Debates of March 30th, 2022

Criminal Code

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I humbly reject the premise of my hon. colleague's question. We would not be decriminalizing drugs with this bill. We are looking at mandatory minimum penalties.

I want to be clear that this is not a soft-on-crime approach. Those who commit serious offences would continue to receive serious sentences. Our bill is about getting rid of the failed policies that filled our prisons with low-risk, first-time offenders, who just needed help.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga—Malton for his focus on this being about trust in the judiciary, first and foremost. My question for him builds on a comment he made earlier on wanting to go further.

Recognizing this legislation only targets one of five of the existing mandatory minimum penalties in the Criminal Code, and that, for example, Truth and Reconciliation Commission call to action 32 calls for departing from this, could he share more about his interest in going further in removing mandatory minimum penalties?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Mississauga—Malton has time for a very brief answer.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, these proposed measures represent an important step in further addressing systemic issues related to existing sentencing policies. We know rooting out systemic racism and discrimination cannot be accomplished with just one measure—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Unfortunately, we need to move on to the next speaker.

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, when I spoke to the first iteration of this bill back in April 2021, I remarked at the time on how out of touch the Liberal government had become. If anyone from the new NDP-Liberal coalition actually took time to come and speak to mayors, chiefs and councillors, or the RCMP members in northern Saskatchewan, they would know that bills like this do far more to hurt communities than to help them.

When I speak to elected leaders, I constantly hear that there are violent offenders they do not want in their communities. In fact, they are searching for ways to keep them out. They wonder why these repeat offenders cannot remain in custody and why they are allowed to keep returning to victimize their communities. They are frustrated. They realize that when certain people are removed, they seem to have a time of peace and quiet. This bill would add to the frustration.

Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory minimums for offences such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing a firearm is unauthorized, and discharging a firearm with intent. The list goes on. The Minister of Justice, just this afternoon, told us that he believes these are just minor offences. I do not believe these are minor offences.

Police officers, judges, prosecutors and many others in the communities already do everything they can for non-violent offenders to ensure they have every opportunity to stay out of prison. Sometimes the peace of mind that comes with mandatory minimums is essential to ensure our communities feel safe and are safe.

In northern Saskatchewan, there is a concerning trend of witness intimidation, as well as increasing recruitment of young people into gangs and the drug trade. Mandatory minimums assist the police and prosecutors to ensure the safety of witnesses. By keeping violent offenders off the street, greater opportunity is provided to engage in early intervention and prevent criminal gang recruitment.

March 17, just last week, Meadow Lake's RCMP Staff Sergeant Ryan How wrote an article in Saskatchewan Today. It reads:

From October 1, 2020, to March 15, 2021, Meadow Lake RCMP responded to 66 firearms complaints. In the same time frame in 2021 to 2022 RCMP have received 30 firearms complaints. Any level of gun violence is unacceptable and the Meadow Lake RCMP Detachment is unfortunately still busy dealing with violent occurrences, while at the same time noting that this reduction in gun calls is welcome progress.

A focused formal enforcement project led by North Battleford Provincial GIS was put in place in early 2021 to dismantle one of the gangs involved in the violence and has resulted in the following convictions....

He goes on to list the names, the offences they are charged with and the sentences of several violent gang members. It is shocking that the charges include one that is being proposed to no longer have minimum sentences under this bill. The Government of Canada ought to be supporting more initiatives like the one Staff Sergeant How talks about and supporting enforcement officers like him who are investing time and energy in building relationships in the communities they serve, rather than basing Criminal Code policy on political ideology.

I am neither an RCMP officer nor a crown prosecutor, like some of my colleagues, but when I hear from experts on the ground that getting rid of mandatory minimums like those proposed in Bill C-5 would put our communities in greater danger, I tend to believe them. We need to be equipping law enforcement to carry out their duties and keep our communities safe, not neutering their abilities to keep violent offenders off the streets.

One of the questions that keeps coming up around this bill is regarding judicial discretion. While I agree that judges should have some discretion when it comes to sentencing, this is also the role of Parliament. Parliament, in the past, has assigned not only maximum sentences, which impact judges' discretion, but also minimum sentences. This has been done with Parliament's wisdom. It is up to us and within our power to change that, but it has always been the case that Parliament sets out the parameters whereby judges sentence people.

We are the ones who decide, through the Criminal Code, what is a criminal act, and we set out the parameters for sentencing. That is part of our job, and it is not partisan.

Many of the minimums being eliminated by this Liberal government were in fact introduced by previous Liberal governments. This is about ensuring there is an appropriate sentence for someone who commits a very serious crime. Again, as I said previously, Bill C-5 is not about minor and insignificant offences. It deals with what I would conclude are very serious offences, such as robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm. I have not even begun to discuss the sections in the bill dedicated to drug-related offences.

Bill C-5 would also eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purposes of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting and production of a substance under schedule I or II. Examples of those are heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. When I read the legislation, it seems clear to me that no one from the Liberal-NDP coalition has ever sat across the table from a chief and elders pleading to get and keep these drug dealers out of their communities.

When I first spoke to Bill C-22 in the last Parliament, I shared a story from a local paper. The story was about a judge's decision, arguments by the Crown prosecutor and the victim impact statements of some RCMP officers. Today I am going to take a few minutes of my time to share that story again, one of the victim impact statements of one of the officers. I truly hope today that all members in this House, even if they ignore everything else I say today, will listen to this story.

The statement said:

When I encountered the gold truck you were in north of Loon Lake the only emotion I felt was sadness.

I knew right away how this was going to end. It’s always the same, just a varying degree of tragedy. When I saw your co-accused run from the Equinox and point what may have been a gun at me, I just felt tired and defeated....

I knew what you would do when you came up to the road block. And you did the same thing every other desperate criminal does—you accelerated and swerved towards the police.

As you did that, I took off my seatbelt and accelerated my truck directly at you. I wanted to be able to at least have the chance to manoeuver in the cab if you and your fellow gang members started shooting at me. As I lined up my truck to yours head-on I fully expected to be shot but I tried to make sure my truck would stay on a straight path and hit you even if I couldn’t steer because you needed to be stopped.... Even after all of this, after hours of chasing after you, hours of being frustrated, angry, and tired, [I] was required to be of calm mind and use sound tactics as I drew my gun on you and the people with you.... At that moment I was furious that it had come to this. I was furious that your stupidity was causing me to miss an important family event going on right at that moment I had you in my gun sights. I was furious that I might have to shoot and kill you.... I didn’t shoot you...My coworkers didn’t shoot you, even though we were taunted and dared to do it by the people in the truck with you. Even though your actions caused one of my coworkers to almost be run over and killed. We made sure you were safe. It was a joke and a game to you. It was life and death for me, for my partners, and the public. I’m telling you that on January 17, 2019, you were lucky to be arrested by some of the most capable and experienced police officers in the country. They showed incredible restraint and professionalism to make sure you lived to be here today.

I had the opportunity to speak to Sergeant How after this and he shared with me how these events had become almost routine in his world. I am asking members to imagine this becoming part of the daily routine. I remember having to fight back the emotion.

Finally, this bill would allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders for a number of offences. Allowing criminals who commit violent acts to serve their sentences on house arrest puts communities in my riding at risk.

In closing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is 5:45 p.m., and I have to stop the debate.

It being 5:45 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 second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. House leader of the official opposition.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

I request a recorded division, Madam Speaker.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Accordingly, pursuant to an order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Thursday, March 31, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying

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

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That,

(a) pursuant to subsection 5(1) of An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to review the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to medical assistance in dying and their application, including but not limited to issues relating to mature minors, advance requests, mental illness, the state of palliative care in Canada and the protection of Canadians with disabilities;

(b) pursuant to subsection 5(2) of the act, five members of the Senate and 10 members of the House of Commons be members of the committee, including five members of the House of Commons from the governing party, three members of the House of Commons from the official opposition, and two members of the House of Commons from the opposition who are not members of the official opposition, with two chairs of which the House co-chair shall be from the governing party and the Senate co-chair shall be determined by the Senate;

(c) in addition to the co-chairs, the committee shall elect three vice-chairs from the House, of whom the first vice-chair shall be from the Conservative Party of Canada, the second vice-chair shall be from the Bloc Québécois and the third vice-chair shall be from the New Democratic Party;

(d) pursuant to subsection 5(3) of the act, the quorum of the committee be eight members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one from the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are represented, and that the joint chairs be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one member from the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are represented;

(e) the House of Commons members be named by their respective whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee no later than five sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

(f) changes to the membership of the committee, on the part of the House of Commons, be effective immediately after notification by the relevant whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House;

(g) membership substitutions, on the part of the House of Commons, be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2) and that they may be filed with the clerk of the committee by email;

(h) until Thursday, June 23, 2022, where applicable to a special joint committee, the provisions contained in paragraph (r) of the order adopted by the House on Thursday, November 25, 2021, shall also apply to the committee;

(i) the committee have the power to:

i. sit during sittings and adjournments of the House,

ii. report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee,

iii. retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel,

iv. appoint, from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed appropriate and to delegate to such subcommittees, all or any of its powers, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons,

v. authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings and that public proceedings be made available to the public via the Parliament of Canada's websites;

(j) pursuant to subsection 5(5) of the act, the committee submit a final report of its review, including a statement of any recommended changes, to Parliament no later than Thursday, June 23, 2022; and

(k) pursuant to subsection 5(6) of the act, following the tabling of the final report in both Houses, the committee shall then expire; and

that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, members to act on the proposed special joint committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha is rising on a point of order.

Official Report

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify something. Last week in the House, I referred to myself as a single mother of six children. I would like to clarify that statement. What I should have said is that I have been a single mother and I now care for up to six children at a time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

That is noted.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you might find unanimous consent to call it six o'clock at this time so that we can begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Employment Insurance Act

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

moved that Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to debate my private member's bill, namely Bill C‑215, which seeks to amend the number of weeks for employment insurance sickness benefits.

The bill proposes to increase from 15 to 52 weeks the period for which Canadians eligible for employment insurance sickness benefits are able to use extra weeks for their recovery or their convalescence with a minimum amount of financial security in case of serious illness, such as cancer and other illnesses that require long recovery periods.

This is not a new debate in the House. Every party has introduced similar bills over the past few Parliaments, which implies a certain unanimity among members. Since the devil is in the details, even with positive support in the House, we absolutely need the support of the Liberal government to obtain royal recommendation, since there is a financial implication to Bill C‑215.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a study in 2019 and March 2022 proving that this bill is affordable and the cost shared by Canadians and Canadian employers is reasonable. The study indicates that 151,000 Canadians a year need more than 15 weeks of sickness benefits for their convalescence. Should those 151,000 Canadians use all of their weeks, which would obviously not be the case, the cost would amount to $1.6 billion a year on average for the next five years. This cost could be lower than forecast because the average number of weeks required is approximately 38, according to the PBO costing note updated on March 29, 2022.

This debate is truly important for Canadians. Families in my riding have been calling on me for a long time to improve this situation. The lived experiences of Canadians across the country and what I have personally gone through with people very close and dear to me remind me of the harsh reality of the hard times and difficult challenges we have faced with sick family members, who were unable to take care of themselves or even work to pay their bills.

All too often, Canadians with long-term health issues find it very hard to make ends meet and to cover the additional costs resulting from their prolonged illness. These people enjoy an active social life and do not deserve to be left on their own or to lose their dignity.

All of us in the House have a duty to support those who are not covered by income protection insurance, a type of private insurance that is too costly for low-income earners. That is why Bill C‑215 is so important for Canadians. Its low cost affords some basic financial security in the event of a prolonged illness. We are talking about less than the cost of one coffee a month.

Solidarity and compassion are important to me, and I am hoping I can rally the support of all my colleagues here in the House because solidarity and compassion are important to them too. I have faith that, together, we can support the individuals and families who are affected every year when a loved one is diagnosed with a serious or even life-threatening illness. Once again, we have a collective responsibility to do something.

We cannot let life partners, parents, children and grandchildren think that, in Canada, we do not take care of each other and we do not support those who are suffering. Some stories are easier than others, but if we pass Bill C‑215, we can give Canadians some mental and financial peace of mind.

As members know, everyone here who is in good health is unbelievably lucky, and this good health is too often taken for granted. For many, cancer is life experience, but others are not lucky enough to recover quickly, especially if they have many other concerns on their plate. The medical aspect is just one part of living with cancer. Then there is life after treatment, which is a period of transition and adjustment that often brings much bigger challenges than the patient was originally expecting.

Given the scope of the challenge facing Canadians and the tremendous resilience they will show, we must absolutely support them through this experience, which involves precarious periods of great uncertainty.

Many people have to rethink every aspect of their lives, and that takes a lot of courage. Unless I am mistaken, Canadians can count on the opposition parties' firm commitment to supporting them now and on today's debate persuading the Liberal government to give them what they deserve, which is the right conditions for recovery while they await better financial support.

Here in Canada, we are lucky to have a health care system that delivers hospital care to sick people for free. However, there can be many out-of-pocket and unforeseen expenses. Travel to the treatment site is one example, along with parking, child care, nutritional supplements, vitamins and prescription drugs, as well as any equipment needed for recovery.

Employment insurance sickness benefits provide up to 15 weeks of financial support to individuals who cannot work for medical reasons. That means 55% of a person's pay up to $595 per week. To be eligible, individuals must obtain a medical certificate indicating that they cannot work for medical reasons. Medical reasons may include sickness, injury, quarantine or any other condition preventing them from working.

Insurable earnings include most types of employment income, such as wages, tips, bonuses and commissions. The Canada Revenue Agency determines what constitutes insurable earnings.

Some employers provide their own paid sick leave or short-term disability insurance plans. Before applying for employment insurance sickness benefits, individuals must check to see if their employer has a plan. If a medical condition is likely to be long-term or permanent, individuals may be eligible for other benefits, such as the Canada pension plan disability benefit or the Quebec pension plan disability benefit.

I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a very important report on EI sickness benefit policies that was produced following a multi-stakeholder policy round table held on September 4, 2019. This 2019 round table brought together seven different stakeholders interested in Canada's sickness and disability benefit policies.

This initiative was organized by the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Labour Congress, Cystic Fibrosis Canada, Diabetes Canada, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada and Neurological Health Charities Canada.

The discussions followed an initial conversation at a similar forum in 2015, which provided an update on the state of health benefits in Canada. One notable difference between the 2019 round table and the 2015 forum is that the 2015 discussion took a more holistic view of the supports offered, whereas the 2019 session focused primarily on recommendations for health insurance benefits.

The report found that in any given year, six per cent of Canadian workers will suffer a personal health issue that will require them to adjust their work status, including being away from work for an extended period of time, changing from full-to-part time work, and leaving the labour market entirely; and pointed to the need for a comprehensive re-examination of the needs of working Canadians who are living with an illness or a disability. In particular, two conclusions were focused upon:

1. The call for improved coordination within government and between levels of government, including greater coordination of research;

2. The call to increase basic access to support coverage.

I would also like to draw my colleagues' attention to a very important point that was raised during the debate on former Bill C‑265. During that debate, a member said that there were many inconsistencies in program administration, the most obvious being that a caregiver is entitled to 26 weeks of benefits while a sick person is entitled to only 15 weeks.

Some might balk at the idea of providing 52 weeks, that it may be too much. I would just point out that no one has ever gotten rich from being sick, and especially not with 55% of their salary in the short and medium terms. When you battle cancer with a loved one, as I have, 15 or 26 weeks are not nearly enough. I do not need an expert to confirm that.

Some people have expressed concern over potential abuse or fraud by program recipients. As hon. members know, anything is possible. Still, to be eligible for employment insurance sickness benefits Canadians must fill out an application and provide a medical certificate from their doctor or health specialist.

I would therefore like to reassure these people by proposing certain initiatives. After second reading, during study of the bill in committee, we could rely on experts and health specialists to identify all the serious illnesses that are eligible for this extension of benefits to 52 weeks.

We could bring in employment insurance officials to explain the audits that are carefully done every year for the EI monitoring and assessment report.

To conclude, I will reiterate all the positive points of my Bill C-215. All parties and experts in the field agree that we must increase the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50. This bill proposes to extend benefits to 52 weeks.

It is our duty as legislators to ensure that we have an adequate safety net for the most vulnerable. This measure affects 55% of the population, namely those who do not have group insurance and work primarily in the goods and services sector.

The EI program has rigorous monitoring and annual audit mechanisms to prevent mistakes, fraud and abuse. The medical certificate attests to the number of weeks required for the recovery of an applicant through the healing process.

This is a promise that was made by the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2021 election campaign. It is a measure that was voted on by members of our party and presented in the Conservative Party of Canada platform.

Employees who have a private health plan must use up their weeks of sick leave before applying for EI sickness benefits.

This measure is affordable and reasonable when we consider the cost to small and medium-sized businesses of private insurance plans offering the same benefits.

In July 2022, the Liberal government will extend the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits to 26, which means that the PBO's cost estimate will decrease considerably.

I hope to get the support of all my colleagues in the House for this noble cause, which will make it possible for those we love to take care of themselves and have the time they need to fully recover.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note that this particular bill that has come forward is almost identical in form to Bill C-265, from the 43rd Parliament. The reason why I bring this up is because, after Bill C-265 went through all the stages of the House and returned back here, the Speaker ruled on the third reading of the vote that it could not proceed because the bill did not have the required royal recommendation.

I am wondering this. Can the member provide some input as to whether the discrepancies or the challenges within the bill, which require that royal recommendation, have been properly dealt with? At my first glance, it does not appear as though that is the case. Unfortunately, it appears that the bill will, in all likelihood, end up with the same fate as that previous bill.

Can the member let us know?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right.

To obtain royal recommendation, I need the support of the Liberal government or two ministers in the House. It is true that other opposition parties have previously introduced similar bills. This bill is very good for Canadians.

You have the pressure of deciding whether to support this bill or not. It is up to the Liberal government to say yes or no, and you will live with the consequences of your decision.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Order. I remind the hon. member that he must address his comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my Conservative colleague for introducing this bill. The bill comes after we have been fighting for 10 years to increase EI sickness benefits to 50 weeks from the 15 weeks that have been provided for the past 50 years.

My colleague was asked by the party opposite whether this bill required a royal recommendation.

Does he think that what is really required here is for the government to show some political will in moving this forward?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She is absolutely right.

I think every member of Parliament is in favour of this bill. All the parties have previously introduced similar bills, including the Liberal Party. The current Prime Minister voted in favour of such a bill during a previous Parliament. I think that all members in the House can do some soul-searching and move forward.

It is up to the Liberal government to allow the House to move forward with Bill C‑215. I would go so far as to say it is the wish of the entire House, because this bill will no doubt be supported by the majority.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Conservative colleague and congratulate him on his private member's bill. This is a very good idea, one that the NDP and other parties have already had. It would really help people.

I always like it when the Conservatives, while in opposition, do things that are good for workers.

However, it did take them some time to get to this point. Why did my colleague not introduce a bill like this one when his party was in government?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The whole process was 100% democratic. This measure, which we managed to put in the Conservative Party of Canada's platform, came from an association in Quebec. Moving forward with this is now one of our party's national objectives.

I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois and the NDP for supporting my bill because they had similar bills themselves.

I think this is very much the right time to go ahead with this.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what really motivated my colleague to introduce this bill.

In my riding, I have seen so many people end up with absolutely nothing. Even as they were fighting for their lives, they could not cover their basic expenses.

Is that the kind of situation that motivated my colleague?