racialized Canadians. It is my belief that our government is addressing those underlying conditions. While the Conservatives purport to be tough on crime, we are following the evidence and implementing solutions that make sense. In this case, that means repealing mandatory minimum penalties. It is important to remind ourselves that the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Nur in 2015 and R. v. Lloyd in 2016, found that the use of MMPs for offences that “can be committed in various ways, under a broad array of circumstances and by a wide range of people are constitutionally vulnerable”. In addition, the proposed reforms would encourage a greater use of conditional sentences, which are currently unavailable in cases where they would otherwise be appropriate. This more tailored approach that encourages rehabilitation allows offenders who do not pose a public safety risk to serve short terms of imprisonment in the community under strict conditions, including abstaining from the consumption of drugs and alcohol and not owning, possessing or carrying a weapon, including a firearm. The community corrections movement has proven to be very successful in this country and deserves our support.

368 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

May/6/22 1:21:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 is Bill C-22 from a previous Parliament. It died on the Order Paper when the government went to an election. If the Liberals were so serious about passing such a bill, they could have done it. We believe in mandatory minimum sentences, strict monitoring for high-risk individuals, increased enforcement and prosecution of smuggling, safe storage provisions, firearms safety training, a certification system for all those wishing to acquire a firearm legally and putting more law-enforcement officers on our streets. Which one of these are the government and the hon. member against?

99 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

May/6/22 1:21:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I believe the member across the way is forgetting the fact that the mandatory minimum penalties in this case are being repealed because they are being applied to non-violent offenders. When we are considering smaller offences that do not pose a large community safety risk, we are talking about youth who have made a mistake early on in life or someone who possesses a firearm but has not used it and has been convicted. These individuals deserve the chance to reintegrate back into society, and mandatory minimum penalties incarcerate them for much longer than is necessary. The gradual release process has been proven to be far more successful at keeping our society safe, and mandatory minimum penalties have been proven to have no deterrent effect on criminal behaviour.

131 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/6/22 1:22:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I thank the member from Whitby for his speech. Just before him, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice made an interesting comment about the possible splitting of the bill. He said that if the bill were to be split in two, witnesses would probably have to be recalled to testify on the separate parts of the bill. What this comment implies is that the testimony cannot apply in the same way to the two parts of the bill that some want to split. Are the Liberals not admitting that these two parts are different enough that we would want to vote on them separately?

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

May/6/22 1:23:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I cannot speak to what my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, spoke to, because I do not necessarily understand the full implication of dividing the bill in that regard, in terms of when it goes to committee, but I do not think that provides a reasonable argument for why this bill should be divided. It is all relevant to mandatory minimum penalties that are being proposed to be repealed in this bill. They have been proven not to work, so why not debate them together and pass this bill together? I urge members of the House to support this bill.

101 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/6/22 1:24:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I noticed at the onset of his intervention that the hon. member spoke about coming from a policing family. Of course, he said his father was a homicide detective. One of the things in the bill that is disturbing, and should be disturbing for all Canadians, is the reduction of mandatory minimums for gun-related criminal offences, gang-related offences and the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence. I am just wondering how he can reconcile that part of this piece of legislation with an understanding of that policing background he has. I know that most police officers I have spoken to feel reducing those mandatory minimums would do nothing to deter gun crime in this country and, in fact, would embolden criminals.

129 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

May/6/22 1:25:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I think we have to look at the underlying socio-economic, historical and institutional conditions that lead to criminality. I think we are not recognizing that this “lock them up and throw away the key” mentality the Conservatives have been peddling for generations does not work. The evidence suggests that it does not work: It does not keep our society safer, it does not deter crime and it does not recognize the material circumstances of Black and indigenous people that lead them to disproportionately end up in our criminal justice system. That is my response.

99 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 1:25:43 p.m.
Watch

Before we proceed, I would just like to return to the House. The Table has advised me that the quorum rules have been determined by the Speaker to be that, when people are in hybrid sittings, the cameras must be open to be considered part of the quorum. The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

59 words

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

May/6/22 1:26:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege that was raised on May 5, earlier this week, concerning an allegation involving the work at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The member opposite alleges that for ministerial staffers to provide advice to Liberal members on the committee on a report before the committee represents ministerial interference. That is simply not the case in this situation. Parliamentary secretaries represent ministers in the House and in committees. Parliamentary secretaries are supported by ministerial staffers, and this staff provides advice on ensuring that the government's position and approach is understood on matters of government policy. All members of the committee advance their views on the preparation of committee reports, as these reports must be adopted, ultimately, by the committee. The member for Simcoe—Grey alleges that it is inappropriate for ministerial staffers to provide advice to Liberal members, including the parliamentary secretary on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The quote from the member from the email in question makes it clear that the advice from the minister's office was to suggest an approach to the drafting of the report to ensure that the government's position is understood by Liberal members. The quote is clear that this was a suggestion and not, in fact, a direction. There was no attempt to coerce members of the committee in any way, or to dictate the work of the analysts from the Library of Parliament. I submit that it is perfectly normal for ministerial staffers to provide advice and suggestions to Liberal members on the committees. This work does not in any way represent an interference in the work of members on any given committee in this situation. I would also state that Ms. Mantes is an exempt political staffer in the government House leader's office and not a non-partisan public servant in the Privy Council Office. Lastly, since a report has not been tabled in the House, I would ultimately submit that raising a question of privilege on this matter is, at the very least, premature.

353 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 1:29:01 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

9 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/6/22 1:29:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Madam Speaker, in the short time that I have, I will just remind the House that all of today could have been avoided had the question been put. We would have had a vote on Monday. We could have resumed the government legislation and debated Bill C-19, but instead, in a shockingly funny situation, the government moved time allocation on itself. I know that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby showed his complete indignation to the fact that petitions have not been read. The member supported the government moving to orders of the day all week. That is why they were not. I am seeking unanimous consent, and I hope that the others will agree, to move that the House proceed to presenting petitions today.

127 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 1:29:57 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: No. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's order paper.

53 words

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.)

May/6/22 1:31:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-252

moved that Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children), be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to take part in the discussion on Bill C-252, which aims to support restrictions on commercial marketing and advertising on certain foods and beverages to children. Today's food environment is diverse and includes access to fast foods and ultraprocessed foods, which makes it difficult for Canadians to make healthy food choices. The issue has less to do with our individual will and more to do with what foods are available and aggressively marketed to us. The advertising of these types of foods is all around us. As a result, Canadians are exposed to and consume too many foods that contribute to excess sugars, saturated fats and sodium in their diets. It is no wonder that Canadians continue to face challenges as they navigate through the food environment and strive to make healthy eating decisions. There is no denying that we are facing a chronic disease crisis in Canada, and unhealthy diets are playing a key role. The scope of the crisis is staggering, and unhealthy diets with excess intakes of sugar, saturated fats and sodium are a key modifiable risk factor for obesity and chronic diseases. It has been reported that, for the first time in history, we have children who have spent their whole lives eating diets high in ultraprocessed foods and of low nutritional value. In fact, Canadians are the second-largest buyers of ultraprocessed foods and beverages in the world, second only to the Americans. Furthermore, studies have shown that one in three children in Canada is overweight or obese, and as a result is more likely to develop health problems such as high cholesterol, high blood pressure, joint problems, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and even some forms of cancer later in life. In 2019, dietary risk factors contributed to an estimated 36,000 deaths, and the burden of chronic diseases impacted mainly by diet and other modifiable risk factors has been estimated to cost $13.8 billion in Canada. With these alarming rates and statistics, it is undeniable that the issue of our food environment requires our attention as a growing matter of public health concern. While a number of contributing factors influence our diet, food advertising is one of the more prevalent. Advertising has a considerable impact on children's preferences and consumption patterns. A report presented in 2016 by the World Health Organization's Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity concluded that there is unequivocal evidence that the marketing of food and beverages that contribute to excess sugar, saturated fats and sodium in children's diets has a negative impact on childhood obesity and other diseases. It recommended that any attempt to tackle this serious health issue should include restrictions on the advertising and marketing of certain foods and beverages to children. Even before the pandemic of COVID-19, it had been reported that over 90% of food and beverage product advertisements viewed by children online, and/or on TV have been for products that are high in sugars, saturated fats and sodium content. Kids aged nine through 13 years of age get more calories, almost 60%, from ultraprocessed foods than any other age group. The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the urgency of tackling unhealthy eating habits as children who were confined in their homes through the lockdowns were subjected, through various media and settings, to unhealthy diets and food and beverage ads at an alarming rate. Statistics have shown that one-third of Canadians increased their consumption of junk food or sweets just three months into the pandemic as a way to deal with the stressful circumstances. It is widely acknowledged that children are particularly vulnerable to advertising, and succumb to its persuasive influence over their food preferences, attitudes, purchase requests, consumption patterns and overall health. Children are highly exposed to food advertising through various forms of media, packaging or displays that promote foods that contribute disproportionately to excess consumption of sugar, saturated fats and sodium. The Canadian food and beverage industry spends approximately $1.1 billion per year on marketing to children. It uses product designs, cartoons, identifiable characters, fantasy and adventure themes to market to kids. The exposure, frequency and power of the ads can successfully reach a child as young as three years of age. Given this evidence, it is clear that the government needs to do more and take immediate action to protect children from unfair and deceptive marketing and advertising practices in order to protect their health. That is why part of the Minister of Health's mandate is to promote healthy eating by advancing the healthy eating strategy. Evidence has shown that many factors in our food environment influence our ability to make healthy food choices, such as access to and availability of healthy food options, lower prices and the promotion of certain foods. The food we find in our grocery stores, on restaurant menus, on social media and in food advertising greatly impacts our choices. With widespread availability of foods high in sugar, saturated fats and sodium, we need to take action in order to restrict ads from targeting children. Our government recognized these challenges in 2016 and subsequently launched the healthy eating strategy in order to make the healthier choice the easier choice for Canadians. The strategy aims to improve nutrition information and literacy, facilitate healthier food options, and protect and support marginalized and vulnerable populations. The Government of Canada has made significant progress to date. In 2016, the government improved the nutrition facts table and list of ingredients, which helped Canadians make more informed food choices; in 2018, it prohibited industrially produced trans fats; in 2019, the revised Canada's food guide was launched, providing Canadians with relevant, consistent and credible dietary guidance; and in 2020, sodium reduction targets were published to encourage sodium reduction in food supply. However, more remains to be done. The government is committed to advancing the outstanding initiatives of the healthy eating strategy and pursuing the implementation of preventive measures aimed at promoting healthy eating lifestyles. These include finalizing the front of package nutrition labelling to promote healthy food choices, and supporting restrictions on the commercial marketing and advertising of certain foods and beverages to children. Having the right tools to access, understand and use nutrition information will support Canadians in making healthier choices. However, other factors, particularly the constant stream of commercial messages and endorsements, also influence what we buy. These aggressive marketing techniques are used to promote foods with excess amounts of sugar, saturated fats and sodium. Children are particularly vulnerable to food advertising and, therefore, must be provided the necessary protection for their health and well-being; marketing directed at them must be regulated. Their parents should be provided with the support needed as they help their children develop healthy eating habits and food preferences. Bill C-252 aims to protect children's health and well-being. Bill C-252 proposes to amend Canada's Food and Drugs Act in order to prohibit any marketing of food and beverages directed at persons under the age of 13. Clause 2 of Bill C-252 adds the definition of “children”, stipulating that it means persons who are under the age of 13. As per the FDA, “food” includes beverages, and “advertisement” is defined in broad terms, including representation by any means of promoting directly or indirectly the sale of products controlled by legislation. The notion of advertisement is media neutral, which encompasses the latest technologies and evolving marketing methods. Clause 4 of Bill C-252 adds a new paragraph to the FDA, entitled “Advertising directed at children” and—

1319 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 66