House of Commons Hansard #354 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-75.

Topics

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park has a point of order.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.

Arif Virani

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening intently to the member opposite and to all of her colleagues. We are about four minutes into her remarks and we have yet to hear anything that substantively relates to Bill C-75. We have heard about settlements of litigation, about foreign affairs policy and defence policy. I would ask the member to direct her comments to the bill at hand, please.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I will leave it with the hon. member. l am sure she will come to her point. As I have stated before, I often hear arguments go in certain directions that you figure is a tangent that make absolutely no sense to the person who is listening, but as the person explains it, you see it come around and it becomes evident to everyone. I will leave it to the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek to finish up.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

For his part, the Prime Minister has doled out taxpayer dollars for so-called de-radicalization programs for returning ISIS terrorists. In the meantime, he has told veterans they are asking for more than the government can give. Would it not be more appropriate to say that to returning ISIS terrorists instead of to the brave men and women who have defended our nation?

However, perhaps we should not be surprised. Indeed, after the Boston Marathon bombing, the now Prime Minister said of the terrorists responsible, “there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society.”

I believe it is this kind of foolish gentleness toward terrorists that caused the Liberals to propose weakening the penalties in Bill C-75. They spent months arguing for and defending the inclusion of that clause before finally backing down and supporting the Conservatives in removing it. It took months of pressure and hard work to make this one obvious change, but even with that change the bill remains deeply flawed.

Bill C-75 would still weaken the penalties to as little as a fine for many other serious crimes. Among those are serious sexual crimes, such as using the date rape drug, forced marriage, marriage under the age of 16, polygamy and acting as a pimp. I wonder how the Prime Minister can claim to be a feminist while simultaneously weakening the punishment for such terrible crimes.

In addition to the sexual crimes I mentioned, the Liberals are also weakening the punishment for corruption and fraud. A lighter penalty would be possible for those convicted of bribing municipal officials, insider trading, forging currency, using libel for extortion, fraud through the use of arson, or even illegally influencing political appointments.

Perhaps most shocking is the list of violent and gang-related crimes that would be eligible for a summary conviction: infanticide, hiding the body of a child, obstructing or assaulting an officiating clergyman, abduction of children under the ages of 16 and 14, conspiracy and participating in criminal gang activities.

While I know my time is nearly up, I would be remiss if I did not take the time to point out that this is the Liberals' second attempt to remove or amend section 176 of the Criminal Code after abandoning their changes to Bill C-51. Assault of officiants during a religious service is very serious and should remain an indictable offence, yet here the Liberals are breaking yet another promise despite the fact they committed to keeping full protections in place for religious officials.

There are many more serious crimes that we see a weakened response to. In fact, I find myself wondering if this is not the intent of the bill. The previous Conservative government passed the Victims Bill of Rights and this is the Liberals' response. Again and again, we see examples of the Liberals' obsession with making criminals lives easier.

As one final example, the Liberals recently introduced a plan to provide needles to prisoners who use drugs, despite a zero-tolerance policy on drugs in prisons. It would take a Liberal to square that circle. This ridiculous plan puts correctional officers in the line of danger, for no other reason than to assuage Liberal guilt. Jason Godin, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, said the following about this ridiculous idea: “It’s pretty obvious the policy changes the government is making are making it more dangerous for us, more dangerous for inmates and obviously more dangerous for the general public.”

Why does the government insist on placing the rights of criminals above the rights of victims, police, guards and of citizens overall? As I have said before, Canadians deserve better than a government that treats victims like criminals and criminals like family.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

It being 5:52 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 11, 13 and 14.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I declare Motion No. 1 carried, and I therefore declare Motions No. 11, 13 and 14 carried.

(Motions Nos. 1, 11, 13 and 14 carried)

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3 to 10 and 12.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

All those opposed will please say nay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #940

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare Motion No. 2 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 3 to 10 and 12 defeated.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Vancouver Granville B.C.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed will please say nay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #941

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

It being 6:42 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.