Scott Reid

[Language and Cultural Advisers, June 2nd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, Canada's language and cultural advisers, or LCAs, are Canadian citizens of Afghan origin, immigrants who went back to serve their adopted country, so every LCA has family members in Afghanistan. The government’s criteria for admitting these family members to Canada are arbitrary and stingy.

Here is how these rules affect one LCA from my riding. In 2021, his brother-in-law was murdered by the Taliban, so the rest of the family fled for their lives across the border. If Pakistan follows through on its threat to deport Afghans, they too will be killed. However, because these events happened before July 2021, the family does not qualify to come here.

When my constituent asked to meet with the minister, he was told to go through my office. He did so, and after a two-week delay, my staff were told the minister was just too busy to meet with him. We were then directed to a website reaffirming that the family does not qualify. Surely, trapping Canadians in this kind of catch-22 is beneath the dignity of this nation.

[Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, May 30th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a technical matter with respect to the vote that just took place. I was attempting to vote using the app and received a notice on my phone saying that my vote had been flagged and may not have gone through. I rushed down here to participate in the new vote in person and to confirm that my yea vote was in fact recorded.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, in his point of order, his intervention, my hon. colleague used language that is impermissible in this place. He has to withdraw it. I request that you request it of him, Madam Speaker, as would be done for any of us.

[Correctional Service of Canada, May 29th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment just to observe, seeing that the member started with the subject of the goat operation, that she has stated once again that there are presently no goats. We already knew that. There are, however, plans for the construction of a goat barn. She mentioned that the barn under construction is for cattle. That is true. The construction plans had called for the laying of foundations of both barns as part of one tender and then a second tender in which they would be completed. For its own reasons, CORCAN decided to go with the complete construction first of the cattle barn and then of the goat barn.

Will she stand here, therefore, and finally say the thing that the government members have absolutely refused to say, which is that there will not be, under any circumstances, a goat farm producing formula for export in the Canadian prison system?

[Correctional Service of Canada, May 29th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to follow up on a question that I raised on May 12, before the break. On a number of occasions over the course of the past year and a half, I have raised the issue of the prison farm at Joyceville. There is a proposal to expand it to allow for the development of a goat farm.

Although the government insists on denying that this is what the expansion will entail, it also insists on following through on plans to build, among other things, a goat barn and a very large septic waste facility. These would be the right size to accommodate the herd of 1,200 goats the government has been talking about having there. The purpose of the goat farm is to create infant formula, which will be exported to China under a public-private partnership in which CORCAN would be involved.

There are a number of problems with this; I raised one of them on May 12. I pointed out that there are obvious human rights issues associated with having inmates being paid substantially less than the market wage to produce and export product. This goes against our International Labour Organization obligations.

There are issues associated with the entire for-profit model of the prison system. This is not merely in conflict with the other goals that our corrections system has but is also almost a joke, and in fact is a joke, given the colossal amount of money that the for-profit operation at CORCAN manages to lose every year. The opacity of this system makes it hard to see how much money they are losing.

The claim is that the prison farm will produce jobs; in fact, the prior prison farm is producing no jobs. The argument is that people who are trained in this way will be less likely to reoffend; in fact, recidivism rates have not improved. The focus in this farm is on animal husbandry, whereas the evidence suggests that, to the extent that there is any benefit in agricultural programs, it comes from horticulture programs focusing on raising plants.

Obviously, we can see how this works. A person who is released from prison, a former inmate, can go out and start working and raising their own goods and selling them at farmers' markets. That is very different from trying to obtain the capital necessary to take care of, say, cattle or goats on a large scale.

On May 12, I raised a question. I am seeking an opportunity to get a fuller answer to the additional problem that I raised.

At that time, I said the following:

...meeting notes obtained via access to information reveal that the union representing prison staff is alarmed that, at Correctional Service of Canada's existing prison farm, staff are required to work with inmates after hours in unsafe conditions. This includes being alone and unaccompanied, and being denied the personal paging devices necessary to call for immediate backup. The union's fears include the potential for assault and hostage taking.

If the government cannot provide safe working conditions at its existing, relatively small, prison farm, how will it do so at its planned vast, new goat- and cow-milking operation?

That was my question, and I hope that I will get a more fulsome answer today than I got on May 12.

[Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, May 29th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I would request that there be a standing vote.

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, this gives me a chance to start by correcting my colleague from Kingston's observations about speeches written weeks ago. The heartfelt commentary from my colleague about hunting on Manitoulin Island were not written for him by a speech writer who has never been to Manitoulin Island.

With regard to the fundraising issue, I am not sure that it is actually true that it raises all this money. However, if it does, and given the fact that in Canada there are very strict limits on how much money can be raised per individual, does that not make the point that thousands of Canadians care very deeply about this issue? Does it not show that they are alarmed at seeing their way of life destroyed and their property taken away from them by a government that is unconcerned about their well-being? Does that not explain why the money is being raised? Does it not also explain why the NDP has such difficulty raising money on any issue that it represents?

[Correctional Service of Canada, May 12th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, meeting notes obtained via access to information reveal that the union representing prison staff is alarmed that, at Correctional Service of Canada's existing prison farm, staff are required to work with inmates after hours in unsafe conditions. This includes being alone and unaccompanied, and being denied the personal paging devices necessary to call for immediate backup. The union's fears include the potential for assault and hostage taking.

If the government cannot provide safe working conditions at its existing, relatively small, prison farm, how will it do so at its planned vast, new goat- and cow-milking operation?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, April 18th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, of course it warms my heart to hear how deeply the current government cares, and how much more it cares than the people in my party care, so I will just repeat my question.

Will this caring government change this particular criteria, which is 100% under the control of the caring government, and extend Canada's protection to Afghans who meet all other eligibility criteria but who left the country prior to July 22, 2021?

I will add this final note: There is no need to send a plane to Afghanistan. These are people who are outside of Afghanistan, in Pakistan, for example, who could easily go from there to here, but who are in danger of being deported back to their homeland, where they will be killed.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, April 18th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I take it this evening my question will be addressed by the parliamentary secretary for all departments.

On the final sitting day prior to the Easter break, I rose in this place to ask the immigration minister the following question:

...the immigration minister's program to admit the families of language and cultural advisers who assisted our troops in Afghanistan has such rigid criteria that it will freeze out almost everybody it should be helping.

For example, only those who were still in Afghanistan after July 22, 2021 are eligible, so this rules out the Afghans who were in the most dangerous parts of the country and who therefore had to flee...before the Taliban overran their regions. These family members are now trapped in third countries and are in danger of being transported back to Afghanistan, where they will be killed.

Will the minister change these restrictive criteria to fix the mess he has created?

The response I received from the government benches left me puzzled. The hon. member for Orléans, who responded on behalf of the government, said the following:

If it were a matter of will, there would be 40,000 Afghan refugees here already, but we know that in reality, with everything that has been happening, there have been challenges and obstacles. We are working very hard in addressing those, for instance through Bill C-41. There are a number of factors that we do not fully control, including safe passage.

Now, the most obvious problem with this answer is that the particular impediment which I was addressing, the government's choice to refuse to admit any person who left Afghanistan prior to July 22, 2021, is absolutely a factor that the government does control. They could change that date.

Therefore, I will just repeat my question in slightly different words. Will the government change this particular criteria and extend Canada's protection to Afghans who meet all of the eligibility criteria but who left the country prior to July 22, 2021?