44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 25, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/25/22 10:07:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that consists of meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance.
In July 1999, the Chinese Communist Party launched an intensive nationwide persecution campaign to eradicate Falun Gong. Hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners were detained in forced labour camps, brainwashing centres and prisons, where torture and abuse are routine, and thousands died as a result. There is also the recent issue of forced organ harvesting.
The petitioners are asking all parliamentarians to do what they can to become more aware of the issue and do what they can to assist.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 10:08:38 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 10:27:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the point the Bloc leader referenced. Here we are getting through a pandemic and serious inflation-related issues, which the government is attempting to address on a daily basis through a multitude of different budgetary measures and legislation. There are so many things on the minds of Canadians, whether it is our seniors, our health care system or having a job. The separatist party here in the House of Commons wants to focus on constitutional change.
Does the member really believe, given the priorities I just emphasized, that now is really the time to open up the Constitution? Does he believe Canadians want the constitutional debate to occur today?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:06:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to raise an issue that the hon. member made reference to, in terms of how he has not had any constituents raising the issue of the Crown with him.
In my 10-plus years as a parliamentarian, I cannot recall one incident when someone came to talk to me about our getting rid of the Crown. I just cannot recall any of that nature. When we talk about the constitutional changes, again, I have not had anyone approach me, not that I can recall offhand.
Given that as a background and the context of the communities that are having so many challenges, such as the pandemic, inflation and dealing with issues such as seniors, health care, long-term care and mental health, I am wondering if my colleague and friend can provide his thoughts with regard to why we are debating this today.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:32:20 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is not too often I find myself in agreement with members of the Conservative Party on some of these points, so I do not think I will say this too often. I wonder why the Bloc would bring this forward. I think it has a lot more to do with internal politics within the Bloc caucus than it does the reality of life beyond the Bloc caucus here in Ottawa.
The reality of life, whether in Quebec, Manitoba or anywhere else in Canada, is that there are issues related to the pandemic. We can talk about inflation or health care. Health care is a major issue in the province of Quebec. They want to see a higher sense of co-operation between the national government and the province on a wide spectrum of issues, if there is any reflection in terms of constituents I represent.
Based on the motion brought forward by the Bloc, I wonder if my colleague would agree that it is completely out of touch not only with the people of Quebec but with issues related to Canada—
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:52:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member has put interesting comments on the record today. I suspect this is just about putting them on the record, unless the member is prepared to indicate that at the end of the day, Senate reform and changing our system of head of state require a constitutional change.
Does the member believe the NDP would like to have a constitutional debate imposed upon Canadians and parliamentarians at all levels? Is this what she believes we should be focusing our attention on? I do not.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:57:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to a very interesting motion, if I am going to say something kind about it. I am totally amazed. If we stop to think about it, the Bloc party typically gets three opposition days a year. That means in 2022, they have three opposition days.
I want members to reflect on the issues that are facing the people of Quebec and the country. Canada is a wonderful nation made up of all sorts of regions, but I think there are consistent threads going through. With three opposition day motions, the Bloc has decided that it wants to spend a day talking about the monarchy.
For the last 30 plus years, I have gone, on a weekly basis, to the local McDonald's. I cannot recall anyone ever coming up to me and saying, “Kevin, what is happening with the monarchy?” I do not hear anyone saying that.
People are talking about issues surrounding immigration. They are talking about issues surrounding the economy. They are talking about a wide variety of issues. No one is talking about constitutional change.
Surely, the Bloc understands that it does not matter what region or province one is from. No one is talking about this issue—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. No one is talking about this issue except for the Bloc. We have to ask ourselves why the Bloc party, just the Bloc, the people who want to see Canada fall part, wants to talk about this issue. I will not speculate on that.
Suffice it to say, it is not because of the people of Quebec, the people of Manitoba or any other province. If it were, there would be a better reflection of the issues that we are hearing every day in our communities from coast to coast to coast.
This motion, in essence, just shows how irrelevant the Bloc is when it comes to contributing in a positive way to what is actually being debated and brought to the House. Today is its day. This is the day it gets to pick the issue.
We have a good number of members of Parliament here on the government benches, in the Liberals caucus, who are from the province of Quebec. I do not necessarily need to consult with them because I follow the national news. I have a good sense of what is happening in the province of Quebec. I understand the unique nature of Quebec.
It is one of the reasons I often advocate for important issues, such as the aerospace industry, the agri industries and hydro development in the province of Quebec. These are all issues that Manitoba has in common. It even has in common the issue of the French language because that is such an important issue. Even in the province of Manitoba, where it is doing relatively well as it continues to grow.
These are the issues which people, whether they are in Manitoba, Quebec or any other province, would like to see some dialogue on, let alone the issues of the day. We are still not out of the pandemic, and the Bloc wants to talk about royalty.
When we talk to Canadians, they are concerned about their economic well-being and the cost of living, but the Bloc wants to talk about royalty. I invite them to talk to some of the seniors in the province of Quebec and listen to what they have to say about the cost of living, health care and long-term care, or talk to some of the industries there that we need to continue to support, such as the aerospace industry.
Talk about missing the mark. I think that I, if they would have given me their date, could have come up with a dozen things offhand that would allow us the opportunity to have a more creative and positive debate, which would be of benefit to not only people in Quebec, but also people in Manitoba and, in fact, all regions. That is something which, as a government, we have been focused on virtually from day one.
I understand the monarchy. It is interesting that Bloc members are coming to the chamber to say they want to open up the Constitution and have Canadians from coast to coast to coast to talk about whether we should have a monarchy, elect a head of state or appoint a head of state, but they are not saying what they believe. They just want to open up the Constitution. There is no recommendation, but that is what they want us to talk about.
We are just out of the pandemic, and with the cost of living, we are bringing forward first-time legislation on things such as the creation of a dental plan for children under the age of 12. We are bringing forward legislation to assist people with disabilities. Both of those pieces of legislation are historic, in the sense that it is the first time a national government is moving into those areas. We are listening to what people in our communities are saying and bringing that to the House of Commons, whether to the floor of the House, our respective caucuses, the standing committees or the many different stakeholders we meet with.
The Prime Minister constantly tells Liberal MPs to gauge what is happening in our constituencies and bring those ideas and thoughts here to Ottawa. Obviously, that concept or principle is not being followed by the Bloc party. If it were, it would definitely not be bringing forward a motion of this nature.
In Winnipeg North, my seniors are concerned about their future. They want to know that there is going to be quality long-term health care. They want to know that the federal government will continue to support health care, as it has been. There have been historic amounts of money invested by this government in health care in every region of our country. We have achieved accord with every province.
These are the types of issues that are important to our constituents. They are concerned about the issue of the cost of living. That is why we brought in legislation to enhance the GST rebate, so that there would be more money in their pockets in dealing with the issue of inflation. That is the reason why we have the dental program for children. We want to make sure that children are in fact getting the dental care they need, which will prevent many of those children from having to go into the hospital. These are the types of measures that are making a difference.
The Bloc earlier blocked the idea of a rental subsidy. That rental subsidy would help people across Canada in every region. It is going a long way in providing tangible supporting by putting money in the pockets of Canadians. If the Bloc were genuinely listening and responding by bringing those ideas and thoughts from their constituents, I think they would have a better understanding why individuals, such as myself and others, are questioning why the Bloc would bring forward such a motion in 2022, given that typically they will get three days in any given year. I know the member for Kingston and the Islands will talk a little bit more about those three days in his speech later on this afternoon.
Suffice it to say, given the environment we are in today, I would suggest the Bloc members start talking beyond their inner caucus, the Bloc caucus, with less focus on separation and more focus on the things that matter most to Canadians, no matter where they live in Canada.
1289 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 1:09:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member makes reference to seeing less of my being so partisan. I will consistently advocate for national unity and the importance of Canada as a nation. There is only one political party inside this chamber that ultimately wants to see the demise of Canada as we know it today.
I would never apologize to the separatists who want to see Canada divided, because I believe Canada is the best country in the world to live in. One of the ways in which we can contribute to ensuring that into the future is by reflecting the true understanding and interests of Canadians here on the floor of the House. I can assure the member opposite that the issue of the Crown and the issue of Senate reform are not being debated in our communities in any real and tangible way in comparison to the types of issues I have talked about.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 1:11:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the issue being brought forward, it is very rare for me to be giving compliments to the Conservative Party, but the question has captured the essence. We may disagree in many ways on many policies, but we understand that what we should be debating is in fact issues that are somewhat relevant, at the very least, to what Canadians want us to be talking about.
I guess I would take the proposal a little differently if the Bloc were to approach it in a different way. Is it suggesting we have an elected president in the future? Is it talking about us appointing a president? There is absolutely nothing more with this particular motion than just being mischievous.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 1:13:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am from Manitoba, yet I am a Canadian. People are from all sorts of provinces and territories, but we can see that there is a high sense of pride in being a Canadian. That is probably the best way. We have a system that is in place, and I am not hearing arguments that we should switch this to X or Y. At this point in the game, I do not want to open up the constitutional debate. I do not think Canadians want that. I think we need to get through this period of difficulty, and hopefully, in the future, who knows what might happen?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 3:14:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very serious matter. The member for Beloeil—Chambly today made a very disturbing statement when he clearly stated that his oath of allegiance to the Crown was not sincere. If it was not sincere, it is as if he never took it.
As such, I believe the Speaker should look into the appropriateness of the member continuing to sit in this place. We all know the Constitution states that each member must take an oath or make a solemn affirmation and that breaching this would be a very serious offence.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on this and come back to the House with a ruling.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 3:57:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe the members of the Bloc are completely out of touch with the communities they represent. When I look at the things we have been talking about, whether in Winnipeg North or throughout all regions in Canada, they are things such the cost of living, health care and long-term care. People want to talk about a wide variety of issues. Then the Bloc brings forward a motion that does not talk about what it would replace it with, just that it does not want the Crown.
This is my question for the member. Could she indicate to the House what she would replace the monarchy with? Would she say that the Prime Minister should become more powerful? Would she say that we should have an election to elect a president? Is she saying that we should appoint one? What would the Bloc do?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:38:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a few years back, the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals boldly went to the Governor General. Reflecting the will of their constituents collectively, the Bloc supported going to the Governor General to replace the Stephen Harper government. At that time, the Bloc recognized the value of the monarchy. Does the member see any irony there? It seems to me that when Bloc members feel it is to their advantage, the monarchy or the Governor General is a good thing. However, now when they seem to feel it is not, they are against the monarchy.
What would they replace it with? Would they give more power to the Prime Minister? Would they elect a president? Would they appoint a head of state? What is the alternative? I would really appreciate an answer to that. What is the alternative to the monarchy? Will the member answer that simple question?
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be responding to a point of order and a question of privilege. One of them will take longer than the other.
I am rising on a point of order in response to the Speaker's statement on September 26, 2022, respecting the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, standing in the name of the member for Mirabel. I will not comment on the substance of the proposal, but I would like to put forward a submission that the bill would seek to authorize spending for a purpose that is being significantly altered.
In 2005, when the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was promulgated, it was accompanied by a royal recommendation. The royal recommendation was required because it set the mandate, purpose, objects and qualifications for a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoing in the public sector.
In 2006, Parliament adopted a bill that amended the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to strengthen protection for whistle-blowers, including through the creation of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal. The creation of the tribunal and its mandate was seen as a new and distinct charge upon the consolidated revenue fund and was accompanied by a royal recommendation.
Bill C-290 seeks to significantly alter the mandate of the public servants disclosure protection regime. The first change relates to whom the regime applies. Section 2 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act defines “public servant” as:
public servant means every person employed in the public sector, every member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and every chief executive.
Bill C-290 would add an entire new class of persons who would be subject to the regime. Subclause 3(3) of the bill states:
public servant means every person employed in the public sector, every person retained under contract to perform services for the public sector, every member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and every chief executive.
Even the factual summary of the bill acknowledges that this proposed change represents an expansion of the mandate. The summary states:
This enactment amends the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to, among other things, expand the application of the Act to additional categories of public servants
Allow me to highlight other changes proposed in Bill C-290 that would alter the mandate of the regime and the duties and functions of the commissioner and the tribunal.
Clause 6 would extend the protections provided under the regime to former public servants, which is not contemplated in the act.
Clause 4 of the bill seeks to expand the types of wrongdoings to include new elements, namely the abuse of authority and political interference, and removes requirements such as the individual applying in good faith.
Clause 30 would remove the definition of “investigation”, which is set out in section 34 of the act. It states:
If the Commissioner is of the opinion that a matter under investigation would involve obtaining information that is outside the public sector, he or she must cease that part of the investigation and he or she may refer the matter to any authority that he or she considers competent to deal with it.
By proposing to remove section 34 of the act, the bill seeks to expand the mandate of the commissioner to obtain information that is outside the public sector, which, under the act, is clearly outside the scope of the commissioner's duties and functions.
Bill C-290 also seeks to amend subsection 19.3(1) of the act to remove the ability of the commissioner to refuse to deal with a complaint if the complaint has been adequately dealt with or could be more appropriately dealt with according to the procedure provided for under an act of Parliament other than this act or a collective agreement, or if it was not made in good faith.
Clause 24 would add a new responsibility for the commissioner to assess internal disclosure procedures in organizations and to review disclosure procedures upon request or on his or her own initiative.
Clause 19 of the bill would also add a new function for the tribunal by removing a power conferred upon the commissioner in the act. Clause 19 states:
A complainant whose complaint is dismissed by the Commissioner under section 20.5 may apply to the Tribunal for a determination of whether or not a reprisal was taken against him or her and, if the Tribunal determines that a reprisal was taken, the complainant may apply for an order respecting a remedy in his or her favour and an order respecting disciplinary action against any person or persons...who took the reprisal.
Bill C-290 seeks to significantly alter the mandate of the public servants disclosure protection scheme and the duties and functions of not only the commissioner but the tribunal in a manner not authorized under the act or any other act of Parliament.
Page 834 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:
A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.
I believe this is the case with Bill C-290. The amendments proposed would significantly alter the objects and purposes of the public servants disclosure protection regime in a way that exceeds the royal recommendation originally obtained when the statute was enacted and the royal recommendation attached to amending legislation.
979 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 5:37:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am responding to the question of privilege raised on Friday, October 21, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle respecting comments made by RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki.
There is a long and important tradition of the House to take members at their word. The Minister of Public Safety has consistently stated that neither he nor his staff ever directed RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki to ensure the release of the models of firearms that were used in the mass casualty incident that took place in Nova Scotia.
The weight of the member opposite's argument is that the RCMP commissioner noted she had a text message from the Minister of Public Safety that he would like to speak with her and that she knew exactly what the minister wanted to discuss with her. This is simply conjecture. The RCMP commissioner is a highly qualified individual but she is not a mind reader.
This clearly demonstrates the weakness of the argument put forward by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. The Minister of Public Safety has confirmed in this House that neither he nor his staff directed the RCMP commissioner to do anything. The RCMP commissioner has testified that she was never directed to do anything by the minister or his staff.
What the member has brought to this House is nothing more than conjecture and innuendo. There are no facts that contradict statements made by the minister or by the RCMP commissioner.
As a result, I submit that conjecture should never be a sufficient ground to find a prima facie question of privilege. I believe that is the case in this situation. I therefore submit that this matter is a question of debate not supported by facts and that it does not reach the high bar required to find a question of privilege.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate your time, and that is it with regard to my points. The only thing I would add is that I suspect you might find it is the will of the House to call it 5:41 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.
356 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is really quite nice to be able to stand and talk about an important issue. I am reflecting as I am listening to many of the comments, and kind of wish that maybe we could have had a little more time to have the debate, as there seems to be a very high level of interest in an issue that has had an impact in every region of our country.
What I want to do, in recognizing how important our judicial system is and the way in which incarceration works, is to try to bring a slightly different perspective. For many years I served as chair of the Keewatin youth justice committee. I had the opportunity to work with the community and with young people dealing with a wide spectrum of issues. I bring that, along with the fact that I was the justice critic for a short period of time in the province of Manitoba.
I would suggest that in dealing with the magnitude and severity of the issue, we need to look at it in a very holistic fashion, to recognize that there is provincial jurisdiction, federal jurisdiction and even municipal jurisdiction, not to mention the many different stakeholders out there, all of which want to be able to contribute to making life in our communities better and safer. A part of that is recognizing that there are things that take place in society that we should all be concerned about, and that we all have a role to play. The private member's bill provides us the opportunity to share some of that.
I want to pick up on a couple of things. Over the last number of years, we have seen many different initiatives brought forward by the government, whether it is national legislation or budgetary measures, that are actually having an impact. I do not say that lightly. I often get grants across my desk that have been approved that are going to support non-profit organizations. I see legislation dealing with issues such as minimum sentencing, trying to deal with the high percentage of indigenous and Black members of our communities. These are the types of issues that make a difference.
I look at the individual. I have had an opportunity to walk with the Bear Clan in the north end of Winnipeg. I know others in this House have also walked with the Bear Clan in the north end of Winnipeg. I always find it interesting when we really look into who the people are who make up the Bear Clan. There are some absolutely incredible volunteers. There are people who come from the community itself, from in and around Winnipeg and from many different professions.
The ones who interested me the most on the walk I took in particular were some of the drug addicts, who were having a difficult time. It made me reflect on a program I had taken many years ago on the impact of crack. It was truly amazing what an addiction could do, particularly to a young person. Crack does not discriminate. There was this relatively young lady who, as a result of being fed into an addiction, ultimately compromised her opportunities in life and lost a lot.
In many situations like that, what we will find is that there are people breaking the law to deal with the addiction they have. I would like to believe that it is somewhat controllable, but just the sheer size and magnitude of the problem dictates that no one level of government or community stakeholder will be able to deal with the severity of the problem. It is just too big.
If members want to get a better sense of its magnitude, I invite them to take a walk with the Bear Clan. Members will get a better sense of the magnitude if they visit some of the youth to sit down and have that conversation about the barriers in place. It is hard to talk to someone who thinks there is no reason to have hope because of the environment they are growing up in, where addictions and crime are prevalent far too often. As well, there is an impact on their community.
When we talk about treatment, the very best we can do is to develop programs that will prevent individuals from going into our jails. Next to that, we must ensure that programs are developed and supported the best way we can, which will prevent people from returning to be incarcerated. There are many things we could actually do.
I am a big fan of community-based efforts where the community itself gets directly involved. That is important for us to continue to look at. Whenever we talk about treatment programs, in my opinion, we need to put a lens of community involvement in what and how they can be engaged, along with the many stakeholders.
822 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
