Debates of Nov. 28th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

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

Madam Speaker, there are two components to what is being proposed today. The first is in regard to the fixation that the Conservatives have with the price on pollution, which ultimately led them to vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The second part is also very disturbing. It is a form of intimidation that we have seen that comes from the former leader of the Conservative Party, reinforced by the current leader of the Conservative Party, intimidation that saw a senator being uncomfortable returning to her home, messaging her staff not to answer the phones and so forth. It is in fact an intimidation factor.

Many look at the general direction in which the leader of the Conservative Party is going, in terms of his actions. Does the member support the type of actions being taken by the former leader of the Conservative Party and the current leader of the Conservative Party with respect to intimidation and bullying? It seems to be a pattern of behaviour.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague opposite that we really are talking about the possibility of passing Bill C‑234 as quickly as possible. People have been talking about pressure that was put on certain senators, even if they are supposedly independent. My understanding is that some cabinet members, and maybe even the Prime Minister himself, exerted considerable pressure. It is important to be clear about the context.

I would like us to talk frankly about the passage of Bill C‑234 and why it is being blocked in the Senate. Perhaps the first stone should not be thrown at the Conservative Party.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is true that the holdups in the Senate are frustrating. That is why I think the simplest solution would be to abolish it. We know the Conservatives promised Senate reform when they had a majority government, but that did not happen.

Anyway, our colleague says that his party stands up for farmers. I remember the obstructionism our bill to protect supply management faced. I know the member for Beauce always voted with us on that in both this and the previous Parliament, and I thank him for that. I imagine he was pretty embarrassed by his colleagues when they were being obstructionist, and I am guessing things got pretty lively in the Quebec members' caucus.

Now, can he share his thoughts on the Conservative senators' behaviour in connection with this bill, which was democratically passed in the House of Commons?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, today's motion is on Bill C‑234. I agree with my colleague on Bill C‑282 and I hope that it will get through every stage of the legislative process in the House. Bill C‑234 is much further along in the entire process in the Senate. I hope that we will be able to adopt Bill C‑234 as soon as possible. Bill C‑282 will take its course and we will see what happens.

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

Madam Speaker, we have certainly indicated that the NDP would support this motion, which recognizes that farmers in Canada need support these days, and indirectly recognizes that Canadians also need help.

Can my colleague speak to how this motion might help farmers in western Canada?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, adopting this motion would encourage the government a bit more to stop pressuring the Senate to delay passage of Bill C‑234. The best thing to do is to vote in favour of this motion tomorrow.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak today to such an important motion. I represent the great riding of Oxford, a farming community with a long, proud farming legacy. It is home to nearly 1,900 farms that feed our families from coast to coast to coast. Our farmers are doing extremely hard work. They are doing God's work. Generations are helping out on the farms, making sure our food goes from the farm to our dinner table.

However, the Prime Minister's carbon tax coalition with the NDP is making that task nearly impossible. To feed families, we need need energy. Farmers need to dry their grain, run their operations and heat and cool their barns for their livestock, but the carbon tax makes everything more expensive for farmers to produce the food that we eat.

The Prime Minister’s appointed senators are delaying the passage of Bill C-234. This costly, unnecessary delay is hurting our farmers this harvest season. Corn moisture in Oxford was up to 30% this year. A lot of farmers are still harvesting, which means the corn has to be dried. Farmers are firing up their dryers to bring down moisture levels, and that is driving up the input costs. Winter is also on its way. There was snow today in southwestern Ontario, and farmers across Canada are turning on the heat in their barns for their livestock. They are again being punished by the carbon tax that is driving up their input costs.

The numbers do not lie. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was very clear that Bill C-234 would save farmers $1 billion by 2030. That is not small change. Throughout today’s debate, I heard stories from my colleagues that I have heard in my riding, stories of farmers getting bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars thanks to the carbon tax. Before I stood to speak today, I spoke with a farmer in my riding, who is still out harvesting, by the way, and who said that the carbon tax is more than just a kick to the shin; it is a drop kick to the face.

Let me share the story of another farmer in my riding, just south of Highway 401 in Salford He is an asparagus farmer, a great farmer whom I visit regularly at the local farmers' market on Saturday mornings. Thanks to the carbon tax, he has seen the cost of his asparagus become triple that of what Mexicans sell in grocery stores. Let me get this straight: It is now cheaper to buy Mexican asparagus shipped 3,800 kilometres than it is to buy locally grown asparagus here in Canada, driven to a local market a few kilometres away. How do we expect our farmers to compete? How do we expect them to survive? Because of the carbon tax, we continue to see more food produced by foreign farmers in countries with horrendous environmental standards. The message the government wants to send is to go ahead and buy foreign-grown food from a country with lower environmental standards and that burns fossil fuels to ship it across a continent. That is complete nonsense.

We also have to look at the compounding effect of the carbon tax, which affects the supply chain and the cost of our groceries. When we tax the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who ships the food, the processor who manufacturers the food and the retailer who sells the food, guess who pays for that? It is the Canadians who buy the food. That is why one in five Canadians is now skipping meals. There are a record number of Canadians at food banks, two million in a single month. Just yesterday, Feed Ontario released its report, stating that over 800,000 people in Ontario accessed a food bank in Ontario just last year. These are not just numbers and statistics; these are our friends, neighbours and family members. They are veterans, seniors, students, working-class Canadians and now, more commonly, professionals who never had to do so in the past but are now being forced by the government's reckless policies to go to a food bank. This past week—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

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

The hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, we would like a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 29, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Ways and Means Motion No. 19

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order challenging the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 concerning the fall economic statement implementation bill, which was tabled earlier today by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is my submission that the motion offends the rule against anticipation, sometimes also known as the “same question rule”. That rule is described on page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which reads as follows:

The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken on the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with...If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), then the second may be proceeded with.

The rule against anticipation has been building a significant number of precedents in the past few years in light of the NDP-Liberal government's growing pattern of stealing common-sense Conservative private members' bills to add to their own legislative agenda. While our authorities suggest that such points of order should be raised only when the second question is actually proposed from the Chair, I recognize that in light of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 being an omnibus proposal, exceeding 500 pages in length, you, Madam Speaker, might appreciate having the evening to reflect on the issues I am about to discuss before the government intends to call it for consideration tomorrow.

In the present case, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 includes provisions that the House has already adopted in principle at second reading through two private members' bills.

On September 20, the House passed second reading Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, sponsored by the Conservative hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. The summary printed on the inside cover of the bill reads:

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to introduce a new type of special benefits: an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave accordingly.

Last week's fall economic statement on pages 43 and 42 states that:

The 2023 Fall Economic Statement proposes to introduce a new 15-week shareable EI adoption...Surrogate parents will also be eligible for this benefit.

The 2023 Fall Economic Statement also proposes to make amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, as well as corresponding changes to the Canada Labour Code, to ensure that workers in federally regulated industries have the job protection they need while receiving the EI adoption benefit.

Those provisions appear as clauses 342 to 365 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. While the legislative language used varies, the ultimate policy objective and therefore the principle of the matter remains the same as a close examination of the two passages I quoted reveals.

The second private member's bill stolen by the government this week is Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, mental health services, sponsored by the Conservative member for Cumberland—Colchester, which the House passed at second reading on September 27. My colleague's bill would amend sections 1 and 7 of part II of schedule V of the Excise Tax Act to exempt psychotherapy and mental health counselling from GST. Clause 137 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 would do the exact same thing, except that the government refers to “counselling therapy” instead of Bill C-323's “mental health counselling”. That is, I would submit, a distinction without a difference.

Indeed, I would draw the Chair's attention to clause 144 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 that makes coordinating provisions if each is enacted, which demonstrates the government also sees these as identical measures, but what is especially galling is subclause 144(5), “For greater certainty, if this Act receives royal asset then the other Act [Bill C-323] is deemed never to have produced its effects.” The government would prefer to toss my colleague's important bill down the memory hole. That is just shameful.

Your predecessor, on February 18, 2021, at page 4256 of the Debates, ruled that government Bill C-13 could not be proceeded with further following the House's adoption of Bill C-218, citing the rule against anticipation. In so ruling, the Chair said:

The House is now placed in an unusual situation where a decision was made on one of two very similar bills standing on the Order Paper.

The Chair recognizes that both bills are not identical; they are, however, substantially similar as they both amend the exact same provision of the Criminal Code for similar purposes....

Consequently, as long as Bill C-218 follows its course through the legislative process during this session, Bill C-13 may not be proceeded with.

As for the technical differences between those two bills, the Speaker offered a common-sense solution to reconcile them: “the Chair notes that other avenues would be open to the House to achieve those same ends, such as through amendments proposed to Bill C-218 during the committee's study.”

I would respectfully submit that if the government has any concerns about the drafting of Bill C-318 or Bill C-323, the solution is to bring amendments to committee, not to bigfoot them by throwing them into an omnibus budget bill, but that is exactly what happened here. It is what happened last year when Bill C-250, sponsored by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, was scooped up by the government and placed in Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill.

In a May 11, 2022, ruling at page 5123 of the Debates, the Deputy Speaker held:

Bill C-19 was adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance yesterday. The House is now placed in a situation where a decision was made on one of the two bills that contain very similar provisions....

The Chair recognizes that these bills are not identical, as Bill C-19 is much broader in scope and contains other provisions related to the implementation of the budget.

However, in adopting Bill C-19 at second reading, the House has also agreed to the principle of that bill, and consequently, has agreed, among other things, to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code dealing with hate propaganda. As I explained a few moments ago, these are provisions substantially similar to the ones contained in Bill C-250.

Therefore, the question for the Chair is, should Bill C-250 be allowed to proceed further in the legislative process at this time? In the Chair's opinion, it should not be allowed. The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

In the case of Bill C-250, the Deputy Speaker directed that it be held as pending business until the final fate of Bill C-19 could be determined. On September 20, 2022, your predecessor ordered Bill C-250 to be discharged and dropped from the Order Paper, given that Bill C-19 had by then received royal assent. A similar pair of rulings occurred on June 6, 2022, and May 11, 2023, in respect of Bill C-243 in light of its overlap with Senate Bill S-211.

While these rulings are all quite recent, they were not novel. Speaker Michener, on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, reached the same conclusion for managing this sort of legislative traffic jam:

Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.

Standing Order 94(1) empowers and directs the Speaker to, “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business”. That standing order, I would submit, behooves you to safeguard the process of Private Members' Business as much as possible by drawing a firm and bright line for the government to stop poaching common-sense Conservative bills and claiming them as their own.

One final consideration I want to place before the Chair is one that did not arise in the context of the pairs of bills and the precedents I have cited. We are dealing here with a ways and means motion, not a bill. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 568, explain the relevance of this distinction in the role against anticipation:

According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding.

The associated footnote points readers to other authorities for a fuller explanation, such as the U.K.'s Erskine May. That book's 25th edition, at paragraph 20.13, explains:

...a matter must not be anticipated if contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it was sought to be anticipated, but it might be anticipated if contained in an equally or less effective form. A bill or other order of the day is more effective than a motion....

This principle was explained matter-of-factly by Speaker Casgrain on February 24, 1936, at page 68 of the Journals: “A Bill has the right-of-way and cannot be sidetracked by a Motion.”

In the circumstances, if the precedents and procedural authorities of this House are to be applied consistently, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 must be put into abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323. I would urge you, Madam Speaker, to so rule.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the hon. member's bringing forth that information. We will certainly use that information as we continue to deliberate on the decision the Speaker will be bringing before the House.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the lengthy intervention by the Conservative House leader, if you would give us the opportunity to reflect on it and provide some contributing comments, it would be greatly appreciated.

I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. so we can start Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to that, on a point of order, I recognize the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Madam Speaker, the NDP would like to reserve the right to intervene as well. We will be looking very carefully at the blues.

I would repeat my colleague's request that we see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is duly noted on both sides.

Do members see the clock at 5:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

moved that Bill C‑351, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House to speak to the private member's bill I introduced on September 18.

Bill C‑351 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one first degree murder be assigned a security classification of maximum and confined in a maximum security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Niagara Falls, who introduced a similar bill last June. He is a strong advocate for victims' rights who worked long and hard to deliver the first version of this bill.

This bill differs from the previous one in one respect. It states that the act will come into force in the third month after the month in which it receives royal assent. This change was made to ensure that the bill is brought into force as soon as possible once passed.

No victim's family should ever again have to endure the trauma of seeing the murderer of a child, a parent, a brother or a sister. However, that is what happened to two families this year, which is what gave rise to this bill.

Everyone has heard of Paul Bernardo, the infamous rapist and serial killer. I will spare my colleagues the details of his absolutely horrific crimes, but he kidnapped, tortured and killed 15-year-old Kristen French and 14-year-old Leslie Mahaffy in the early 1990s near St. Catharines, Ontario. He also committed roughly 40 rapes and sexual assaults. He is a real monster.

On September 1, 1995, he was sentenced to life in prison and declared a dangerous offender. In our justice system, this means that he must serve a minimum of 25 years before he can apply for parole. He has applied twice since 2018. Fortunately, both applications were rejected by the Parole Board of Canada.

Donna French, Kristen's mother, addressed her daughter's killer. She quite rightly described their pain as a life sentence. She said that that is what they got and that a dark cloud always haunts them. She said a psychopath like him should never get out of prison.

This dangerous murderer deserves every day he spends behind bars, and that is where he needs to stay forever. Bernardo had been serving his sentence in a maximum security prison in Kingston since 1995, and that is where he should have stayed until the end of his days.

However, in June 2023, we were shocked to learn that Bernardo had been transferred from the maximum security prison in Kingston to La Macaza, a medium-security prison near Labelle in the Laurentians in Quebec. The day his transfer was announced, a huge shock wave rippled across the entire country, as people relived the horrific events that occurred 30 years before. The prison transfer was done on the sly. We found out about it through an announcement made by the lawyer of the victims' families. What is more, the families were informed of the transfer only the day of. Imagine the trauma that this caused for the families who had to relive this unspeakable tragedy.

According to the Correctional Service of Canada, that situation was in line with protocol. Okay, but the transfer in and of itself should never have happened. The families of the two victims were right to condemn this situation. The families' lawyer said that the victims' families had asked that Bernardo's transfer be cancelled. The lawyer also expressed concerns about how the federal correctional service had informed the victims' families of the controversial decision. However, months later, the transfer has not been cancelled. Worse still, the public safety minister at the time, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, feigned surprise and indignation. He claimed to have been informed only the next day. Later, it was revealed that he had been informed months earlier. Email exchanges were obtained by the Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

They showed that the Correctional Service of Canada had notified the minister's office on March 2, 2023, of the possibility of the serial killer being transferred. Cabinet was informed in May, after a transfer date had been set. We are used to cover-ups with this government, but trying to hide the truth about something so troubling is beyond the pale.

It was discovered that the associate deputy minister of public safety had been notified about the transfer by the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada three days before it happened. The commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada told them that the federal Public Safety Department, the minister's office, the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office “have been advised” and that “we have media lines ready”.

In a tweet posted the day after the transfer, however, the minister described CSC's decision as “shocking and incomprehensible”. After being confronted with these facts, which were embarrassing to say the least, the minister blamed his staff for keeping him in the dark. It is pure incompetence at every level. For all his tangled explanations, the problem remained. Bernardo was moved to a medium-security prison, enjoying privileges that such a sadistic murderer should never be entitled to.

We on the Conservative side questioned the minister and asked him to cancel the transfer, as requested by the victims' families. The minister simply replied that there was nothing he could do, that the Correctional Service of Canada is independent. That is another independent entity. He seemed to forget that, as a minister, he had powers. He had the power to issue instructions to Canadian prison officials and make regulations concerning the incarceration of prisoners.

As usual, he and the Prime Minister refused to accept any responsibility. This is yet another example of incompetence. It is not surprising that the MP for Eglinton—Lawrence is no longer a minister. That is a very good thing. Not only do the Prime Minister and his cabinet say there was nothing they could do, but they have taken steps to make it easier to transfer dangerous criminals.

In 2019, this government passed Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. Once it was passed, the bill ensured that prisons would be chosen based on the least restrictive environment possible for the inmate. Victims are not part of the equation. Bill C‑83 reversed a policy introduced by the previous Conservative government that imposed stricter standards for dangerous offenders. The Correctional Service of Canada used this policy to try to justify transfers.

The lax system introduced by the Liberals allows nonsensical transfers like this. I read a chilling statistic. In Canada, as we speak, 58 inmates who have been declared dangerous offenders are currently in minimum-security, not even medium-security, prisons. It beggars belief. That is the legacy of eight years of this Liberal government: a lax justice and correctional system that allows this kind of aberration. The government is doing everything it can to accommodate criminals, but nothing for victims. It should be the other way around. This situation is deplorable, and it has to change.

We, the Conservatives, stepped up our efforts to try to have the decision reversed. I have to commend my colleague from Niagara Falls for all of the work that he did on this file. The murders and many assaults were committed in cities near his community. On June 14, he sought the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

...that the House call for the immediate return of vile serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo to a maximum security prison, that all court-ordered dangerous offenders and mass murderers be permanently assigned a maximum security classification, that the least-restrictive-environment standard be repealed and that the language of necessary restrictions that the previous Conservative government put in place be restored.

Unfortunately, the motion was rejected.

My colleague supported the cities of Thorold and St. Catharines when they wrote to the government expressing their grave concerns about Bernardo's transfer and demanding that he be sent back to a maximum-security prison. These letters were sent to the Prime Minister, his public safety minister at the time, and local Liberal MPs, but they fell on deaf ears. The government continued to refuse to use its power to require that mass murderers serve their entire sentence in maximum-security prisons.

He refused to take measures to resolve the problem created by his government. Worse yet, the member for St. Catharines accused those who were offering solutions and those who were trying to convey the families' concerns and suffering of playing politics. As usual, the Liberal government divides and blames instead of taking responsibility and making changes to fix the problems it created.

Another initiative that my colleague took was to propose a study at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on October 5 to fully investigate Bernardo's transfer. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP supported the government and shut down the whole thing. Apparently, the trauma caused by the transfer did not matter all that much to them. How typical of this government to systematically side with criminals.

Before I conclude, I have two recent examples that show how lax this government is and how it is ignoring victims. These are two examples of cases where the Conservative Party intervened to cancel out this government's reckless decisions. In March, my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and political lieutenant for Quebec, introduced Bill C-325, which sought to significantly reform the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, in order to make our streets safe again.

This bill would repeal certain elements of Bill C-5, which was passed by the Liberals last fall, and would put an end to the alarming number of convicted violent criminals and sex offenders serving their sentences at home. It is unthinkable that sex offenders and other violent criminals would be released to serve their sentences in the comfort of their living rooms, while their victims and peace-loving neighbours live in fear. This is a common-sense solution from my colleague, whom I would like to commend for his hard work on behalf of victims.

Despite all our efforts, this government remained unmoved by the suffering and trauma that the families of victims went through a second time as a result of this unacceptable transfer. On this side of the House, we stand with victims, not criminals. That is why I introduced the bill we are debating today. The Liberals made a mistake, but we, the Conservatives, will correct course. We will put common sense back into our justice and correctional system.

I hope that my colleagues in the other parties will listen to reason and support victims by voting with us in favour of this bill.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that it would have been possible for the minister to simply order an inmate to any given correctional facility. However, yesterday at committee, we heard from the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada that it would absolutely not be legally possible in this country based on the laws. Is the member opposite suggesting that the commissioner lied, or is the member unaware that it is not legal for a minister to direct where an inmate is held in this country?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, the reality of a government in power is to make decisions, provide leadership and do everything in its power to fix any mistakes made.

In this case, a mistake was clearly made. This transfer should never have taken place. I think that the Minister of Public Safety had every right to reverse the decision made by the Correctional Service of Canada.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague mentioned bringing back common sense. I want to tell him what I think common sense is.

In this country, it would appear that there are fundamental rights. He must not forget that. Even criminals have fundamental rights. However, that no longer seems to be the case when the Conservative Party talks about common sense.

My colleague's bill puts two labels on criminals, meaning they no longer have access to rehabilitation. Punishing them for two crimes violates their fundamental rights. My colleague needs to be reminded of that.

I was at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security yesterday. I questioned the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada. I asked for her opinion on the bill my colleague tabled. I asked her whether this bill would strengthen the rights of victims of crime. I would like to repeat what she said. She mentioned that the bill would have an impact on institutions, and that there would no longer be any reason for inmates to maintain good behaviour towards officers. Rehabilitation is not an option.

I would like my colleague to comment on the reactions of the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I understand my colleague's question correctly, he is telling us that the reason why the commissioner allowed Mr. Bernardo's transfer is that he demonstrated good behaviour over the past 30 years. If that is the case, then I do not see how staying in a maximum security prison would change his behaviour for the rest of his life.

The reality is that the Bloc Québécois is siding with criminals instead of victims. I think that we need to put ourselves in the shoes of the families who experienced that trauma. The reality is that neither my colleague nor I experienced that trauma, so we likely cannot understand how these families feel. Let us put ourselves in those people's shoes for five minutes and think about what they went through. My colleague from Niagara Falls can tell us about it, because he supported those families.

I can guarantee one thing. I would not want to have to go through all of that, and I would especially not want to have to relive the whole thing 25 or 30 years later.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague for the work he has done on this bill and its introduction. The transfer, in particular of Paul Bernardo, that he spoke about in his speech was indeed a slap in the face to the victims' families.

The Liberals are always soft on crime and also on criminals. Why is it Conservatives are the only ones who have the victims and the victims' families in mind while ensuring victims' rights?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to quote something that my colleague Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu said. Since he became a senator, he has been defending the rights of victims, particularly the rights of women. Right now, we know that women in Canada are being murdered on a regular basis. Crimes are being committed against individuals, especially women. We cannot allow that to happen.

For eight years, the crime rate in Canada has been rising based on the new standards—

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

I am sorry, but the member has gone well beyond the allotted time.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety.