Debates of May 6th, 2022

Criminal Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if you can just repeat the title of the motion that is brought forward. I would like to speak to the bill.

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

I have the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil, who wants to speak first on a point of order.

The hon. member.

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

Madam Speaker, I am seeking your guidance on this and perhaps the guidance of the table. When you asked for debate, I asked that the question be put. I believe I was first to say that. Please seek the guidance of the table.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

On that point of order, Madam Speaker, I would affirm that the member did ask from his seat that the question be put, and that is the reason why I stood. I would like to be able to speak to the motion. I understand it is in regard to the splitting of Bill C-5, and I have some thoughts on that to share with the members.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

On the point of order, Madam Speaker, I believe I witnessed and saw that the House leader for the official opposition rose first.

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary just confirmed it, yes.

When I asked the House if the House was ready for the question, the hon. parliamentary secretary did say no, which is an indication that debate should proceed, if I understand correctly, and this is the guidance I have received.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised the Conservatives would choose to move a motion of this nature. My understanding is that, once again, we are seeing the Conservatives hoping to be able to cause a little confusion and frustration with government legislation. That does not necessarily surprise me, but I must say that I am somewhat disappointed in the official opposition.

We started by talking about the importance of Bill C-19. It is the budget implementation bill. That is something that I think Canadians, as a whole, are very much interested in. After question period, we would normally go through routine proceedings and then get back to debate. The purpose of debate today, I had thought, was to continue the discussion on the budget implementation bill. Instead, the Conservatives went into the procedures of the day and pick Motion No. 78, which I will read to see what they are hoping to achieve by this particular motion. It states:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation....

Why would the official opposition move a motion of that nature on a Friday afternoon? It is surprising. The members opposite are very much aware of what was supposed to be debated today. Instead, they want to change the topic. They want to discuss separating out a bill and causing more votes on legislation that would ultimately make some significant changes to our justice system.

There is a significant gap between the approaches of the government of the day and the Conservative Party on the issue of incarceration. When we think of incarceration, we on the government benches, the Liberal Party, recognize that in a very real and tangible way there is a high percentage of people who become incarcerated in our jails who will ultimately come out of jail. To that degree, we need to recognize that it is better to have a system in place that ensures there is a greater likelihood of those people remaining in our communities and contributing in a positive way.

It is important that we recognize that. The Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to want to give an impression that the best way to keep Canadians safe is to put people in jail who break the law and keep them in jail. That is their speaking point. That is why we will often hear Conservatives talk about minimum sentences—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Joliette is rising on a point of order.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to call quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I think we have it.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, we now have the “double blue”, the “true blue” and the “light blue”, with the Bloc being the “light blue”, as one of my colleagues called them. They kind of like to work together to cause a little bit of mischief. On the one hand there is the Conservative Party, the leading party of the “double blue coalition”, moving a motion to prevent debate, and on the other we have the “light blue” or the “mini blue” trying to look at ways in which we can end the session for the day.

It is amazing, truly amazing just how much the Bloc and the Conservatives feel that we do not need to debate Bill C-19. Think about it. The Conservatives are saying they want to change the topic today, as they do not want to talk about the budget. I can appreciate why. I can appreciate why because, at the end of the day, there is so much good news in this budget that the Conservatives do not want to talk about it, and that is—

[An hon. member]

Why are you filibustering? You are filibustering yourself.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. The member has the floor.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, technically I am not filibustering because I am talking about what we should be talking about today, which is the budget. That is the thing that the Conservatives do not want to talk about because it is such a good, healthy budget for all Canadians—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I have a point of order from the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has just informed you and the House that he is not debating the motion at hand. He is debating a different piece of legislation. On the subject of relevance, he has specifically said that his debate is not relevant to the matter at hand.

Perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary could stop filibustering and let us return to the business of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is relevancy. I will cede that of course to the member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member were actually listening, it is 100% purely relevant. Prior to their cousin in the Bloc's interruption, I was speaking specifically to the motion. After the Bloc's interruption, I made references to why the Conservatives are trying to change the topic to prevent us from being able to talk about C-19, and my Conservative friend got all upset and stood up to say that I am not being relevant. The Conservatives really need to start putting on their thinking caps.

At the end of the day, what we should be debating today is the good-news budget. There is no doubt that there are many things within it which they can raise, but they are the ones who have chosen not to want to debate it today. Instead, they want to have a discussion or a debate on a motion dealing with why we should split into sections a government piece of legislation through this particular motion.

It is interesting because, as I was pointing out, there are different approaches to justice. There is a Conservative approach versus our Liberal government's approach to justice.

I highlighted the one difference regarding incarceration, but that is not the only one. We have confidence in our judicial system. We recognize the independence of our judges and the judicial system. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have a difficult time with that. They really and truly do.

They believe that if we cannot trust judges, we put in minimum sentences. The legislation they are attempting to split up, and increasing the number of votes for, is a reflection of some of the reforms the Minister of Justice has been working for a good period of time now. He has been looking and listening to the different stakeholders, working with different jurisdictions, provincial or others, within the civil service.

I know that we just have to listen to question period and we can understand that the Conservative Party has a lack of faith and trust in our civil service, but that is not shared universally. We recognize the hard work and the efforts that our civil servants put in, whether it is in passport offices or in ministerial offices formulating legislation and ensuring the type of legislation we bring forward is ultimately for the betterment of Canada.

That is what we are seeing here. I have had the opportunity, in the days in which I was an MLA, not only as a provincial justice critic, so I have fairly significant experience in dealing with justice-related issues, but also as the chair of the Keewatin youth justice committee for a number of years. The youth justice committee was where I learned a great deal about how communities can be involved in ensuring that justice is not just being seen as being done, but is in fact done.

One of the best ways I have seen this is through restorative justice, where we get the victim and person who committed the offence together, and that does happen. When it does happen, we see it as a good thing, because often through that process, we see that the victim will get a greater sense of satisfaction. Now, obviously, that does not work in all situations.

The youth justice committee would often have young offenders come before it. Committee members would listen to what the young offender has to say and come up with a disposition in terms of what the consequences should be for that young person for whatever offence was committed. To give a specific example, let us take shoplifting. We all know that shoplifting is a bad thing. However, because of the justice committee, it is personalized so that the victim, a store in this case, would have the opportunity to provide input from the victim's perspective, and then the offender would come before individuals in the community who are, in essence, honorary probation officers.

I raise this because, even at that level, there is a certain amount of expertise that is provided from constituents, from people who live and work in our communities. They get a good assessment of the environment that this young person was in, and through that assessment, they are able to give a disposition that is more fitting for the individual. I use this as an example because we can take some of the principles from that example and apply them even to a courtroom, where there are a judge, lawyers, a victim and an offender.

When we take a look at the legislation that the Conservatives want to divide, they are saying that if person X commits crime Z, that person has to serve a minimum amount of time. They want to override everything that has been said in the courtroom. They are saying to the judge that they do not have the confidence in the judge to get an evaluation of the situation that might have ultimately caused the crime and led to the actual offence itself.

When I think of minimum sentences, I think in terms of limitations. At times, there is a need for minimum sentences. However, the idea that we need to review them and make some changes is long overdue. We need to recognize that there is systemic racism within our communities. Not to consider our courts and our institutions when we think of the issue of racism would be a huge mistake.

I was not in committee during the discussions on second reading of the bill, but I suspect we would find a number of witnesses who recognized that systemic racism is found within our courts, and one of the ways we can minimize some of that racism is by looking at ways in which we can address the issue of minimum sentences.

When we really stop and think about it, the motion being brought forward by the Conservative Party does two things. One, it addresses the specifics of Bill C-5 in wanting to divide it up. One could question the motives of trying to do that. Is it as simple as having—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes is rising on a point of order.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering if you could verify that quorum is currently being met.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a quorum call again.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There are 13 here, and we have a number of members online. Online does count on this list. We do have quorum.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know there is a lunch going on. There are members on all sides of the House. There are members who are having lunch—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt my friend from Winnipeg North, but you should be aware that there are literally dozens of members of Parliament participating online. I do not understand the repeated calls for quorum when members of the Conservative Party should be aware that dozens of members are participating actively through Zoom in this hybrid Parliament.