Debates of June 2nd, 2022

Access to Information

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I think that all Canadians watching today understand that our government has always been transparent, but as I was explaining to my colleagues on the other side, we also have a responsibility as a government to protect national security. That is why, in certain circumstances, when it is in the national interest, we will continue to be transparent on every level. However, there are certain occasions when we must maintain confidentiality, in the national interest.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, there was another murder this week in Laval, in the middle of a restaurant, right in front of diners. People are afraid. Criminals no longer fear the police, who in turn feel abandoned by the Liberal government.

Instead of sending a strong message to armed criminal gangs, with Bill C‑5, the Prime Minister announced that they will be able to serve their sentences at home. Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1976 understood the need for minimum sentences for armed criminals.

Why do today's Liberals want to make life easier for criminals?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we introduced Bill C‑5 precisely to address the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in the justice system.

Minimum sentences and conditional sentences are imposed by judges when public order and public safety are not at risk and incarceration is not the answer.

We will therefore move forward with public safety reforms to improve our criminal justice system.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Montreal police suspect that organized crime was involved when suspects entered a restaurant in Laval last night and shot a man to death while he was having dinner. Criminals are becoming more brazen, yet the Liberals still want to make sure that repeat offenders of violent crime will not face mandatory jail time with their soft-on-crime Bill C-5.

Will the Prime Minister abandon this soft-on-crime agenda and abandon Bill C-5?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member full well knows that serious offences will always be punished with serious sentences. The kinds of crimes that he is referring to will never be the subject of a minimum mandatory penalty, because they are serious in terms of their context.

Minimum mandatory penalties in the provisions that we are addressing, as well as conditional sentence orders, are only to be used by judges when there is no danger to public security.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are urgently calling for help with rising gun crime rates, but the Liberals' Bill C-5, to be perfectly clear, will put repeat offenders of violent gun crimes back into Canadian communities.

In light of out-of-control gun violence, will the Liberals abandon their soft-on-crime Bill C-5?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we are taking action to keep communities safe. We are increasing penalties for those who break the law. We are strengthening protections to prevent gender-based violence. We are fighting gun crime. We are freezing the market for handguns.

This is about the survivors and about all Canadian communities. They are too often touched by gun violence. Canadians told us they want to see more action more quickly and we are following through on our commitment to do more.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers democratically directed their elected representatives in the National Assembly of Quebec to protect state secularism. The National Assembly did just that by passing Bill 21. That is how democracy works.

Any federal Liberals who want to do politics in the National Assembly need only quit their job and run in the Quebec election on October 3.

That is not what they chose to do though. They chose to run for a seat in another Parliament and to govern Canada. Why not focus on that instead of trying to subvert Quebec's democracy?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am a Quebecker, and I am among those who have doubts about Bill 21. We stand with Quebeckers who are angry and disappointed that a young teacher can no longer exercise her profession because of how she chooses to observe her religion.

Our government is deeply committed to defending the rights and freedoms protected by the Canadian and Quebec charters of rights and freedoms, and that includes freedom of religion and the right to equality.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he should run in Quebec. I am sure Dominique Anglade would take him.

He and a handful of his colleagues are trying to overturn the democratic choice of the majority of Quebeckers. Ottawa is telling Quebeckers that they do not have the right to protect state secularism. Ottawa is saying no to Bill 21. Ottawa refuses to transfer immigration powers. Ottawa is going to say no to Bill 96.

If the federal government keeps saying “no”, will that not help convince Quebeckers to say “yes”?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, for once the Bloc Québécois is saying why they are really here. They are in Ottawa only to prepare for sovereignty. That is what they have always said. It is their entire raison d'être, while everyone else is here to try to advance society, Quebec and Canada together.

There is something sad about putting immigration at the heart of the debate, because immigration is about men, women and children coming here for a better life. The Bloc members want to play partisan politics with this, which is sad.

Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, half the people who use food banks and half the people who are homeless in Canada are persons with disabilities.

A year ago, the Liberals introduced a bill on benefits, but did nothing with it. They had a year to hold consultations and today they are introducing the exact same bogus bill. Worse yet, the minister says that it will take another three years before people receive anything.

Why do the Liberals always pretend to be concerned about persons with disabilities? Why not bring in these benefits immediately?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada disability benefit has the potential to lift hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities out of poverty. Since we committed to creating this benefit, we have worked non-stop with the disability community and with the provinces and territories. We are a lot closer now than where we were to getting this done.

We need to be absolutely sure that provinces and territories do not claw back existing benefits. We need to be sure that the needs and desires of the disability community are reflected in this benefit. That is why we are working with all of these partners to make sure people are better off.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians with disabilities are living in poverty. The government did not prioritize them after its unnecessary election, and now we have lost a year. This morning, the minister said it could take up to three years before the first person receives the Canada disability benefit. The Liberals started promising this support in 2015. With these timelines, the Liberals will take 10 years to get people the support they need.

Why did the government turn its back on Canadians living with disabilities by wasting a year?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada disability benefit is about lifting people out of poverty. It is about addressing the financial insecurity faced by far too many working-aged Canadians with disabilities in our country. I was so excited weeks ago when we passed a unanimous consent motion in the House and all parties agreed this should be a priority. If we want to make this happen quickly, let us do that again and get this done.

Justice

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals claim to care about the safety of Canadians, the fact is that since the government was elected, gun crimes have gone up steadily every year. They talk a big game, but the fact is that they have ignored gun safety and put politics first at every opportunity. Now they want to allow violent offenders to avoid jail and serve their sentences in their communities with their victims.

Why is the government so committed to putting criminals ahead of victims?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced Bill C-5 to attack the systemic overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in our criminal justice system. It would attack mandatory minimum penalties and allow conditional sentence orders where public safety is not in danger and where incarceration is not best for the community, the victim or the perpetrator.

With respect to violent crime, we have increased penalties with respect to gun trafficking and guns. As has been pointed out, we have also introduced bold legislation capping handguns in this country.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative MPs would welcome an honest discussion about how gun crime has gone up every year since the government was elected. The fact is that its legislation, Bill C-5, would eliminate mandatory jail time for violent gun crime and allow criminals to serve their sentences in the comfort of their own homes, something their victims can no longer do.

Why is the government so committed to putting criminals ahead of victims?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Let us have an honest discussion.

Serious offences will always have serious consequences in our system. The kinds of penalties we would be attacking by eliminating certain mandatory minimum penalties and allowing conditional sentence orders are precisely the kinds of sentences where a person, the community and victims are not served and where the problem is something else, like a health problem or a problematic addiction, for example.

We are moving ahead with these reforms to address the systemic overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in the system to make the system more just.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian research shows that when the extreme intoxication defence is available, it is successful in 30% of cases. Some 71% of these cases involved male violence against women. Yesterday we heard from the Minister of Justice that this defence would only be used in a small minority of cases, but I want to remind the minister that even one is too many.

The lack of an immediate response from the government is dangerous. When will the Liberal government take the direction of the Supreme Court and close this loophole?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the hon. member, and to reassure Canadians first and foremost, this defence is in fact available in only a very small fraction of cases. Nevertheless, we are looking at the Supreme Court decision. We understand the seriousness of the situation, and I can ensure all parliamentarians in the House, and indeed all Canadians, that we are looking at ways to address the situation.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister likes to make fine speeches about the safety of Canadians, but he clearly has a rather lax attitude about it.

For example, as a result of the changes he made to the parole board, a violent criminal was released, which led to the murder of Marylène Levesque.

Federal inmates now have access to syringes, and drug trafficking in penitentiaries is on the rise. Bill C‑5 will allow dangerous criminals to to serve their sentence at home instead of in a penitentiary. The Prime Minister rolled out the red carpet to criminals.

What has he done lately for victims?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to the victims, and we are working on improving the justice system to help victims and Canadian society.

With Bill C-5, we are tackling the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples and Blacks in the system, in cases where it does not put public safety at risk. Conditional sentences and the elimination of certain minimum sentences will help us to attack the real problems by helping victims and society.

Public Safety

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the government wants to tackle real problems, let us talk about illegal arms trafficking, which is a scourge in Canada. Instead of attacking the source of the problem, the Prime Minister is attacking law-abiding citizens.

Police forces have repeatedly said that the guilty parties are street gangs and organized crime, which operate in different parts of Canada and use transit points such as the Akwesasne Reserve. It is no secret that this spot on the Canada-U.S. border is the busiest in Canada.

Why has the Prime Minister not yet met with the chief of the Akwesasne reserve to discuss the problem of illegal firearms on our streets and work with him to find solutions?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that the chief from Akwesasne actually appeared at the public safety committee and was able to present their concerns about the border.

Last year, CBSA seized a record number of illegal firearms. We realize we have to do more, which is why we invested over $350 million in law enforcement to stop the flow of illegal gun trafficking. What did the Conservatives do? They opposed these investments.

When it comes to protecting our borders from illegal gun trafficking, the Conservatives are all talk and no action.