Debates of Jan. 31st, 2023

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, we firmly believe that all victims of sexual assault deserve a justice system that treats them with dignity and respect.

I would like to recognize the resilience of this victim and of all victims of sexual assault. We recognize the devastating effects that sexual assault has on victims.

Serious crimes deserve serious consequences. My colleague knows full well that I cannot comment on a specific case, especially since the Quebec Court decision could be appealed by Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions, the DPCP.

We are awaiting his decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the minister that until last November no judge could impose a sentence to be served at home for aggravated sexual assault. Again, with the complicity of the Bloc Québécois, this option now exists.

Crown attorney Alexis Dinelle also said, “What message are we sending to victims of sexual assault? I get the impression that we are now going backwards, and we will again allow conditional sentencing for sexual assault. Someone needs to be held accountable for this.”

Why does the Prime Minister prefer to make life easier for sex offenders instead of helping women?

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

Mr. Speaker, what our hon. colleague is saying is just wrong.

Our government has taken action on several fronts to support victims of sexual assault and to ensure they are treated with dignity and respect.

Ever since Bill C‑3 was passed, all new federally appointed judges must participate in sexual assault training.

Our government also made significant changes to Canadian sexual assault law with Bill C‑51, one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in the world.

We will keep working to protect victims of sexual assault.

Firearms

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

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of Liberal incompetence, the government is targeting honest citizens, particularly hunters and farmers, in its fight against violent crime. These crimes are committed using illegal weapons acquired through smuggling networks run by organized crime.

The Liberal government will not solve this important safety issue for Canadian citizens by going after honest citizens.

When will the government stop targeting the tools used by honest, law-abiding hunters and farmers?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we promised Canadians that we would take action and tackle gun violence.

Our plan includes investing nearly half a billion dollars to stop illegal smuggling at the border, addressing the root causes of gun crime through the building safer communities fund, and introducing legislation that promotes the responsible use of firearms, specifically Bill C-21.

That is why I hope the Conservatives will reverse their position, support our investments and support common-sense legislation.

Foreign Affairs

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Ukraine have been courageously defending their country against Russia's unjustified war of aggression for almost a year now.

I recently had the opportunity to welcome the United Kingdom's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Toronto to meet with members of the Ukrainian Canadian community. This visit demonstrated that Canada and its allies stand resolutely with the Ukrainian people.

Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us about the measures she has taken to punish those who condone the appalling actions of Putin and his regime?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Etobicoke Centre for his important question and also commend him for his excellent French.

I had the opportunity to welcome my British counterpart to Toronto a few weeks ago. Together with our allies, we will ensure that the Russian regime is punished for its actions.

We have already announced strong sanctions against more than 2,000 Russians and Belarusians who are close to Putin's regime. We also sanctioned the president himself. The Minister of National Defence has announced that heavy artillery will be sent to Ukraine, and we will continue to do more to help the Ukrainian people.

Justice

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, violent crime is rising because of the actions of this Liberal government. Under eight years of the Prime Minister, Canada has become a more dangerous place. Police are putting the blame on Liberal Bill C-75 that mandated judges to grant bail to dangerous repeat offenders with minimal conditions. The consequences of this have been fatal.

When will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility for his failure to protect Canadians and apologize to the victims of his reckless legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to be and to feel safe. We all have a role to play in protecting our communities.

The laws on bail are clear. Detaining an accused person is justified only if it is necessary to protect the safety of the public. As my colleague knows, provinces and territories and, of course, police forces are also responsible for the enforcement of bail conditions, and we are providing resources to support them.

We remain open to good ideas and proposals from our provincial and territorial counterparts and the opposition to reforming our bail system, including other parts of the criminal justice regime.

Firearms

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. We have police officers dying on the front lines every day in this country. Now police are demanding that the Prime Minister take action to keep dangerous repeat offenders off our streets, but instead he has decided to punish law-abiding firearms owners by taking away their hunting rifles.

After eight years of failure, the Prime Minister is desperate to distract Canadians with his divisive and flawed hunting gun ban. When will he stop attacking law-abiding firearms owners and start protecting Canadians from dangerous repeat offenders?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, and I hope all members will have seen, this government is engaging with hunters, trappers, first nations and indigenous groups to make sure that their experiences are woven into the good work that we are doing under Bill C-21, which, of course, is to target those guns that have been used in mass killings.

We couple that with the work that we are doing to stop illegal smuggling at the border, which was $450 million. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against it. We couple that with the work that we are doing to prevent gun crime, a $250-million building safer communities fund. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against it.

Look beyond the words and look at their actions. They need to reverse their course and support the government's work to keep Canadians safe.

Foreign Affairs

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Beijing's military is threatening Taiwan and harassing neighbours from India to Japan. Beijing's military has a university, the National University of Defence Technology, whose motto is “strengthen the armed forces”. That is why this university was blacklisted by the Obama administration in 2015. The minister's guidelines on Canada's research and national security clearly are not working, because the government continues to fund university partnerships with this university.

When will the minister protect this country's national security and that of our closest allies, and issue a policy directive to ban the funding of university partnerships with this university?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we have been clear in the Indo-Pacific strategy. When it comes to China, we need to be eyes wide open, and that is why we need to make sure that our national security is always protected. That is why the Minister of Innovation is working on it. Not only that, we will be working with universities and with provinces and territories to make sure that this national security lens is imposed at all times.

The Environment

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland, Canada signed a statement of international public support for the clean energy transition, ending new support for the international unabated fossil fuel energy sector by the end of 2022. In December, our government announced the Government of Canada's implementation of this commitment with the release of the policy guidelines.

Can the Minister of Environment and Climate Change provide an update to the House on the implementation of this commitment?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the important work that she is doing on the environment committee on its fossil fuel subsidy study.

The implementation of this commitment was widely received across the country and by many environmental organizations, including Environmental Defence, and they applauded the announcement. By ending new, direct public support for the international unabated fossil fuel energy sector, Canada will ensure its investments abroad are aligned with its domestic and international climate goals, which means more investment in clean energy and renewables.

Indigenous Affairs

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Wabano family of Peawanuck lost a beautiful child in a house fire this weekend, and we mourn with them and grieve with the 10 people who have been left homeless. In 2021, I wrote to the minister warning about the lack of fire protection for the Weenusk Cree. That warning was ignored, and now a child is dead. It is unconscionable that any community in this country is left without basic fire protection.

To the minister, I have a simple question: Will she stand today and promise to commit to build a fire hall and give emergency resource support to the people of Peawanuck so they can live in safety?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I send my deepest condolences to the family and the entire community for the loss of the young girl due to a fire incident in Peawanuck.

Minister Hajdu spoke with Chief Hunter on Sunday to express her condolences and confirmed that Indigenous Services would be able to coordinate supports for this particular community. We will provide more updates as more information can be confirmed and as officials continue their discussions with the community.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to remind members that, when we are referring to a member, we are to refer to them by their title or by their riding, and not by their proper name. I understand it is emotional and it is very difficult, but we have to try to maintain the decorum of the chamber.

Taxation

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the rich are getting richer while everyone else is losing out, says a recent Oxfam report.

In Canada, the rich and powerful are making record profits while working people and people on fixed incomes fall further behind. This did not just happen. Liberals are refusing to make the rich pay their fair share. Despite Conservative rhetoric, they are keen to let the ultrarich off the hook, too. One thing is clear, whether Liberal or Tory, it is the same old story.

It is time for a windfall tax on oil and gas. It is time to increase the corporate tax. It is time to go after tax cheats in our country. It is time to step up for working people and people on fixed incomes. Will the Liberals step up?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to everyone in this chamber that everyone pays their fair share of taxes. That is why we decreased taxes for the middle class by increasing them for the top 1%.

We actually introduced a 15% recovery dividend to banks and insurance companies, which is going to bring in about 4 billion dollars' worth of income. We have put in place a permanent 1.5% tax on profits over $100 million. This has allowed us to make life more affordable for Canadians. It has also allowed us to lower taxes for small businesses.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

That is all the time we have for Oral Questions.

We have a number of points of order.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after consultations with the parties in the House, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move that, given that the rise of far-right and associated violent extremism led to the attempted insurrection in the United States, the House condemn recent comments made by Fox News personality Tucker Carlson, in which he suggested that U.S. Armed Forces should “liberate” Canada from the Prime Minister.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

Order Paper Question

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw your attention to a procedural matter relating to Question No. 974, which I submitted on November 4, 2022.

For the sake of time, I will spare reading the text of the question into the record, but my point of order relates to a passage found on page 523 of Bosc and Gagnon, which states:

While oral questions are posed without notice on matters considered to be of an urgent nature, written questions are placed on the Order Paper after due notice, with the intent of seeking from the Ministry detailed, lengthy or technical information related to “public affairs”...Members may request that the Ministry respond within 45 calendar days, generally by adding a sentence to that effect either before or after the text of the question, or by so indicating to the Clerk when submitting the question.

Standing Order 39(5)(b) states:

If such a question remains unanswered at the expiration of the said period of 45 days, the matter of the failure of the ministry to respond shall be deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee. Within five sitting days of such a referral the Chair of the committee shall convene a meeting of the committee to consider the matter of the failure of the ministry to respond.

The key word here is “unanswered”. I indicated my desire to have the question answered in 45 days, and at this point the question cannot be legitimately considered answered. To date, the government has failed to provide any answer on the substance of key aspects of my question. Due to this, I would argue that, per the Standing Orders, after 45 days my question remains unanswered and should be deemed to not have a response.

Before section 5(b) of Standing Order 39 came into effect in 2001, governments routinely ignored the 45-day deadline to answer questions. Following the adoption of this rule, the government began to respect the 45-day deadline. However, it appears that the government has found a way to circumvent this rule to thwart the intended protection offered by Standing Order 39(5)(b).

Your rulings have established that access to information from the government is a fundamental privilege of a parliamentarian. It is also a critical aspect of the functioning of our system of democracy. When the government flaunts its responsibility to provide this information, the system fails, and this is why, in a related matter, many members of the Press Gallery are raising concerns about the breakdown of the access to information system requests.

Coming back to the matter at hand in this place, my point of order simply asks you to rule that, when the government substantively ignores the substance of an Order Paper question, it should be considered a failure to answer for the purposes of Standing Order 39(5)(b). That way the government's refusal to answer a written question can be referred to a committee for review.