Debates of Nov. 20th, 2018

Auditor General of Canada

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the fall 2018 reports of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), these documents are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Government Response to Petitions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, a report by the Canadian parliamentary delegation of the Canada-China Legislative Association and the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting its participation in the 26th annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum held in Hanoi, Vietnam, from January 18 to 21.

Children's Rights

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table a petition today, with more than 1,000 signatures, which joins the over 5,000 signatures received in the House so far and over 500 signatures received online, on the issue of children's rights in Canada.

Today is Universal Children's Day, and Canada has signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, a number of government programs, including housing first and the Canada child benefit do not apply equally to all children across the country. Children who are in marginalized situations, with homeless or incarcerated parents, do not have access to the same programs.

Therefore, on behalf of these many constituents and the Elizabeth Fry Society, I table this petition today.

Round Lake

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I present today two petitions on behalf of constituents, directed to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

The petitioners have an issue with water in one of our lakes, which is causing fish to die. It is a very bad scenario. They are asking the minister to use her authority to re-establish communication with the Ochapowace and Piapot First Nations to work toward a resolution in the matter of low water levels in Round Lake, Saskatchewan.

Human Trafficking

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table petition e-1673 on behalf of the Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale, better known as Afeas. The petition was signed by 639 people, and more signatures will soon be arriving on paper. This petition calls on the government to sign the order to bring into force Bill C-452, which seeks to combat human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

We are losing precious time. The bill was passed unanimously and has already received royal assent. Other petitions on this subject have been circulated over the past three and a half years, and the Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous motion in this regard.

How long will it take and how many young girls will have to become victims before the Prime Minister signs the petition?

The purpose of the petition is to get the government to sign the order to protect teenage girls from criminal prostitution rings.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition once again, recognizing the scourge of human organ trafficking. The petitioners are looking for quick passage of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240.

Children's Rights

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today.

The first petition was initiated by the Elizabeth Fry Society, which has done tremendous work in our community. The petitioners ask the House to recognize the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, to which Canada is signatory.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to meet the standards of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and recognize that there are barriers within its own direct payments to family systems and remedies that fund services, like the homelessness partnering strategy; that it provide funding for client support for children; that it provide Canada child benefits and child special allowances for all children; that it set standards within Canada's social transfer to ensure that all children, without discrimination of any form, benefit from special protection measures in assistance; and that it recognize children of parents with addictions and homeless children in need of special support to enable them to achieve improved life outcomes and receive equal benefits to their rights under the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child.

Safe Third Country Agreement

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has 1,596 signatures and calls upon the government to note that the safe third country agreement states that only countries that respect human rights and offer a high degree of protection to asylum seekers may be designated as a safe third country.

The petitioners state that the President of the United States has purposely and premeditatedly adopted practices such as a Muslim travel ban, has forcibly separated children from their parents who were seeking asylum. They also state that the United States no longer recognizes domestic violence or gang violence as a legitimate reason for asylum; that it has adopted a zero tolerance policy designating all irregular crossers claiming asylum as having committed a criminal act subject to prosecution; and that under the Donald Trump administration, it has demonstrated it will continue to ignore international human rights and refugee laws.

The petitioners therefore call upon the government to suspend the safe third country agreement.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I want to remind hon. members that presenting petitions is the time to give a succinct summary of what the petitioners are calling for and not to read the entire petition or engage in debate on the subject.

The hon member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The Environment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, succinctly, recognizing that time is not our side, the petitioners, being youth petitioners, want us in this Parliament to consider that time is not on our side in fighting the climate crisis.

The petitioners ask that we take meaningful steps to support the future of young Canadians by fulfilling all our obligations under the Paris accord.

Impaired Driving

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition that highlights impaired driving and the concerns of Canadians.

The petitioners ask that the charge of impaired driving causing death should be vehicular homicide; that a person convicted of impaired driving would have an automatic one-year driving prohibition, that a person who causes bodily harm would have a minimum sentence of two years and that a person who kills someone would have an automatic mandatory minimum of five years.

Wild Salmon

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition called “Saving Wild salmon”. The petitioners are mostly from Vancouver Island, British Columbia.

The petitioners say that Canada, B.C. in particular, is well positioned to become a world leader in closed-containment salmon aquaculture. Canada needs to invest in a safe, sustainable industry to protect Pacific wild salmon, maintain employment, develop new technologies and creates jobs and export opportunities.

The petitioners therefore call on the Government of Canada to immediately transition this harmful industry to a safe land-based closed-containment industry.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-75—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the said bill and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 was introduced on the day before Good Friday in an effort to hide from Canadians what was in the bill. Now, after just two sitting days, the government is already bringing in time allocation at report stage. It is absolutely shameful.

At the justice committee, Liberal MPs were right to back down from the reclassification of terrorism and inciting genocide. However, shockingly, the Liberals have doubled down when it comes to the hybridization of what are currently serious indictable offences, including human trafficking, impaired driving causing bodily harm and kidnapping a minor, just to name a few.

Does the minister not agree that these are also serious offences? Does she not agree with the hon. member for Edmonton Centre when he said, “Let's be serious....We're talking about terrorism. We're talking about very serious offences.”? Why does the minister not also treat impaired driving causing bodily harm, human trafficking and other offences as serious offences?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate being able to rise to talk about Bill C-75, the importance of the bill and the intent behind the bill.

There is absolutely nothing that our government is trying to hide with respect to the major bold reforms we are seeking in Bill C-75 to the criminal justice system to answer the call of the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan and other decisions to create efficiencies and promote the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. That is precisely what we are doing in Bill C-75. Since we formed government, this has been considered through very robust consultations.

I appreciate the discussions, the considerations and listening to 95 witnesses at the House of Commons committee on justice and human rights, who provided very substantial feedback.

With respect to the member opposite's question with respect to the hybridization of offences, serious offences will continue to be treated seriously. The hybridization of offences does nothing to change the fundamental principles of sentencing.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a fairly lengthy bill, and although it corrects some problems, it creates others. The government is trying to improve the justice system and make it work better, but unfortunately, this bill creates two new problems for every problem it resolves or situation it improves.

Does the minister not believe that we should take the time to resolve all of the new problems the bill creates before passing it, so that we do not end up with new problems that will cause further court delays?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that this is a large and significant bill. The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to answer the call of the Prime Minister to me in my mandate letter and our government's commitment to transform the criminal justice system and create efficiencies and effectiveness in that system.

The member opposite stated that this bill would solve some problems but create others. I disagree with that statement. This legislation and the lead-up to the introduction of this legislation in March of this year was the result of significant consultation right across the country through round tables. I have personally engaged in three federal, provincial and territorial meetings with my counterparts in the provinces and territories, all of whom are supportive of the robust and bold changes in Bill C-75.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I reflect back on the campaign of 2015, and sitting in many all-candidates debates, I remember hearing so clearly that if the Liberals became the government they would not bring in closure or time allocation and they would get rid of the practice of introducing omnibus bills in Parliament. Here we have those things being brokered at the same time.

In Bill C-75 there are some serious offences that will be downgraded to hybrid offences which gives the discretion to prosecute them as summary convictions, such as obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman and blood alcohol over the legal limit. We know the scourge of impaired driving on our streets and it is unbelievable that the government would actually reduce this offence.

I am not as concerned right now about those particular items as I am concerned about the fact that the government is intent on shutting down debate on a very serious issue when all parliamentarians should have the option of giving their views and letting their constituents know their views.

Why is the government so intent on shutting down debate on this important issue?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, our government is committed to working co-operatively with all members of the House.

With respect to Bill C-75, I would point out that there has been a total of seven hours and 45 minutes of debate in the House. The bill went to committee, where there was major discussion among committee members, and I thank them for that discussion. The committee heard from 95 witnesses. Twenty-seven hours of discussion and debate happened at committee. I thank members for the suggested amendments, many of which were accepted by the government.

Bill C-75 is a robust bill which proposes to amend the Criminal Code. It is not an omnibus piece of legislation. It seeks to address Criminal Code changes.

To comments by the member opposite around serious offences, under this legislation serious offences would still be prosecuted in a serious manner.

I am glad the member raised impaired driving. I am very pleased that our government was able to pass Bill C-46, major legislation to create in Canada among the toughest impaired driving laws in the world. I appreciate the member's bringing that up.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her answers.

Since the start of this debate on yet another time allocation motion, several members have commented on the complexity of this bill and the fact that it covers many issues we need to discuss. We should also talk about what is not in the bill. For example, the NDP has talked about how the government broke its promise to deal with mandatory minimum sentences.

The minister thanked the committee for its work. That is great, but the reason the committee took so long and was so thorough and heard from so many witnesses is that the bill is very complex, as I said just now.

I would like the minister to explain why she wants a time allocation motion for such a complex bill.

I spoke during debate on this bill. I had 10 minutes instead of 20. I thought 10 minutes would be enough time to say everything I wanted to say, but before I knew it, the Speaker was raising her hand to signal that my time was up. That is how it goes in the House. The point is, 10 minutes, even 20 minutes, is not enough time to talk about everything in this bill.

How can the minister suggest that all parliamentarians will have enough time to dig into this extremely important and complex issue if there is a time allocation motion and so little debate?