House of Commons Hansard #329 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-77.

Topics

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, Conservatives, of course, support avoiding crime. That is why we believe in investing in our criminal justice system, investing in law enforcement and ensuring that our law enforcement agencies have the tools to prevent crime. The member says that somehow the Conservatives are throwing up roadblocks to preventing crime. It is quite the contrary.

What I want to reiterate is that where the Liberals are failing to protect victims was on full view over the last two weeks. It was in full view as they defended a convicted killer, Chris Garnier, receiving veterans benefits and continuing to defend the transfer of Terri-Lynne McClintic, convicted of first degree murder, to a healing lodge where children are present. That is where the Liberals have failed to stand with victims.

Conservatives will be supporting this piece of legislation, because it builds on the good work the Conservative government undertook during our 10 years in office.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Madam Speaker, it is a matter of misplaced priorities. As I sat through this debate today, I heard members on the government side stand and say that they are defending victims, yet as an example of what my hon. colleague said, in the last couple of weeks, we have dealt with the Christopher Garnier situation and the Tori Stafford situation, where her killer is, effectively, in a minimum-security prison. What is interesting is how that relates to Bill C-71, currently in the Senate, the new Liberal gun registry and the contrast and hypocrisy with respect to Bill C-75, summary convictions. I know that my hon. colleague listed just a few of what those summary convictions are, but it speaks to the essence of the fact that the government has a judicial backlog, and its answer to that backlog of court cases is to reduce these sentences to summary convictions.

Does my hon. colleague not share the same hypocrisy Canadians are seeing with respect to the pieces of legislation and how hypocritical and contrary they are to each other in the overall Liberal narrative?

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, my friend from Barrie—Innisfil is absolutely right. It is a system of misplaced priorities for the Liberals. They will throw up additional roadblocks and rules for law-abiding Canadians but then reduce sentences and change them to summary convictions for some serious crimes. It is wrong, and Canadians see through it. Canadians see through it, because they know what the Liberals are doing. They know where they are putting their priorities.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, the arguments the Conservatives are spending their time on this afternoon are interesting.

We know that the legislation itself would enshrine victims rights. We have a Liberal government enshrining victims rights. I have news for the member across the way. All members of this chamber are sympathetic and extend sympathies to all victims of crime. Why would Conservatives try to imply that only the Conservative Party of Canada seems to be concerned about victims rights, when it is just not true?

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, I would be curious to know from the member for Winnipeg North if he would have placed himself in a different position back in 2014, when he and his party, together with the NDP, delayed the passage of the Victims Bill of Rights by filibustering it on April 9, on May 27, on June 3, on June 6, on June 13 and again on June 20, at second reading alone. Does the member feel no shame for delaying the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in 2014 when it was put before the House by the former Conservative government?

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Richard Martel Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC

Madam Speaker, after asking my first question in the House and giving my first member's statement, I will now be giving my first 10-minute or so speech in the House of Commons. It is important to me to quickly break the ice.

First, it is an honour to be able to represent my constituents in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord as we study Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. As we know, the Bagotville military base is in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. As part of Air Command, it is one of two bases housing the CF-18s in Canada. For those like me who are interested in history, I will mention that the Bagotville military base was established in 1942 to protect Alcan's infrastructure in the Saguenay, the aluminum plants that were part of the war effort during World War II. I would also like to mention that, at present, we are still paying a 10% tax on aluminum. This base continues to be one of the largest employers in Saguenay and houses 3 Wing Bagotville. It is one of the major pillars of the Saguenay economy, along with aluminum, lumber and agriculture. It is even more important to remember this today because aluminum, lumber and supply management were sacrificed in part last night.

I always enjoy meeting our troops. They are people of honour and integrity. They are leaders. They stand by one another. They protect one another. They all want equal treatment. I also enjoy meeting our valiant veterans. They always have good stories to tell. Unfortunately, they often have trouble getting the government to respect their rights. I talk to a lot of veterans who tell me about their deployments and the problems they run into when they return. Every time they tell the government what they need, the government does not seem that interested.

One of my greatest hopes is for the base to keep getting better. I would like to see proper military aircraft there, not the old, broken-down Australian planes the Liberals want to replace our CF-18s with. Our people in uniform deserve better. I have talked to some of them. The Australian planes are even older than the CF-18s at the Bagotville base. People are wondering what plans the government has to get them up to snuff.

Let me get back to the matter at hand, Bill C-77. Make no mistake, this bill is very similar to Bill C-71 that the previous Conservative government wanted to bring in during the 41st Parliament. That bill was introduced in June 2015, but it did not get as far as second reading.

Much like Bill C-77, we wanted to make changes to the military justice system. Specifically, we wanted to bring Canada's military justice system in line with the Criminal Code. Some of the most important changes we were planning to make were as follows: adding victims' rights the National Defence Act, limiting summary trials to six months and clarifying which cases would be eligible for a summary trial. From what I understand, Bill C-77 seeks to achieve the same objectives.

One has to wonder why the Liberal government waited so long to introduce this bill. The Liberals keep saying that they care about our veterans, that they are sympathetic to our solders and so on. It is obvious that the Conservatives will always put the rights of victims of crime ahead of the the rights of criminals, and we will make sure that victims have a voice in our justice system.

Need I remind members of the House that it was us, the Conservatives, who brought in the victims bill of rights? In fact, it was the senator from Quebec who represents LaSalle who made the victims bill of rights possible. Of course we are in favour of incorporating the victims bill of rights into the military justice system. That is precisely why we introduced Bill C-71 three years earlier. It was such a long time ago—I was still a coach at the time—but that is fine, we cannot fault our colleagues across the way for copying our work because we know full well that adding the victims bill of rights to the military justice system is the right thing to do for our country.

The leader of the official opposition and member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the Conservatives will always stand behind victims of crime. It is important to us that Bill C-77 pass this first important stage and get to committee so that we can go over it in greater detail. It will be a pleasure to discuss this bill clause by clause with my colleagues opposite to make it the best it can be for our armed forces and the military justice system.

We are definitely going to discuss equality. Discipline demands consistency and continuity. They are the very foundation of people's trust in others and in the system. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces should not be subjected to discrimination based on race, gender, creed or culture. It is crucial that no soldier lose trust in their superior officer. Trust is hard to win and easy to lose. Whether positive or negative, discrimination undermines the bond of trust.

This will also be my first time analyzing a bill in detail in committee, so I will be adding another string to my bow as a new MP. I may get a chance to submit amendments and seek my colleagues' co-operation in getting them approved.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Celina Caesar-Chavannes Liberal Whitby, ON

Madam Speaker, from what I am hearing from the discussions on this piece of legislation, it seems like we could all agree that victims' rights are particularly important. This piece of legislation balances civil rights and the rights within our military. It enshrines victims' rights within the National Defence Act.

My hon. colleague spoke about wanting to get it to committee, to study it at committee, and to be able to provide some possible amendments when it gets to committee. Would my hon. colleague not agree that we should move forward with this and get it to committee?

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC

Richard Martel

Madam Speaker, we must first take the time to do a proper analysis of this bill and to discuss it with our colleagues. I am still learning about that. We do not want to feel pressured all the time. We must take the time to do a proper analysis in order to do what is best for everyone.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to welcome my hon. colleague for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I congratulate him on his recent election to the House of Commons.

During his election campaign, did his constituents talk about the importance of standing up for victims of crime?

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC

Richard Martel

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. We need not look very far for the answer.

We need only think of the case of Christopher Garnier, a criminal who is receiving benefits and was never in the military. In my riding, people find it difficult to accept that. We are still not getting an answer when we ask the government if it is going to stop his benefits. We certainly do hear people talking about it. I hope that these cases we are constantly hearing about do not become a common occurrence.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his first speech in the House. It was very interesting and very well documented.

My colleague spoke about the Bagotville base, an air force base, and how important it is to his riding. Could he tell us a little more about that?

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC

Richard Martel

Madam Speaker, it is the third largest employer in the city of Saguenay, so obviously, it is a very important community. CFB Bagotville is vital to our region. We in Chicoutimi are proud to have this military base located in Saguenay, because we know it helps protect Canada's extremely vast territory. We often have discussions with military personnel regarding our fleet of CF-18s, which need to be replaced, as there is no guarantee that we will be able to use them until 2025.

Bill C-77—Notice of time allocation motionNational Defence ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I remember the last time I had to do this we were able to find a way forward, and I am hoping that again we will be able to find a way forward. If not, I have a responsibility to advance legislation.

An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Bill C-78—Notice of time allocation motionDivorce ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, while I am on my feet, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-78, an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Bill C-82—Notice of time allocation motionMultilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, this is unfortunate because I know we can find a way, but an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-82, an act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-77 today. I am especially honoured to do so following my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord's first speech in the House. We are all very proud of him. He was just elected with 53% of the popular vote. Compare that to our party's fourth-place finish three years ago. These things are worth remembering.

Bill C-77 is about reforming the military justice system. During my brief remarks, I will remind the House that this bill is essentially the same as Bill C-71, which we introduced when we were in government. It speaks to an issue that arouses tremendous compassion in everyone on both sides of the House.

Thousands of Canadians serve their country as members of the Canadian Armed Forces' army, navy and air force. We are all very grateful to these men. Although CFB Valcartier is not in my riding—that is an honour belonging to my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, who represents the folks at Valcartier very well—several hundred of the base's 6,000 soldiers do live in my riding.

Fall is here and in six weeks, on November 11, we will be commemorating Remembrance Day. This year will be special as we mark the 100th anniversary of the armistice of 1918. As hon. members know, on the 11th day of the 11th month at the 11th hour, the First World War was to end. Unfortunately, other conflicts followed. Let us commemorate the thousands of Canadians who gave their lives so that we may live in freedom. Let us always remember the extraordinary sacrifices that these young men and women made during the different conflicts, especially during the First World War and the Second World War.

I have the extraordinary privilege of coming from a family that served its country. My father served during the campaign in Italy, among others, for the French Army under the command of Marshal Juin during the Second World War. My maternal grandfather, Paul Ponzelli, served in the First World War. He was in the French army and fought in the battle of Verdun, among others. I would also like to salute the people at the Consulate General of France in Quebec City, who are currently preparing a special commemoration for November 11. My mother will take part in this tribute being held six weeks from now.

Bill C-77 proposes reforms to the military justice system, which, naturally, is a delicate subject. Our men and women in uniform serve their country, but men being men and women being women, reprehensible behaviour can sometimes happen. This is why we have a military justice system. Canadians who put on the uniform accept that this uniform comes with responsibilities. Cases of reprehensible behaviour must be considered in the context of military action, because when these soldiers put on the uniform and carry a weapon, they can be sent to a combat theatre. The enemy will always be an enemy, which means that a solder may commit an act that would be considered criminal in the civilian world, but heroic in the military world. This is why the military justice system is different from the civilian system. Of course, this does not mean that soldiers should not have a dignified and honourable conduct in civilian life.

When we were in government, we introduced Bill C-71, which would have amended the military justice system. Some aspects of Bill C-71 are similar to our bill, such as enshrining victims' rights in the National Defence Act, imposing a six-month limitation period for summary trials and stipulating which cases should be handled in summary trial. These are the parts of the bill we agree with. I would like to point out that this bill was drafted with the assistance of our government's former justice ministers, namely the hon. Peter MacKay, the hon. Jason Kenney, and the hon. member for Niagara Falls, who is still serving his constituents in the House of Commons.

We also have some concerns about the fact that justice will likely be different for some people than for others. It is important to remember that there is a reason why justice is blind. Portrayals of Themis show what we want from a justice system. She is often portrayed with her eyes blindfolded, a sword in one hand and the scales of justice in the other. The sword is for punishing those who commit reprehensible acts and the scales are to ensure that everyone's rights are respected.

It is important to note that, in this allegorical personification of justice, Themis with her eyes covered, justice is blind. People must be judged based on their actions, not on who they are as a person. Some aspects of the legislation must be reviewed. For us, it is important to ensure that people are being judged based on their actions, and not on who they are, what they represent or embody, or their very nature even. We have to be careful about that. That is why the bill will be examined in committee by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and others. It is important to remember that, as parliamentarians, we do indeed have the right to debate bills here.

I participated in all of today's debates and I was surprised to hear some of my government colleagues criticize us for rising to speak to this bill. Need I remind the government that this bill, which is almost a carbon copy of what we produced three years ago, was only introduced after three years by the Liberals? It is not because there are seven, eight, ten or twelve members who want to speak and debate lasts for one, two or three days that members will take offence and start getting annoyed. We must remember that our first duty here, in the House of Commons, is to express ourselves, as we are doing, to the extent possible and, above all, within the allotted time frame.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The member will have three minutes the next time this matter is debated in the House as well as five minutes for questions and comments. He will therefore have a great deal of time to debate this further.

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

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK

Madam Speaker, back on April 27, I asked the Liberal government to explain why it was inflicting a carbon tax upon my province, the Saskatchewan families, without any consultation or approval and why it was ignoring Saskatchewan's successful emissions reduction plan. The Liberals have revealed that they are completely unwilling to consider any climate change strategy other than their own. Such a policy is incredibly misguided because it fails to consider that there are alternatives to a carbon tax in the fight against climate change.

Saskatchewan's plan to reduce carbon emissions and fight against the climate change is entitled “Prairie Resilience: A Made-in-Saskatchewan Climate Change Strategy”. It is a strategy that is tailored to address the specific needs of Saskatchewan's economy. It is not a one-size-fits-all plan, which has been opposed by the Liberals in Ottawa without any consideration for the unique circumstances that the different provinces and territories face.

As of January 1, 2019, this plan will come into force and provide a cost-effective, meaningful and resilient approach to lowering Saskatchewan's greenhouse gas emissions. As part of the prairie resilience plan, policies that have been developed by the Government of Saskatchewan to combat climate change are broad and also diverse. These policy areas include, but are not limited to, natural systems, physical infrastructure, economic sustainability and community preparedness. Most important, though, the prairie resilience plan is one which responds, in a comprehensive sector-by-sector manner, to the needs of the people of Saskatchewan. It is not an arbitrarily imposed carbon tax like the one that the Liberal government is proposing to force upon every province and territory.

Unlike the Liberal carbon tax, the prairie resilience plan will tackle climate change, while at the same time protect the jobs and the livelihoods of the hard-working people in my province. Why then, does the Liberal government continue to threaten provinces such as mine with a job-killing and inefficient carbon tax?

The federal environment minister has previously stated in news conferences that she recognizes the need to work with provinces in order to address the pressing challenges that climate change poses for all Canadians. If the environment minister truly believes in that statement, why is her government withholding $62 million in infrastructure funding to support Saskatchewan's efforts to fight climate change and to reduce carbon emissions? This funding would support 11 clean energy projects in Saskatchewan, with an estimated potential to remove 188 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Again, why are the minister and her government withholding $62 million in infrastructure funding to support my province?

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Sean Fraser Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.

Madam Speaker, before I begin my prepared statement, I would like to point out that one of the arguments that unpin what I just heard was a suggestion that we are forcing something onto the provinces. In fact, we have been clear from the very beginning that we are working with the provinces and territories that do come forward with a responsible plan of their own. I will note in particular that the plan in Nova Scotia may be very different from the plan in Quebec, or Alberta and British Columbia.

We are taking action on the environment and the economy in ways that will move both forward. This is what Canadians asked in 2015 when they elected our government, and it is the plan we are implementing. We know that putting a price on pollution is widely recognized as the most efficient and transparent way of reducing greenhouse gas pollution. It also helps create a sustainable clean growth economy. Pollution already has a significant cost today, such as the effects of smog, floods and wildfires. Putting a price on pollution lets everyone see the cost so we can do something about it. Unlike the Conservative Party, whose plan is to make pollution free again, we are making life more expensive for polluters and more affordable for Canadians.

There is evidence that pricing pollution and economic growth do go together. If I look at the example of British Columbia, I see that the price on pollution helped it reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, the provincial economy grew faster than the rest of Canada's. B.C.'s growing clean-tech sector now brings in an estimated $1.7 billion in annual revenue.

Across the world, industries are turning to cleaner and more sustainable options. Canada must not, and will not, be left behind. Pricing pollution provides incentives to reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency measures while also driving innovation that will give Canada an edge in the clean growth economy. This is going to make Canada's businesses more innovative and profitable and create more jobs from coast to coast to coast.

The pan-Canadian approach to pricing pollution gives provinces and territories the flexibility to establish a system that best suits their circumstances. Revenues raised from those jurisdictions—and I know this is important to the people of Saskatchewan—remain in the jurisdiction of origin. Even Stephen Harper's former director of policy has said that this policy will leave Canadian families better off than they are today.

Our plan to put a price on pollution will help protect the environment, grow the economy and put more money in the pockets of Canadians, including the constituents of the member opposite. The cost of inaction, quite frankly, is greater than the cost of addressing the problem. We know that by 2020, the anticipated cost of climate change to the economy will exceed $5 billion. We need to do something about this.

On the flipside of the same issue, the challenges posed by climate change create a significant opportunity for economic growth. If we demonstrate the political will to fight pollution, we are going to create jobs at the same time. We can expect to trigger economic growth and enhance environmental and social outcomes through strategic investments in the green economy, in public transit, and protecting nature as well as our oceans.

In 2015, Canadians made their voices heard. We are a country and a people who care very deeply about the environment. Our government was elected on a commitment to protect the environment and grow the economy at the same time, and just because the Conservatives could not do either, does not mean we will not do both.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK

Madam Speaker, prairie resilience is the Saskatchewan plan. The Liberals have still not told me why Saskatchewan is not getting the $62 million in infrastructure funding to support our province's right to fight climate change. The people of Saskatchewan, in a poll, almost unanimously agreed with the premier, Scott Moe, in his fight against the federal government's coming down, top down, on the province in its fight against climate change.

We want to know why we have not received the $62 million. The whole caucus was just in Saskatoon. They heard loudly and clearly what people in Saskatchewan are upset about. We are taking this right to the Supreme Court, and now we are going to be joined by provinces like Ontario, and maybe even New Brunswick, which just last week elected a Conservative government. Whether they are elected or not depends on the Liberal government trying to make back deals. Saskatchewan was the only province to stand up. We have been followed now by Ontario, and shortly by New Brunswick.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.

Sean Fraser

Madam Speaker, we are happy to work with provinces and territories that are willing to be responsible and put forward a plan would have a meaningful impact on reducing pollution. To date, we have not received a signal that the Province of Saskatchewan is willing to join the pan-Canadian framework, which would make it eligible for certain funding options to help grow the green economy and fight pollution at the same time.

To be clear, we know that a price on pollution will put more money into the pockets of Saskatchewanians than not addressing the problem at all. We know it will create jobs. I note in particular the support it has from industry, from companies like Suncor, Cenovus, Rio Tinto, Tembec, Loblaws, Desjardins and G.E. We know that environmental NGOs support this. Even Stephen Harper's former director of policy supports this on the basis that it is going to put more money in the pockets of middle-class families.

We are moving forward with a plan and will only be required to implement the framework where provinces abdicate their responsibility to take seriously the threats posed to the environment.

JusticeAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC

Madam Speaker, I just want to take a moment to wish the best of luck to all the candidates running in today's elections in the beautiful region of Quebec.

For over two years, Canada has faced an unprecedented opioid crisis that has taken nearly 3,000 lives so far, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada. I have asked many questions, but I have not received many answers.

I know that the Minister of Justice has previously said she is open to the possibility of decriminalizing all drugs in Canada, which I think is a completely senseless idea. It would mean that the Liberal government would be legalizing often deadly drugs, like cocaine, heroin and crack. How can a government even consider such an irresponsible idea and make a serious crisis even worse?

In big cities such as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, deaths from cocaine and crack are reported on TV every weekend. More and more people are dying from using these drugs. Thinking about decriminalizing them is irresponsible.

I struggle to understand why, at a time when Canada is already facing a crisis of this magnitude, the Liberal government would consider decriminalizing something that is so bad for people's health. I think we need to focus on rehabilitation and giving more money to communities so these people can get support. People with addiction issues often have a tough life.

I have a question for my Liberal friends: how can you be open to such an irresponsible idea and exacerbate an already tragic situation by decriminalizing all forms of drugs, especially hard drugs? To me, this idea is utterly senseless.

JusticeAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would remind the member to address the Chair and not the government directly using “you”.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.