Debates of June 22nd, 2022

Criminal Code

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to state again, as I have many times, that the hon. member for Fundy Royal and I have a good working relationship, despite the fact there are many things we might not agree on. Sometimes there is common ground, as there is tonight.

Certainly I agree with him. Though it was not our idea and I believe it may have been his idea, the motion we are dealing with would order the justice committee to conduct such hearings in the fall. As I said in my speech, it will give us the opportunity to see whether we have done the right thing and whether there is more we can do on the issue of violence against women through extreme intoxication.

Absolutely, the answer is yes.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very thoughtful presentation today. I also want to thank him for his co-operation at the justice committee and for his hard work.

I want to ask him what he is hearing from key stakeholders. I know we have been engaged with a number of key stakeholders who are quite supportive of the legislation. His co-operation is essential to getting this passed. I want to know what his stakeholders are telling him about this legislation and if there is any feedback on its overall intent, as well as the balance that we were able to find in coming forward today.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, my experience is the same as what the minister and others have expressed, which is that the vast majority of people I have heard from in this short period of time, especially ordinary citizens, would like to see us move very quickly to close this possible loophole. The majority of organizations that are more active in legal reform have also said they think this bill accomplishes what we need to do.

As I said in my speech, there are some, but only a few I have heard from in the past few days, that think that we could do more or that we could make closing the door even tighter. I am not sure they are correct about that, given the Supreme Court decision, but I am certainly willing to hear from them in the hearings we will conduct this fall.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, in terms of the stakeholders that did come forward, I know that LEAF has shown support for this piece of legislation. However, LEAF specifically called for a great deal more education within the justice system, and more advocacy for women who deal with, and have to go through, the criminal justice system when they experience violence.

Could he talk about what the government should be doing in order to address those concerns that LEAF brought forward?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, in justice, when talking about a number of issues, there is always an area where we need to do more. That is the issue of violence against women. We have heard the Liberal government talk about its action plan for quite a long time now, and I think most of us are ready to see that plan and would like to make sure there is actually action in the action plan.

As I mentioned toward the end of my speech, the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour is a form of violence, but it also usually leads to physical violence eventually. We have had all-party agreement at the justice committee; we achieved that twice. We have held hearings at the justice committee. I express my hope, and I do it again, that sometime very soon in this Parliament we will get the same all-party agreement to move quickly on that issue as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There being no further members rising, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 21, the motion is deemed adopted and Bill C-28 is deemed read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 12 a.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Taxation

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are struggling with soaring gas prices and the highest increase in food costs and inflation in 40 years. While Canadians are struggling, the government has refused to provide relief, despite the fact that it is raking in billions off the backs of consumers. Worst of all, the government is filling its massive fuel slush fund by the taxing of taxes. I speak, of course, of the HST being applied to the federal excise tax on fuel, the federal carbon tax on fuel and the provincial tax, never mind the product. My god, I am sure that if the Liberals could get away with it, they would put a tax on a tax on a tax.

This is why I am going to ask the government, for a fifth time now, to please help Canadians.

I know that my colleague will likely have some government talking points. I am going to help him out, so that we can really get to the substance of this debate.

The Liberals are likely going to cite child care. Yes, child care is great. I support child care, but how does $10-a-day child care help Canadians if they cannot afford the gas to take their child to day care? What about those of us who do not have kids or whose kids are adults now?

The Liberals will tell us that inflation is a challenge that multiple countries are facing. They might even list the countries where inflation is worse than in Canada, but our concern should be our constituents and Canadians here. How does the fact that it is worse elsewhere help those of us struggling here at home?

The Liberals might mention that payments are coming from the carbon tax and list the projected amounts that families are supposed to be rebated. When? People need help now. Can people expect payments when they can still afford to make a mortgage or rent payment or when they can still afford to put food on the table?

The Liberals will likely also cite how supply chains and many things are outside of the government's control. Do members know what the federal government has complete control of? It has complete control over how it chooses to use the massive slush fund of at least $2.5 billion. That is $2.5 billion extra that the government had not budgeted for or earmarked, the windfall.

Doing nothing is a choice. If the government wants to choose to continue to tax taxes, that is its prerogative, but I will plead with my hon. colleague to please put himself in the shoes of people who dread the end of the month and who wonder whether or not they will be able to make their bill payments. People are at their breaking point. They need help.

I hope that the fifth time is the charm and that this fifth call on the government will be enough to persuade it to help struggling Canadians.

Therefore, I ask my hon. colleague this: Will the government stop taxing taxes and will it please help Canadians who are struggling?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, the member is starting to sound more and more like our Conservative colleagues across the way, not so much in terms of concern about inflation but more in the rhetoric and manufactured outrage, in my opinion, that he seems to be displaying.

I apologize to him that he has asked this question five times. I hope he listens carefully, because my answers will be extremely direct. I will not talk about child care, I will not list countries and I will not talk about payments coming back to people from the price on pollution, despite the fact that they are all extremely important programs.

Indeed, I will talk about affordability being top of mind for our government, just as it is for most Canadians these days. We understand that Canadians are worried about inflation and that they are rightly asking what their government is going to do about it.

The current high inflation is a global phenomenon, driven in large part by the lasting impacts of a once-in-a-generation pandemic and amplified by China's ongoing COVID-zero policies and Russia's illegal invasion in Ukraine. These are not excuses; I am putting out the facts so that the member clearly understands where the problem originated.

As inflation is a global and multi-faceted issue, our government understands the importance of taking targeted measures here at home to help Canadians make ends meet. How have we supported Canadians, and what are we going to do to continue to support them? To answer the member's question directly, this was top of mind when the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance highlighted, just last week, the five real and tangible steps we are taking to help get inflation under control and make life more affordable.

First, the government recognizes the central role of the Bank of Canada. For more than three decades, it has been the bank's responsibility to tackle inflation here in Canada, and we will let the bank continue to do this important work.

Second, as we made clear in budget 2021, we will also address the shortage of workers in this country. Our plan to do so is part of a set of measures that Janet Yellen, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, has described as modern supply-side economics.

Third, our government also understands that fiscal restraint is key in combatting inflation. Our government is determined to see our debt-to-GDP ratio continue to decline and our deficits continue to be reduced.

Fourth, our government is also committed to making sure that there are enough good middle-class jobs for Canadians. By doing so, we will continue to see our economy be prosperous, as we know that the middle class is so critical in ensuring that prosperity.

Last, we will help Canadians directly with the challenge of affordability, in issue the member has raised. Through the affordability plan, we will provide just under $9 billion in new support for Canadians. Our plan includes enhancements to the Canada worker benefit; a 10% increase to old age security for seniors over 75; a $500 payment this year to nearly one million Canadian renters who are struggling with the cost of housing; lower child care fees for families across the country; and benefits indexed to inflation, including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.

This is how we will make life more affordable for Canadian families while controlling expenditures and maintaining Canada's AAA credit rating.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague listed a number of things that he says his government is doing. Who is paying for these things? It is Canadians. It is Canadians' hard-earned taxpayer dollars that are being used to fund these things.

However, I did not really hear anything beyond great, grand commitments. How does that help someone who is struggling? It is cold comfort to someone who is sitting at the table at the end of the night, wondering whether they can feed their family next week.

What I hope my hon. colleague could help me to better understand is not a rehashing of things that have already been announced but what Canadians can expect, what my constituents can count on as they struggle to pay their bills.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is what they can count on.

They can count on the Canada workers benefit, a 10% increase to old age security for seniors over 75 and a $500 additional payment this year to nearly one million Canadian renters who are struggling with the cost of housing. Families across the country can rely on lower child care fees. They can rely on the fact that there will be indexation to inflation for the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.

I regret that the member seems to think that these policies are being rehashed and re-laid out and that he does not see the tangible benefits these policies have for Canadians. I am sure that if he goes back and talks to Canadians who are receiving these benefits and explains to them how the changes will further impact their lives, they would see the benefit of them.

Housing

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to come back to my question to the Minister of Housing from a couple of weeks ago on the housing crisis in this country, and specifically those who are experiencing homelessness and living unsheltered. I had asked the question because decades of underinvestment in both housing and mental health and addiction support are hitting my community hard. As one example of what this looks like, over the past several months an encampment has grown in downtown Kitchener to now upwards of 50 people living in tents in the downtown. My community is reeling.

At the time, I was told the solution was the reaching home program. It is part of Canada's homelessness strategy. It supports the goals of the national housing strategy, and the aim is to reduce chronic homelessness by 50% by 2027-28. Just last summer, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reviewed that plan, and here is what he had to say about it. I quote:

...we project that in the absence of additional spending the number of households in housing need would have increased to approximately 1.8 million households with a $9.3-billion aggregate affordability gap by 2025-26.

Turning back to my community, this seems like an example of the increase that the PBO was expecting. In 2018, there were 333 people experiencing homelessness in Waterloo Region. Going fast-forward to our most recent point-in-time count study last fall, we see that it tripled. There are now over a thousand people experiencing homelessness in Waterloo Region, 412 of whom are living unsheltered, for example in tents downtown. The rest are in emergency shelters or in transitional housing. There might be the hidden homeless, or people in institutions such as a hospital or a domestic violence shelter. It is clear in my community, and from the PBO's report in other communities across the country, that these plans are not working.

We also need to be clear that the encampment downtown is not only the result of insufficient federal funds for housing. It is the result of mental health as well. Despite using the right words, for example, we can all agree that mental health is health, the reality is that the funding is not there. In the last election campaign, the governing party promised billions in a new Canada mental health transfer to the provinces. When it came time for the 2022 budget, though, there was not a cent budgeted for this transfer; instead, it got a three-line mention to stay tuned for more.

The fact is that we cannot expect municipalities to take on the housing and mental health crises on their own. They need support from the provinces and, yes, the federal government as well. I appreciate that the parliamentary secretary is with us this evening. She is a person I respect. I wonder if she would be willing to join me to meet people at the encampment in downtown Kitchener. Most importantly, will she share this: Will the federal government step up? If so, what would that look like?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing)]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kitchener Centre for his question and his concern for homeless people in his community. I share that concern.

We believe that all Canadians deserve to have a roof over their heads and to live in dignity, but there is a lot of work to do to get there. Some 35,000 people across the country experience homelessness on any given night. That is why we developed the first national housing strategy in Canada using a human rights-based approach. This comprehensive 10-year strategy, supported by an over $72-billion investment plan, gives priority to the most vulnerable members of our society.

Over the past two years, these people have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. During that time, we increased the number of projects for them under the national housing strategy. Thanks to budget 2022, we will soon be able to launch measures that will help them even more. For example, the rapid housing initiative is a very successful program that has helped thousands of Canadians who were living in precarious housing during the pandemic.

Two and a half billion dollars has already been allocated to the program, which will quickly create over 10,000 new affordable homes for Canadians who need it most. In this budget, we are proposing an additional $1.5 billion over two years to extend this initiative, based, in particular, on comments that were made last year. This new funding is expected to help create at least 6,000 new affordable housing units, of which at least 25% will be allocated to housing projects for women.

As my colleague from Kitchener Centre might already know, three housing projects in his riding were made possible through the rapid housing initiative. Together, they will create more than 70 permanent, affordable housing units for the people who need it most. One of those projects is oneROOF. It will soon be able to give people experiencing homelessness, people with mental health or addiction issues, and indigenous peoples a place to call home.

Our government also remains committed to ending chronic homelessness through Reaching Home, Canada's homelessness strategy. We have committed over $3 billion to address homelessness, including doubling annual funding for four years in response to the pandemic. With budget 2022, we will provide $562 million over two years to continue providing doubled annual funding for this program. We will also support research on eliminating chronic homelessness and a new veteran homelessness program.

Our government is making significant and sustained investments in housing. We are working hard to make housing more affordable for Canadians. As my colleague surely knows, and he would agree with me, our federal leadership and the significant investments we have made in housing across the country through the national housing strategy are some of the most significant we have seen from this government and in Canada in over 30 years now.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to note that it is true that the federal government is not doing nothing, and organizations like oneROOF are doing incredible work. The projects she mentioned are important projects that are benefiting people in my community every day, but what I think is also really critical for her to understand is that the trend is going the wrong direction. It is insufficient. It is not nothing, but it is insufficient.

Specifically, as I mentioned, we tripled the number of unhoused individuals in my community in the last three years alone. This is a time when the governing party has had the opportunity to do more, and it has not. I am sure this is not only in Kitchener this is happening, but certainly, if the parliamentary secretary wants to, she can come downtown and see people who are living in tents as a result.

My question is the same. While I appreciate what has already been done, and the rapid housing initiative is important, I would like to see her do far more.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, again, stable and affordable housing offers a refuge at a time of uncertainty. We agree. We need to do more. That is precisely the message we sent in budget 2022, a budget that was focused on housing.

The budget centred on housing and a commitment to work on ending homelessness. I would like to say to my colleague that if he is inviting me to visit his riding, I would be pleased to go meet with him and his constituents.

Correctional Service of Canada

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, a strange sort of slow-motion sparring match has been taking place in the Commons since March 22, when I first rose to ask the Minister of Public Safety about the government's plans for a potential goat farm at Joyceville Institution. I have asked questions over and over again on a very specific matter: Will the government guarantee that it will not permit CORCAN, the profit-making prison industry arm of the Correctional Services Canada, to establish a goat farm?

Various spokesmen for the government, sometimes the minister, sometimes the parliamentary secretary and on one occasion the member for Kingston and the Islands, have answered that there is at present no goat farm and no contract to start building one. A typical response is this one from May 30: “Correctional Service Canada does not possess any goats, and there are no contracts for the sale of goat milk.”

Now, I do not doubt that this is true, but what I want is something different: a commitment from the government that it will absolutely, permanently close off the option of starting a goat operation. There is a real need for a definitive policy statement.

It is abundantly clear that Correctional Service Canada remains very much committed to creating a commercial goat farm. Every time we get a definitive-sounding answer in the House of Commons, like the one I just recited, we get the opposite from correctional services. For example, two days after I was told that there are no goats and there is no contract, CSC restated to the media that while at present there are no plans for dairy goat operations, it would “reassess at a later date”, which means that a goat farm employing convict labour at below-market rates appears to still be on the table.

Meanwhile, a $10-million contract has been issued for the construction of a dairy cow barn at Joyceville, despite the fact that correctional services is legally prohibited from using this milk to feed the inmate community. It is also illegally prohibited from selling it externally because it has no dairy quota. The sole plausible purpose for this cow's milk must be the one that correctional services intended from the start: to feed the baby goats whose own mothers' milk is being sold commercially.

Of course, there is this important detail: The site plan embedded in the $10-million contract contains something labelled “Future Goat Barn. Not in Contract”, and something called “Future Septic System for Goat Barn”. The part of the contract labelled “project description” could hardly be less ambiguous on this point: “It is the intent of Correctional Services Canada to construct two livestock barns, one for Cattle and one for Goats at the Joyceville Institution. The proposed Goat barn will have an approximate footprint of 6500 square meters.” It is abundantly clear that this contract is simply stage one of a two-stage construction project for a commercial goat farm.

While I am confident that Corrections Canada still does not own any goats and still does not have any contract for the sale of goat milk, I ask this once again, as I did on June 10: Will the government order Correctional Services Canada to end the possibility of any future reassessment of the goat farm, and will the government stop spending millions on the infrastructure for that goat farm, the one that it claims it does not want? Specifically, will the government commit to instructing Correctional Services Canada that no second Joyceville construction contract will be issued?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there, but I will start by saying that the only reason why correctional institutions do not supply regular dairy fresh milk to inmates is because Stephen Harper's government actually completely removed that and substituted it with powdered milk several years into its mandate. That is the reason why inmates are no longer drinking fresh milk, but that is beside the point of why we are here today.

I want to take the opportunity to address some of the things that I heard today from the member, and indeed, leading into today's question and to the various different ones. I will start by reiterating that Corrections Canada does not currently possess any goats for use in a penitentiary agricultural program. It also does not have any contracts or agreements with any third parties, either domestic or international, for the sale of goat milk.

I will remind the member opposite that the operations at the Joyceville and Collins Bay institutions, at this time, are currently focused on full implementation of dairy cow operations. I am very proud to note that the construction of the dairy cattle barn at the Joyceville institution, which the member referenced, commenced in April. Once completed, the barn will facilitate Correctional Services Canada fully implementing its dairy cattle operation.

When it comes to operations and programming, Correctional Services Canada has engaged, and will continue to engage, with community members and stakeholders. I would also encourage interested parliamentarians to visit these sites, if they have not already done so, to see for themselves first-hand what correctional interventions are offered to promote rehabilitation.

On that note, I am proud to speak to the successes associated with the offender employability program, which includes the penitentiary agricultural program. Through this CORCAN program, offenders can participate in various types of interventions and services, including on-the-job vocational and essential skills training.

While this allows them to acquire skills related to a specific industry, what they learn is also transferable to a variety of types of employment. This is something that the former Conservative government completely neglected to acknowledge when it decided to close those programs.

Finding and maintaining employment in the community is key to recidivism. CSC has research documents dating back even earlier than 2014 that note a connection between employment and positive reintegration results. I will note that the reports cited by the hon. member, which have subsequently been supported in other research since that time, noted the following: that inmates who participated in CORCAN employment programs while incarcerated were more likely to be granted parole, that they were more likely to get a job in the community, and that they were more likely to have a reduced rate of returning to prison.

These points note that the earlier release on day parole and increased likelihood to obtain employment leads to a reduction in offenders repeating and re-entering into correctional programs.

Finally, despite the claims that have been made, I would like to emphasize that when it comes to the operations of these farms, private industry does not benefit financially from the involvement of inmates. Revenues generated from these operations are reinvested directly into the offender employment and employability program.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act.

The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

Correctional Service of Canada

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a very brief question for the parliamentary secretary. I am aware that he is not in a position to make a statement on behalf of the government, so I will simply ask him to take this back to the Minister of Public Safety.

It is the question that I ended with. Will the government commit to instructing Correctional Services Canada that no second Joyceville construction contract will be issued? If that is done and that instruction is issued, that would end the possibility of a goat farm. It would also end the possibility of any further questions from me, which must be a very welcome prospect for the hon. member.

He is my neighbour and friend. I just want to take this opportunity, as we come to the end of the Parliamentary session, to wish my hon. colleague and friend a very happy summer. It sounds like he has some very nice plans put together. He has a wonderful family to share the summer with, and I wish him the very happiest summer vacation possible.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, that sentiment is reciprocated to the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. I know that in the House it quite often seems like we are continually sparring, but the member and I just had a great opportunity to have a very civilized personal conversation prior to this debate, despite the fact that we might be at odds on this particular issue.

I obviously do not have a direct answer to the member's question, but I also do not understand how this demand is coming forward through this question and answer period. If the member wants to put forward a policy objective of the government, he should do so through a motion or various other forms where he can do that. In the meantime, I do not think that it is indicative of the government in any regard to say that it can guarantee one way or another that it will do one thing or another. If the member is interested in changing the policy of the government, there are ways to do that, but I do not believe that this back-and-forth is the proper place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

(The House adjourned at 10:44 p.m.)