44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 30, 2024 10:00AM
- Apr/30/24 5:15:08 p.m.
- Watch
It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House.
The question is on the amendment.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 5:16:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request that it be carried on division.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 5:16:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 5:16:48 p.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 6:02:35 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the amendment defeated.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one thing I have witnessed over the years is a general attitude toward how we can improve our EI system and how benefits are ultimately paid out. We often talk about what is being proposed in this legislation. For adoptive parents to have 15 weeks, from my perspective, with the child or infant is really important. Members should be aware that it was incorporated into the minister's mandate letter. We know the government was taking action on the issue. That is something members opposite would have been aware of.
When I think of Bill C-318, one of the things that crosses my mind is the economic statement from last year. Incorporated within the budgetary legislation is the change that Bill C-318 would achieve. I question whether this legislation is even required. Some issues have been brought forward as to whether it would require ministerial involvement or a general recommendation, because it would require additional funds.
At the end of the day, the bottom line is that the government has recognized the need to look at ways to improve the EI system. Legislation exists that we would like to pass. On the one hand, opposition members say what the bill would do and, on the other hand, they frustrate and filibuster government legislation that would ultimately do what the member wants to take place with this bill.
It is important to recognize that the connections that are made by adoptive parents, in particular, are just as significant as those of natural parents. The love between a parent and a child is something that I believe justifies the government taking the type of action it has. It is one of the reasons it was incorporated, as I said, in the ministerial mandate letter. It is one of the reasons we incorporated it into the budget implementation legislation.
We are on the right track and moving forward on an important issue. I only wish the Conservative Party would have recognized that and demonstrated a desire to, at the very least, allow the legislation that already exists and would make a difference in a much quicker fashion to take effect. In order for that to happen, the Conservatives, at least in part, have to stop the filibustering on all government legislation and agenda items.
385 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to once again speak to this bill. I may not use up all of my 10 minutes. Sometimes when I say that, however, I end up running over my time. I therefore say it at my peril or the peril of the House.
Bill C-318 is a private member's bill that made its way to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I forget the name of my colleague's riding, but I want to commend this bill for its single focus, which is to ensure equity in maternity and parental leave by providing adoptive parents with a system equitable to that available to biological parents. I think that equity is what this bill seeks to achieve. In committee, we had the opportunity to meet with Adopt4Life several times—I commend Ms. Despaties, by the way—and it was recognized and shown that when it comes to the bonding experience of adopted children, regardless of their age at adoption, the child's origin or any accompanying difficulties, bonding time is very important.
This bill has to do with children's rights, but also with the time that should be granted to parents to ensure that they are available to welcome a child into the family properly and that the child gets all the services and care they need from their parent. I think that is self-evident. I heard the parliamentary secretary when he rightly said that the economic statement included a commitment to add 15 weeks. I would go even further than that and say that the former employment minister was on board with that. It is still part of the minister's mandate letter to add 15 weeks of parental leave for adoptive parents.
I think the only thing missing now—this is the first hour of third reading—is the royal recommendation. That is what is needed to move forward and fully enact this bill. I think that is what the government needs to do. My understanding is that it intends to do so. At least we hope so. Although when I hear the government, specifically the parliamentary secretary, say that the government plans to reform EI, I have to pinch myself. We are all a little ashamed—including workers, unemployed workers' groups and the members of the Bloc Québécois who are advocating for a comprehensive reform of employment insurance—that we thought the government was actually going to do it. The government promised this in 2015, 2019 and 2021. According to the minister's mandate letter, this reform was supposed to be implemented in the summer of 2022. It is almost summer 2024, and still nothing has been done. There has been nothing in either the economic statements or the budget to address the reality of workers and initiate a reform to strengthen EI.
Instead of this piecemeal approach, EI reform could have already included 15 weeks for adoptive parents. It could have already included 50 weeks of sickness benefits instead of 26 weeks, as the government did. It also could have specifically fixed the situation of mothers on maternity leave who have the misfortune of losing their job while on leave and end up no longer having access to regular employment insurance benefits. We need to correct these discriminations, provide better access and better benefits to the workers in the seasonal industry. It was all hot air and broken promises from the government. What is more, the current Minister of Employment had no qualms about telling workers and the unemployed at a meeting that this was not on the agenda.
In that respect, the government's actions—and its eight years of broken promises—are deeply disappointing. This mainly affects workers, but it also affects the unemployed. This government has admitted that it took too long to reform the system when the pandemic hit and that the system was full of holes. Not giving adoptive parents fair treatment in terms of parental leave, not giving them the 15 weeks of benefits under the guise of ensuring equivalency, is akin to discrimination or having two different levels of benefits in very similar situations.
Quebec has managed to address this. Since 2021, the Quebec parental insurance plan, which provides far more coverage than federal EI plan, has allowed for benefits to be adapted so that adoptive parents are treated the same as non-adoptive parents.
This reality has been acknowledged. Now what we need is a commitment from this government, a royal recommendation so this bill can see the light of day.
The people I am really thinking of here are adoptive parents. I met with some of them and their kids to learn more about how life-changing it is to be able to be with their kids from the start and have enough weeks of benefits to be with them. Adoption is a choice that comes from the heart, a choice parents make because they believe in it. We want to do everything we can to ensure that these children have the best parents in the world. In order to give them every opportunity, we have to recognize the challenges that parents may encounter during an adoption. Sometimes things go very well, but people should never give up the right to the same amount of parental leave that biological parents get.
I hope this bill will see the light of day as soon as possible.
929 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I rise to speak to Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding adoptive and intended parents. Qujannamiik to my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster for this important piece of legislation, which would help bring equity to adoptive and intended parents.
I thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for all of her hard work on the file. I highlight that at committee the NDP proposed several amendments that would have improved the bill significantly. Regrettably, the amendments were rejected. I am especially disappointed that the amendments to uphold Canadian law were rejected. Those amendments would have ensured that Bill C-318 would be consistent with Bill C-15, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
Unfortunately we have seen the pattern with the current Liberal government, when it comes to indigenous people's rights, that it is going to go below what the expected standards are, including what it has tabled in the first nations clean water act as well as in the amendments to the Indian Act. By failing to uphold Bill C-15, the current government is willfully disrespecting articles 19, 21 and 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is part of a disturbing pattern for the current Liberal government, which consistently fails to follow its own laws, including obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. If the government is serious about reconciliation, which is a word it loves to use, it must do better and commit to upholding UNDRIP.
Overall, Bill C-318 has merits, and New Democrats support the bill. It would create a 15-week attachment leave benefit for adoptive and intended parents through the employment insurance system. During my speech, I will describe the bill's benefits for children, parents and overall Canadian society. I will also describe the troubling realities substantiating the need for Bill C-318 to be passed.
It is unfortunate that the issue has reached the House through a private member's bill and not as a government bill, given that in 2019 and again in the last election the Liberals promised to introduce legislation in this area. I note that since the proposed bill's introduction, the Liberals have announced changes to the employment insurance program as part of the fall economic statement. These changes would create a new 15-week El benefit that adoptive and intended parents would finally be eligible for. This is a step in the right direction.
New Democrats will continue to hold the Liberal government accountable to its promises by passing Bill C-318. The NDP is committed to ensuring that all parents and caregivers, whether biological, adoptive, intended, customary or kinship, can spend time at home with their children in the critical first years. Research shows that the quality of a child's attachment impacts the overall health and development of the child. The benefits of passing the bill would be most prominent for children. Children with strong attachments are more likely to form strong relationships, be better able to regulate their emotions and be less dependant on their caregivers.
Parents who are adopting, and those intending to be parents, need to receive the same benefits as biological parents. Adopted children must have the same sense of coping for their future. I have seen the benefits of ensuring those strong bonds early in life, through watching my grandchildren bond with their parents in the time spent together early in their lives. Adoption is an important practice in Nunavut, and providing this benefit would help many of my constituents.
Unfortunately Bill C-318 does not reflect our customary adoption practices. While the bill is an important step in the right direction, it does not include kinship and customary caregivers, who are particularly important for Métis, first nations and Inuit. Kinship and customary care reflect indigenous culture and traditions. Respecting indigenous peoples' practices could result in many more children not being forced into foster care or group home placements. We must ensure that an attachment leave benefit is extended to kinship and customary caregivers in a similar manner as to adoptive and intended parents. I hope this will be added sometime later.
Providing parents or caregivers with an additional attachment leave benefit so that they can develop these strong attachments is crucial for the well-being of children. This benefit would provide adoptive and intended parents with much-needed financial security and would improve outcomes for children, many of whom are over the age of 10 at the time of placement and have a history of trauma and loss.
Providing a 15-week paid attachment leave would ease the burden being placed on women who are adoptive or intended parents, or who are kinship and customary caregivers. Providing them with the financial supports they need would help to ensure stronger attachments with their adoptive or intended children.
The societal benefits would be a healthier Canada, and children who would be able to enter the school system, who would be prepared and ready to adjust to a world where they could learn to have friendships and who could realize the importance of becoming contributing members of society.
The need to pass Bill C-318 is evident in the disproportionate amount of unpaid caregiving work that takes place in this country, mostly on the part of women. Indeed, more than half of the women in Canada give care to children and dependent adults, and almost one-third give unpaid care to children.
I conclude by sharing what we, as New Democrats, have heard from important agencies across Canada. The Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada and Adopt4Life are calling for the passage of this bill. I very much appreciate their Time to Attach campaign, which has been effective in building public support for this change. I thank my NDP colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who had a petition on the 15-week attachment leave benefit, which garnered so much support by many.
New Democrats support this bill. We will continue to hold the Liberals accountable to deliver on their promises. Bill C-318 would help many adoptive and intended parents across Canada. These are positive and necessary changes; although, it is not comprehensive and does not recognize the important work of customary and kinship caregivers in indigenous peoples. I hope that this is not the end of these discussions and that more work will follow to provide financial attachments to more forms of caregiving. We owe it to our children and to our grandchildren to ensure they have the care they need.
1113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 6:24:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this private member's bill. My friend, the member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster, is an amazing person and I have the opportunity to sit with her at our committee. I must say I never really imagined that I would have the opportunity to speak about this kind of thing in the House of Commons, but here we are talking about something that has the potential to have a profoundly positive impact on the lives of parents and children.
I guess I come back to this point, which I have been thinking about over and over again: I know, from my own personal experience in life, that families are families. They are created in many different ways, and how their government treats them should be the same. There should be fairness in how we treat families and in how those families come to be.
I speak of my own personal experience a bit in that I left home when I was pretty young and I was taken in by a family. I was never formally adopted or anything, but they are absolutely my family. They are my siblings and all their kids call me “uncle” now, for sure. It took time for us to develop that bond, but it is a bond that is as strong as any bond. They are my family, and I consider myself incredibly lucky to have that family.
I have to say that, when we were at committee, we heard testimony from a number of families who came to speak and share their stories. It was among the most beautiful, heartwarming, compelling stuff I had ever heard. It was emotional. When we hear the stories of adoptive parents, some of the circumstances around which an adoption occurs and the life that adopted children sometimes lead until the point of adoption, there are some tragic stories.
For parents who make that choice to adopt kids who maybe have been in and out of foster care and have witnessed horrible, terrible circumstances in their short lives, it takes a long time to build trust. We heard about a number of young people who were adopted, and it took them a long time to feel like they were safe and that this would not be just another place they would be bounced through and on to the next place. It took a long time to know that they were loved.
I ask members to think of that for a moment. I find it so hard to imagine a kid existing in this world who is not sure if they are loved. I do not think it is hyperbole to describe as heroic those parents who take that choice to rescue young children out of horrible circumstances and make them part of the family. It may be a word that gets bounced around a bit too much, but in this circumstance it is absolutely accurate. It is nothing short of heroic to take a life and build that self-worth and that love, and create a family in a different way than maybe is traditionally done.
To me, this would be a really common-sense, simple change to our EI system that would offer a little more assistance and support to all families. Talking about the bill, now the Liberals are talking about having it in their own legislation and adopting parts of it, and I fear that it may not happen. There is an awful lot of talk all the time on that side and the results are not always delivered, so I really wish we would just adopt this bill. We have heard from other parties in the House that there is lots of support for it. There is lots of support in the country for this move. It makes common sense, especially now in a circumstance where the cost of living is really hurting all families.
Mortgage rates have doubled and rents have doubled. Families are struggling to heat their homes and to put food on their tables. This is an impact that adds one more burden and one more stress on families of all kinds. However they are created, those families deserve the same level of support, and I do generally believe this is a disadvantage that is very easy for us to fix.
I am really grateful to my colleague for coming forward with such a simple yet important bill that is, as we can see, easily supported by everyone. It is just a common-sense thing that makes complete sense. If we were to adopt this, it would give 15 weeks to adoptive or surrogate parents, who are shorted 15 weeks of support when they start their families. It is fundamentally unfair, and this is a very simple way to make sure all those families are treated equally by their government.
I do not have a lot more to say. I am really touched by what this is. I am touched by the parents and the families who came to talk to us and who shared their stories, and they did that even when it could be difficult. They are passionate, and their passion is infectious. Members have maybe heard that in the House from other colleagues on all sides. I could ramble on, but it seems unnecessary. This makes complete sense, and I remain grateful to my colleague for bringing it forward and for the opportunity to speak briefly to it today.
I salute all those families across this country, however their families are started. In the House, I believe that we need to have their backs, and this is a great way to do it.
956 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Employment Insurance Act to introduce a new type of special benefits: an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave accordingly. Passing Bill C‑318 would be a small step in the right direction. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this for many years. We have been saying that employment insurance must be reformed as soon as possible to improve accessibility for taxpayers, review the eligibility criteria, formulas and funding, and optimize service delivery.
Government leadership on EI as a whole has been lacking. We need more leadership on this issue. In 2021, the Liberals campaigned on a promise to modernize EI. They promised to expand the program to cover self-employed workers and address gaps made obvious during the COVID‑19 pandemic. After the last federal election, the Prime Minister gave the then minister of employment, workforce development and disability inclusion a mandate letter instructing her to bring forward and begin implementing a plan to modernize the EI system by summer 2022. It is fair to say that the Liberal government missed that deadline, since it is now 2024.
The Liberals say they are committed to modernizing the system, but their communicative action is clearly lacking. The government is not walking the talk. Since I spoke at second reading, the bill has changed somewhat, with two amendments adopted. I will not read them, but the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of these two amendments because they broaden the scope of the bill. The categories I mentioned earlier were initially not included in the scope of the bill, but I believe they are in the spirit of respecting indigenous traditions and knowledge and, more broadly, in the spirit of reconciliation.
The arrival of a child is a complex and challenging time for the whole family, all the more so when the child is adopted or conceived through surrogacy. The bond created with the child is an important part of parenthood. Again, in the case of adoption or surrogacy, the process of forming attachments can be tricky because there is no biological connection to the parents, which is why it is important to pass this bill.
We know that international adoptions are becoming less frequent and that children adopted by Canadian or Quebec families are often older than in the past or have special needs. As a result, we can be sympathetic to the desire of these new parents to receive a special benefit to foster attachment.
Another important thing about Bill C-318 is that it provides for an extension when the child is hospitalized. Given that the hospitalization of a child is an emotionally difficult ordeal, this extension seems necessary, especially if we take into account the emotional factors that are added when a child is adopted or born through surrogacy. The extension would be equivalent to the number of weeks the child receives care in a health care facility.
We also know that the attachment process is complex and time-consuming, particularly for adopted children, and that it is part of an equation that also involves the so-called “normal” needs of a baby or toddler. That is why it is a good idea to create this new benefit. John Bowlby's attachment theory states that, from birth, children turn to adults for protection. If the adult adequately meets the basic needs of the child, an attachment relationship that is necessary for the development of the child's psyche will form between them.
I remember relating a bit of my story during second reading stage, but I would like to remind the House that I myself was adopted at the age of two months. Since I was not receiving any affection at the orphanage, I was wasting away. For seven years, my adoptive parents tried in vain to have a biological child before finally deciding to turn to adoption. They chose me. How lucky I was. They gave me the chance to be loved, coddled, reassured, protected and educated, and to become the person I am today. They took care of me and I will be grateful to them for the rest of my life.
Currently, in the adoption process, the long-awaited arrival of a new child is a very emotional time for the parents. The meeting often takes place in a context of lengthy travel, time differences, fatigue, and changes in culture and climate.
However, the children do not experience the same feelings of anticipation as the new parents. Naturally, they may mourn the loss of familiar people and places and be frightened by people who are often of a different ethnicity and who do not speak their mother tongue. It is an emotional transition. There are, however, several things that can help relieve the pressure on everyone involved in the process.
As we know, in Canada, the EI program provides 17 weeks of maternity leave for pregnant women, which can begin at any time during the period starting 13 weeks before the expected date of birth and ending 17 weeks after the actual date of birth. The Canadian program also provides up to 63 weeks of parental leave for biological and adoptive parents.
If both parents work for federally regulated employers, they can share their parental leave, entitling them to an additional eight weeks of leave. Parents who share parental leave are entitled to 71 weeks of leave. They can take this leave at any time during the 78-week period that starts on the day of the child's birth or on the day the child comes into their care. The code contains no provision for paid parental leave.
Let us compare that to how it works in Quebec. In the case of a birth, parental leave can begin the week of the child's birth. It is in addition to the 18 weeks of maternity leave or the five weeks of paternity leave. In the case of an adoption, each adoptive parent is also entitled to 65 weeks of parental leave. The leave may begin no earlier than the week the child is entrusted to the adoptive parents or when the parents leave their work to travel outside Quebec to pick up their child. The leave ends a maximum of 78 weeks after that.
In a same-sex couple, both parents are entitled to parental leave if the child's relationship to his or her mothers or fathers was established in the birth certificate or adoption judgment. At the parent's request, the parental leave can be suspended, divided or extended if required by the parent's or child's health. In other situations, at the parent's request and with the employer's consent, the leave can be divided into weeks.
Up until December 2020, Quebec's parental insurance plan did not offer the same benefits to all workers. Adoptive parents had 18 fewer weeks to spend with their children. Eventually, the tide turned following a battle waged by the Association des parents adoptants du Québec, which represents adoptive parents in Quebec.
Bill 51, which was passed on October 27, 2020, and assented to on October 29, gave equitable treatment to adoptive parents as of December 1, 2020, through the creation of welcome and support benefits, as well as adoption benefits for the second parent. All in all, this means adoptive parents are entitled to the same duration and level of income replacement as biological parents. For the time being, neither the Canadian nor the Quebec plans provide for any attachment benefits such as those proposed in this bill. It is therefore important to pass Bill C-318 to fill this gap.
1316 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 6:40:21 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster has five minutes for her right of reply.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as has been said, Canada's current parental benefit system puts adoptive and intended parents at a disadvantage. With access to 15 fewer weeks of leave through the employment insurance program, families formed through adoption and surrogacy are robbed by our parental benefit system of precious time together, time that is needed to care for their child, to bond and to form healthy attachments, and time that is critical in the first year of a child's life or placement with a family. The purpose of Bill C-318 has always been to fix that disparity in our system, to recognize the unique challenges faced by these families and to ensure that they have equal access to leave benefits.
Unfortunately, without having received a royal recommendation from the Liberal government, the bill's journey is coming to an end today. The bill had cross-partisan support and should have been an opportunity for collaboration, but the Liberal government opposed the bill throughout the process. At second reading, the Liberal government voted against the bill. At the committee stage, Liberals fought against amendments that would have removed any ambiguity in the bill around customary care arrangement for indigenous families. The amendments were challenged again in the House by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
Canadians who are following the issue closely would know that after opposing Bill C-318, the Liberals then introduced a benefit similar in principle. This provides cause for cautious optimism. The proposed benefit would help close the parental leave gap. That section of the bill received unanimous support in the House at second reading, but it is not across the finish line yet. The Liberal government has tied the changes to an omnibus bill, making it impossible to ensure its quick passage. The definition of “placement” in the Liberal bill is not entirely clear either, leaving it, in parts, to regulation. The Liberals' fight against the inclusion of customary care arrangements in Bill C-318 raises more questions than answers.
The Liberal government has given Canadians reason after reason to distrust it. The disability benefit is a stark example that is top of mind for so many Canadians across the country. The Liberal government refused to do the work at the front end to tell Parliament and Canadians what the benefit would look like. The so-called framework legislation has no concrete dates, eligibility requirements or benefit amounts.
The then minister of employment, workforce development and disability inclusion repeatedly said that the new benefit would lift persons with disability out of poverty. We also heard that the benefit would roll out in about a year's time. It has been just about a year since the bill received royal assent, and Canadians with disabilities who have been desperately waiting for the rollout of the benefit were hit with massive disappointment when the budget was announced. The six dollars a day will not pull anyone out of poverty, much less in the current cost of living crisis. To receive the benefit, persons with disabilities will have to wait until July 2025.
It is very difficult to trust the Liberal government to deliver what it has promised to Canadians. The Liberals have refused to work collaboratively on this meaningful and straightforward policy change, but every day that passes without fixing the inequity in our parental leave system means another family that is left without the time it needs to attach. It means more parents who will have to return to work prematurely to make ends meet or who are forced to take the extended parental leave at a significant financial disadvantage. Adoptive and intended parents deserve equal access to parental leave. More importantly, their children need the additional time with their parents. These families are faced with unique challenges, and the time to attach is truly crucial.
As the House ends its consideration of Bill C-318, I would like to express how truly grateful I am for all those who have supported the bill. I thank the thousands of Canadians who have signed petitions and written to their MPs and to the minister, and all those who have shared their personal stories and advocated tirelessly for the changes.
While the Liberal government has ensured that Bill C-318 will not cross the finish line, I remain deeply committed to ensuring that adoptive and intended parents get the time they need and deserve with their children.
743 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 6:45:43 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty to inform members that the notice requirement in respect to a royal recommendation has not been met pursuant to Standing Order 79(2). Consequently, the question will not be put on the motion for third reading of this bill.
Accordingly, the order for third reading is discharged and the item is dropped from the Order Paper.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 6:46:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I gave notice to the table regarding this point of order following what we witnessed this afternoon and the Speaker's decisions, which were good decisions.
I want to start by saying that the rules have to apply to all in the House of Commons, and what we saw today was the Speaker enforcing the rules of the House of Commons. We have the Standing Orders, and we chose, together as members of Parliament, a Speaker. The Speaker's job is to ensure that the Standing Orders are respected.
I will read what a former Speaker, who is now the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the Conservative House leader, said. He spoke to this issue, which I am going to raise, on September 24, 2014. I was in the House, so I remember this. He said, “Another of our time-honoured traditions is that of respect for the office of Speaker.” He then quoted from O'Brien and Bosc:
Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker—an allegation of bias, for example—could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly.
The former Speaker then continued:
I wish to conclude with an appeal to members on all sides. Needless to say, the kind of unsavoury language or expression that we heard yesterday does little to assist the Chair in managing question period proceedings, and I urge all members to be judicious in the expressions they choose to use.
This is the former Speaker of the House of Commons, who is currently the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the current Conservative House leader, stating that reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker, for example, an allegation of bias, could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly.
I want to submit for your attention, Madam Speaker, two posts that have come out on social media.
One is from the member for Carleton, which says, “Today the Liberal speaker censored me”, before going on to provide deliberately misleading information in his Twitter post. This is very clearly challenging that ruling from 2014 of the former Speaker and current member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the current Conservative House leader.
The second tweet is from the member for Lethbridge, who also has shown a wanton disregard of the rules of the House of Commons. She stated: “How did partisan hack, [the Speaker] respond?!” These are unacceptable terms and warrant a full apology from those members.
I will read, for the record, what we have in our House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which is the procedural bible of the House of Commons. These are the rules that Canadians expect us to live by. When they elect us in ridings across the country, they expect members of Parliament to abide by the rules to ensure that there is decorum in the House and that we are doing the job that Canadians have sent us here to do. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice says, concerning the impartiality of the Chair:
The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.... Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker (an allegation of bias, for example) could be taken by the House as breaches of privilege and punished accordingly.
There are a number of examples where that rule has been breeched. For example, in 1981, when there was clearly a question of privilege being raised, the leader of the opposition at that time withdrew his remarks, and that settled the matter. In 1993, there was a similar attack on the dignity of the House, an attack on the Speaker. Again, the member rose in the House and withdrew the remarks.
It is very clear that the rules of the House, which are put in place to ensure that our democracy functions properly so that we can have orderly discussions and debates, were violated. It is very clear that these two social media posts do not abide by those rules.
In my opinion, both members should have to apologize and withdraw their remarks before returning to the House.
711 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 6:51:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, briefly, on the same point, the member knows very well that the comments he cited are outside the jurisdiction of the House. The precedence he cited are examples of statements that were made in the House and that have nothing to do with his apparent desire for the Speaker to go about policing what people say in conversations far beyond.
I do want to draw the attention of the House to something that occurred on June 13, 2022. The NDP House leader was giving a speech in the House and he said, “We have had absolutely wacko claims by Conservatives.” I will note that the NDP House leader was not called to order at the time. With false indignation, the NDP House leader wishes to call, on the carpet, people who have said words that he himself has said in this chamber and was allowed to say.
The point is that the Speaker did not call the NDP House leader to order at the time, and a precedent was established. If the NDP House leader is outraged by what has gone on, he needs to reflect and to consider the state of his own conscience and whether he has some words he needs to withdraw in the future.
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 6:52:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I think that most Canadians would be very concerned about what took place earlier today. It is the first time I have ever seen the leader of an opposition party be asked to leave the House and then the entire caucus leaving the House. It was in response to something the Speaker was saying. It is interesting that the Speaker was applauded for his actions, even by members of the Bloc.
I quickly looked up the Twitter feed. I think it is exceptionally offensive. The member for Lethbridge said, “How did partisan hack, [Speaker] respond?! He kicked [the Leader of the Conservative Party] out of the Chamber.”
I think it is a very serious issue when members start going out and tweeting that sort of response when all members in the House are respectable, honourable members. I think there is an obligation for not only the member for Lethbridge but also the Leader of the Conservative Party, when they do eventually return to the House, to actually apologize to the Speaker for their efforts. Failing that, I would suggest maybe it is something the procedure and House affairs committee should look into.
We will wait and see what happens, and if there is no apology given, then we would reserve the right to come back and revisit the entire issue as something that PROC might have to look into.
239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 6:54:40 p.m.
- Watch
I want to thank everyone for their interventions. There are a couple things I am going to speak on before we continue.
I just want to remind the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby that there are rules in the House. I appreciate him bringing this matter to our attention. However, he did use the procedures book in his hand and pointed to it, which is a document that the hon. member is using as a prop. I just want to remind him that he is not to do that.
To the hon. member who spoke about the word that was used by the NDP leader, I just want to say that it was not a personal attack on someone in particular and that is the difference compared to what happened today. As Speakers, we are not here to win brownie points; we are here to ensure that the House is functioning and that members are respectful of the Standing Orders and of the polices and procedures of the House.
Having said that, I do want to remind members, and this was said before, that sometimes members can become impassioned when making remarks in the chamber, but the content of their comments and speeches must always conform to the Standing Orders and the practices of the House. Standing Order 18 states, “No member shall...use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof.”
The other entity that was brought to the attention of the Speaker was the fact that statements are being made outside of the House by a member. The Speaker has no authority to rule on that, as the hon. member has indicated. However, the respect for those who chair in the House should be, first and foremost, respected.
I will take all the information under advisement, and I will come back to the House if needed. I thank everyone for their interventions.
320 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 6:57:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have seen a consistent pattern of corruption from the government, that is, of trying to get contracts to well-connected government insiders. The government has quite the choice of friends, by the way. At the government operations committee, we have been studying the favouritism that the government has shown toward McKinsey. The government's contracting watchdog has come up with a damning report about that favouritism, about how rules were changed and structured to work to the advantage of McKinsey. That is in the context where we know about the friendship between the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Dominic Barton, who was the managing partner of McKinsey at the time.
To be fair, Dominic Barton went to the committee and said he was not a friend of the Prime Minister, that he barely knew him. If Dominic Barton's testimony is to be believed, then the government funnels contracts not only to its friends but also to people it wishes were its friends. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister talked lot in fact about this and made lots of claims about how there is a friendship. Rather than delve too far into the extent to which they are friends or not, we know that the government had a passionate, perhaps unrequited, love for McKinsey and did everything it could to send contracts McKinsey's way.
In particular I am following up on a question about the arrive scam scandal, about how we know now that systems were created and designed to maximize the benefit for GC Strategies, as well as Dalian, and that contracts were sent to those companies. The Auditor General reported that members of the government actually sat down with people at GC Strategies, who advised the government on what it should be asking for in a contracting request. GC Strategies subsequently got the contract. The government was rigging the process with the bidder that eventually got the contract, whether it was McKinsey or Dalian, the principal of which was a government employee at the same time as he was getting government contracts.
There are multiple instances of corruption, of the NDP-Liberal government's working to get contracts to its well-connected insider friends. It is a government that is working for insiders and not for Canadians. In that context, we have seen incredible growth in spending on contracting. While the public service has been growing in size, the government has also been spending more than ever on outside contracting.
Then when we talk about having problems with the budget deficit, the Liberals come back to ask what could possibly be cut or where savings could possibly be found. Let us cut back on the spending on outside consultants. Let us stop shovelling money to McKinsey. Let us stop shovelling money to GC Strategies. Let us stop paying useless insiders who simply receive contracts and pass on the work, or who are paid to provide advice that the public service is perfectly competent to provide. It is the well-connected NDP-Liberal friends and consultants who have gotten incredibly rich under the government. GC Strategies' founders became millionaires on arrive scam alone. Let us cut out the spending on well-connected NDP-Liberal insiders and provide those savings to the budget.
I asked this before and will ask it again: Was the scheme to reward well-connected insiders due to incompetence on the part of the government or to outright corruption?
581 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 7:01:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on a question of procurement.
I want to remind my hon. colleague that it was not a Liberal government that told Canadians an outright lie, if I can say so, that the F-35 procurement project was going to cost $10 billion. It cost triple that. Who said that? It was Mr. Harper and the current leader of the official opposition who told Canadians that in 2011, and I would argue that is how they won the election. It was not a Liberal government who lied to Canadians and told them that a pay system would work and function well. It was a Conservative government, so let me set the record straight.
Let me first say that I am very proud of the public service. I am a member of Parliament who represents a lot of public servants who worked so diligently to ensure the government could deliver services and programs to Canadians during the pandemic. At the same time, it is clear that something went wrong with the procurement of professional services related to ArriveCAN. Nobody is hiding that fact, and our government is extremely concerned about the issues that have come to light. I want the member to know that we have taken and are taking action to improve our procurement processes, and we are holding companies accountable for misconduct while protecting federal expenditures.
With respect to the reports by the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman, Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, as the central purchaser for the government, has already taken several steps to implement their recommendations and improve processes. For several years now, the department has been making progress in its plan to modernize procurement, which has long been a priority for our government. Right now, the government is firmly focused on improving and further strengthening processes, especially when it comes to IT procurement. We have been working for months to do just that. This includes strengthening guidance and training for those involved in the procurement process.
Public Services and Procurement Canada has also improved evaluation requirements to ensure resources are properly qualified and is requiring increased transparency for suppliers around their prices and their use of subcontractors. In addition, it is improving documentation when awarding contracts and issuing task authorizations. It is also clarifying work requirements and activities, and specifying which activities and which projects are worked on by contractors.
In addition, PSPC is updating its guidance to help other departments and agencies in procuring responsibly when using their own procurement instruments under their own authorities. We know that fundamentally improving IT procurement requires us to ensure that those processes are clear and transparent, and that the roles, responsibilities and rules are understood, respected and adhered to. To that end, the department is going even further to strengthen integrity in procurement by creating a new office of supplier integrity and compliance, which we now know will help the government better respond to misconduct.
We owe it to all Canadians to preserve the integrity of federal government procurement. That is why we are taking action now to strengthen and improve procurement, so that what happened in the case of ArriveCAN never happens again.
538 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 7:04:49 p.m.
- Watch
I want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that he cannot say indirectly what he cannot say directly. I again want to caution members to make sure whatever language they use does not move in that direction, as the member's comments clearly did at some point.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
